Page 3011 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 15 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What I propose to do today is to rely upon the evidence before us, mainly from the report of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists and their accreditation review of the radiology training site at the Canberra Hospital. It more than adequately addresses the issues of culture. I note the minister’s advice during question time yesterday that she had received the final report. I look forward to that final report and the draft report being tabled so that they can be made available publicly. I hope that when we see those reports we will have seen an improvement on what we read in the preliminary report that came out in March.
There are some very serious problems identified in the preliminary report. It is not just about how it impacts on training; it is about how it impacts on the whole department. What the college of radiologists uncovered was not just a training issue. It does lead to poor culture and also potentially it leads to poor diagnosis.
I am moving this motion today because medical imaging is, in many ways, at the heart of an operating health system. How many people enter the health system through the hospital, through outpatient clinics or the like and have to have an X-ray, a CAT scan, an MRI, an ultrasound or some combination of those things? If the system is not working, the risks of misdiagnosis or missed diagnosis are real and rare.
The college of radiologists sees it as necessary to raise these problems in a way because of the behaviour of ACT Health. I have been advised that it was not a scheduled investigation, audit or accreditation visit. The college of radiologists decided to make an accreditation visit because concerns had been raised with them. They had raised those concerns with ACT Health and ACT Health had not responded, or had not responded satisfactorily, to the college of radiologists. So they made an accreditation visit which was out of the usual timetable.
The issues raised in this preliminary report of the college of radiologists, as well as the discussions that I have had with others, including the salaried medical officers and the AMA, seem to point to the fact that there are real personality problems inside medical imaging. Part of the problem lies with the director of medical imaging, who holds no clinical qualifications.
I note that the position of the director of medical imaging was advertised three times between April and October 2017. It was first advertised as a senior officer grade 1 but later upgraded to an executive level 1.3, with an increase in salary of $100,000. The first time it was advertised as an executive level 1.3 position, it was advertised only as an expression of interest. It was finally advertised in October 2017 and I think that was when the position was finally filled.
The college reported problems such as a lack of clinical control over the department. For considerable periods of time there has been no medically qualified clinical director of medical imaging. So the non-medical administrative person has taken on responsibilities that are inappropriate. It also reported on the lack of consultation with clinical directors on rostering arrangements; clinical leaders having little or no involvement in the recruitment of trainees; the lack of appropriate networks to enable training rotations; the lack of rigour and reliability in setting teaching programs; and the lack of formal orientation programs or a manual for trainees.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video