Page 2492 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 1 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In the end, his performance was reviewed. He was not given an opportunity to be represented in his defence or even given a support person involved in the process. Indeed, Charlie was invited to a meeting with a senior executive. No reason was given. When he turned up he was faced with a confronting performance review by not one but two senior officials in ACT Health. No warning was given to Charlie. Charlie was afforded no natural justice.
Madam Speaker, Charlie is perhaps the most disturbing of the many stories I have heard from people in the ACT health system, but he is not alone. It is not only employees who have been affected. How many other stories do we hear about not only employees but also clients, patients? One revealed to me was from a first time young mum who was venturing into unknown territory and delivered twins by caesarean section at Canberra women’s and children’s hospital.
I will cut to the chase. She had a very traumatic experience. Those of us who are familiar with these things know that there is a lot of bleeding after birth. This woman, who was confined to bed, was distressed to find that she was in blood-soaked sheets. She rang a nurse, intending to apologise for making a mess and asking for assistance.
Seeing that it is unparliamentary, Madam Assistant Speaker, to use expletives in this place, I will delete them. The nurse, who was clearly under a huge amount of stress—and we understand that that is the case in the women’s and children’s hospital—blurted out to this woman, this new mother, “For”—expletive deleted—“sake. This is not John James private. I should not have to change your”—expletive deleted—“sheets.”
Imagine how that patient must have felt in her particular state when she had that tirade directed to her. Imagine what the circumstances are, when presumably a midwife, in one of the most caring professions, is driven to respond to a basic request for assistance in such an inappropriate way.
Then there is the preliminary report of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists on their accreditation review of the training program in the radiology department at the Canberra Hospital. The radiology department has held the highest accreditation standards for the previous 25 years. The report recommended the accreditation standard for the radiology department be reduced to the lowest level, that is, level D. The following is the definition for that level:
Multiple significant issues seriously impacting quality of training. Immediate action required, future accreditation in doubt.
Of the 12 standards covered in the review, the radiology department failed to achieve a single A score. It scored one level B, three level Cs and 8 level Ds. The report identified a range of issues contributing to the downgrade. The report noted that “the most significant issue is the negative environment”. The report identified the poor working relationship between senior management within the department and with senior hospital executives. It also said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video