Page 948 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Again, while we know that some other providers outside of the Capital Region Cancer Service referred some patients to interstate facilities, ACT Health does not have access to that data. We know that there have been further patients transferred during March, and the full month’s figure will be made available in early April.
Radiation oncology specialists are prioritising patients based on their diagnoses, treatment needs and social circumstances in considering the clinically appropriate waiting times. Patients assessed by doctors as requiring urgent or semi-urgent treatment are being given priority access to services. Patients who are clinically assessed by medical staff as needing treatment less urgently may either have their treatment in the ACT rescheduled or be offered a referral for treatment at a radiation oncology service elsewhere.
In consultation with their doctors, patients identify a preferred site for referral for treatment. Referral to this site may not always be possible due to limited available treatment spaces or long waiting periods. Patients who go interstate for treatment will be referred back to the Capital Region Cancer Service for follow-up and ongoing care.
We have already acknowledged that there was a breakdown in communications between the radiation oncology service and some patients, particularly when the pressure on the service first occurred. I have said a number of times that this is not good enough, and systems have been put in place to address these inadequacies, and support for staff has also been put in place.
This issue has put stress on the service’s existing patient communication processes and revealed some deficiencies. In particular, it has shown that the service needs to better communicate with patients regarding bookings and waiting times. It must also improve management of patient expectations around radiation treatment following chemotherapy. For example, I am advised there may be appropriate clinical reasons why timing between the two treatments would vary, such as how patients respond to chemotherapy or some complications of surgery.
Changes to the service’s communication processes have been implemented based on patient feedback throughout this period. Radiation oncology staff from the Capital Region Cancer Service are contacting all patients affected by this current reduction in capacity to discuss their options and ensure they receive the care most appropriate to their individual circumstances. In addition, to support the front-line staff and make sure we are responding in the best way to patients and their families, ACT Health will be conducting training in customer service. Indeed, we have been doing this across the hospital. I am advised that radiation oncology will have the opportunity to access this program as a priority.
I have to stress that all patients with a life-threatening condition that require radiotherapy have been treated through this period. Based on their individual circumstances, patients have been referred to treatment centres in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Some have chosen to travel further because of family or social connections and supports in that state. Their doctors assist in arranging the treatment and provide the new treating doctors with all necessary medical information.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video