Page 2920 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: I welcome the question. The events at the Canberra Hospital that are the subject of the question are, of course, incredibly tragic, and the government extends its condolences to the family and to the loved ones of the person who died in accident and emergency on that day. It was a tragedy. It is a tragic circumstance that a citizen died while awaiting treatment and care within accident and emergency at the Canberra Hospital. Indeed, it is a tragedy should such a circumstance occur at any hospital.
In the context of that, the ACT government welcomes the internal clinical review which is part and parcel of any such incident. It is an open and rigorous process that the Canberra Hospital will engage in. The government welcomes the opportunity in due course to contribute to the coronial inquest which obviously will follow the death—indeed, a coronial inquest would follow any such incident in any hospital in the ACT or indeed in Australia—and we welcome the opportunity to participate in that review and in the context of the facts as we know them. The facts are that a person presented at accident and emergency, was triaged as category 3 and was not treated within at least four hours, we are told.
It has to be said, however, that I have no advice or knowledge around the decisions that were taken in relation to the assessment of that particular patient. I am not aware, nor have I been advised, of any of the clinical incidents or responses that may or may not have been made. I do not have the capacity to make judgements about those issues. The comments that I made were made on the facts as presented: that that person presented and that some four or five hours later that person died before receiving attention or care. The facts themselves of course suggest that there are systemic issues in the context of that.
Opposition members: What are they?
MR STANHOPE: We are having two reviews: we are having an internal clinical review and we are having a coronial inquest to determine those. But, to the extent that I do not have the capacity to, nor would it be appropriate for me to, make any suggestion around any of the decisions that were taken or not taken in the context of this particular presentation; nor of course would it be appropriate for me to pre-empt or to seek to pre-empt the outcome of a clinical review, which will be undertaken within the hospital and undertaken genuinely, openly, transparently and willingly by the hospital; nor would it be appropriate for me to comment, pre-empt, prejudge or seek to influence or in any way comment on a coronial process, an open, quasi-legal process that the government will of course fully participate in in relation to the death of Mr Osterberg.
So I am not going to second guess either of those processes. I am not going to pretend that I have any information or that I can make any judgement around the decisions. Of course it is around the decision-making process and the procedures, protocols and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .