OAKDEN NURSING HOME

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (14:57): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse a question about the Oakden Nursing Home.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Earlier this week the minister was forced by the shadow minister to acknowledge the fact that the state government-owned Oakden Nursing Home (also called the Makk and McLeay home) has suffered commonwealth sanctions and failed to meet 24 out of the 44 health standards that the commonwealth imposes on all such facilities, and also that the commonwealth has limited the accreditation of that facility. Earlier this week the minister also sought to suggest that everything that was required to be done had been done, and that all was rosy at Oakden. My questions are:

1. Is the minister aware of the fact that the staff psychologist at Oakden has had to resign as a result of inappropriate interference from Central North Adelaide Health Service executives?

2. Is the minister aware of the damaging impact this will have on managing challenging behaviour at the Oakden Nursing Home?

3. What actions has the minister taken in relation to this matter?

4. What is the estimated cost to the state government of the sanctions imposed by the commonwealth, including the sanction of not funding additional residents to that facility?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (14:59): I thank the honourable member for his questions. I have answered questions in relation to the Makk and McLeay nursing home and the sanctions that were put in place; however, the facility remains accredited, as I outlined in my detailed answer the other day. There are sanctions in place, and I outlined the nature of those as well as the areas of concern that the commonwealth identified, the areas or standards it believed we were not compliant with and the work undertaken to address those.

I outlined in quite some detail that a number of those problems had been fully rectified. However, work was still being done to ensure full compliance with all the standards the commonwealth had raised with us. I think that I was quite balanced in my response. I certainly did not indicate that all was rosy, as the honourable member suggested but, rather, that some problems had been identified and that staff had clearly risen to the challenge to meet those problems.

I stated then that obviously it was disappointing that we had dropped the ball in relation to some of the services that were being provided there. We do not resile from that, and we take responsibility for it. As I have said, staff have risen to the challenge. They have put in place a comprehensive action plan to address those issues and to ensure that we will meet all the standards required and continue to provide excellent care for the residents of those facilities. They are residents who indeed have significant, complex needs, who provide very challenging nursing and who have other care needs.

In relation to staffing, I do not interfere at an operational level. As I said, it is important that we have restructured the management team to ensure more responsive action on the issues identified. I do not have the details of staff who come and go, as staff do come and go. I am happy to provide the details the honourable member has asked for and bring back a response.

We are committed to ensuring that we meet the requirements identified by the commonwealth and that we meet all the appropriate standards, including those that deal with ensuring that we provide a wide range of comprehensive and, at times, specialised care to clients or residents. We have put in a comprehensive action plan to ensure that that occurs.