House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Modbury Hospital Modbury Hospital Ms BEDFORD House of Assembly Florey Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (15:31): There is always a great deal of talk about Modbury Hospital in my community. So very much of it is about the help the wonderful medical staff give us under what are often very difficult circumstances, the amazing help at the rehab centre or care in the palliative area and the volunteers who make the hospital so much of a community asset. In the parliament too, Modbury Hospital is often spoken about, again to highlight and thank the medical staff and volunteers for their amazing work and also about whatever current issue is befalling the health services of our hospital, and the state and the department that oversee it. Modbury Hospital has been a focus of my community for over 40 years, for as long as I have lived there. People moved to the new and growing Modbury area because of the services located within what would go on to be the second largest suburban centre after Marion. Over the years, there have been many ups and downs at Modbury Hospital, due mostly, one would have to deduce, to the changes in government and/or departmental policy. Without going too far back, the outsourcing of management to Healthscope is about where I became truly active, and it would be fair to say that I have remained active ever since, albeit sometimes in the background. This failed experiment did major damage to the fabric of Modbury Hospital and the staff who had made it such a well-loved and essential asset. As with many things, we do not always have anything or a lot to do with hospitals, but when we need them it is good to know that they are there and that they work—preferably well. Just as the Healthscope period was an attempt to exert some control over the state's health expenditure, so too was the Generational Health Review and, most recently, Transforming Health. I understand why the measures were put into place, but it is time to address the problems that have resulted from that initiative. At the election in March this year, policies were put before the electorate, and it became overwhelmingly obvious that the community was demanding the return of the sort of level of care that had encouraged their move to the area. As we eagerly await the implementation of the new government's promises or policies—and there is much for them to do—there appear to be some impediments and a concerted effort to thwart any real change to the service configuration at Modbury Hospital, apart from the large chunk of brickwork that fell from the building towards the end of last year, which has seen changes, albeit only scaffolding, around the perimeter of the main building as we wait to see the engineer's report and the beginning of the work budgeted in both major parties' undertakings before the election. We also saw multipartisan agreement about palliative care and an extended emergency care unit at the hospital. After that, though, there are differences, the most glaring being the restoration of a higher level of care area so that Modbury Hospital can deal with a greater number of cases, taking the pressure off the existing emergency department, the residents who use the service and, most importantly, the Lyell McEwin Health Service, where we know, despite enormous and welcome expenditure, the staff, again while doing their best, struggle now to cope with demand as we approach the even busier winter period. Much has been made of a letter from medical staff, with 42 signatures, with reasons why higher care cannot be restored—safety being a major point. However, whilst selectively quoting from a 2011 report and not accepting that no service is safe unless properly resourced, the actual quote is 'resourced properly'. Those 42 signatories may now not feel that they want to deny Modbury Hospital to ensure other areas are funded beforehand. I have spoken with health minister Wade many times since the election and was happy to welcome him and the Premier to Modbury Hospital on Tuesday 24 April. Following the Premier's tour, minister Wade and the members for King and Newland and I met with a large range of medicos and admin staff. It became apparent to me that some facts were disputed, like the actual definition of 'ramping'. At other hospitals it is all too apparent as patients do not leave the ambulance, while at Modbury Hospital patients are placed on a barouche in the hall leading to the triage area. I have seen it and I have heard about it firsthand from people who work there and who have been there. So, the devil is in the detail. Since that meeting, some 200 doctors, specialists, nurses and other medical staff have signed a petition, which unfortunately has fallen foul of the formal rules, so much so that it cannot be tabled in either house. Nevertheless, these opinions cannot be overlooked. These are people who are on the ground day in and day out tending to those in need. They say on the petition: We urge you [that is the minister] to follow on from your election promises and reinstate the HDU at Modbury Hospital as a critical step in making the hospital a safer clinical base for patients. They go on to say: Extending patient services, including acute services, without a level 1 ICU or equivalent would increase the risk of the admitted patients. The present just over one in 10 patient transfer rate from the Modbury emergency department with many delays and subsequent delays to treatment, especially for the most critically ill, should already be unacceptable. They are not being listened to and staff is beginning to turn over at the hospital, which is robbing it of much-needed corporate knowledge and history at Modbury. This is due in part to the uncertainty initially of the hospital's future under Transforming Health; and remember, prior to that, we had already lost the orthopaedic and paediatric wards, as well as the maternity area; so, we have given up a great deal at Modbury. Now, we wait for changes that are proving hard to implement. Time expired.