Page 3012 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 15 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The college even raised concerns about a person in a non-clinical role chairing interviewing panels for new trainees, which is a breach of the college’s training selection guidelines. These issues point to a person without clinical qualifications or experience, not a fellow of the college, not having knowledge or understanding of the clinical needs of the department and its employees, running the department anyhow. It also says to me that the director, by not being recognised by the college and not being qualified, does not have the knowledge or understanding of the college’s requirements for running medical imaging training in the Canberra Hospital. The issues raised by the college in its preliminary report about the overall culture, the lack of communication, the political environment and the poor working relationship must also rest with the department’s director.
This report is as much a performance review of the director as it is of the department, but it cannot rest solely with the director. There are still two more senior roles needing to take responsibility. The second part of my motion goes to that. In February 2017, radiology registrars met with the Chief Medical Officer to discuss a range of concerns, and my motion outlines those concerns. That was 13 months before the college of radiologists carried out their accreditation review. They highlighted a shortage of radiologists. There was one position advertised in late 2016 in the ACT Government Gazette, but it seems that that position was never filled. The problems identified in the college’s report would suggest that little had changed in the intervening three months; so it seems that the meeting between the radiologists, the trainees and the Chief Medical Officer was a waste of everyone’s time.
This fact was borne out in the estimates hearings in July. When the committee chair asked the Chief Medical Officer what was the basis for the medical imaging accreditation status going from A to D, the Chief Medical Officer told the committee:
Some of it is around a network. In radiology we have had trouble creating a network with other facilities.
That is true, Madam Speaker, but it is only a small part of the story. This exemplifies some of the issues outlined in my motion. I note that in recommendation 77 the committee called on the Health Directorate officials to:
… provide the Assembly with all the reasons for the downgrade in the accreditation status for the radiology department.
The government has agreed to do that. I look forward to the minister outlining those when she responds—perhaps.
There are real concerns, and in the time available to me I will summarise those. There are problems in the downgrading of training. There are problems that have caused people to submit public interest disclosures which are beyond the issues that I have raised here today. Staff have not seen positive outcomes from meetings held to air their concerns. Staff have become ill. Staff have become preoccupied with trying to rectify a dysfunctional department instead of getting on with the job of providing services to trainees and to patients. There are management practices that seemingly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video