HEALTH SYSTEM

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:32): I seek leave to make an explanation prior to directing a question to the minister representing the Minister for Health on the subject of the health system.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Sadly, Mr May died on 3 April 2009, two weeks after he had been discharged from the Royal Adelaide Hospital where staff had failed to locate a report that a CT scan had found an aneurysm in his brain. This particular sad set of circumstances was obviously the subject of a Coroner's inquiry and the Deputy Coroner early this week brought down his findings. In part, that report states:

The sad fact about Mr May’s death is that it was entirely preventable. Indeed, the Inquest established that his death was preventable at any number of levels. Mr May had sought treatment for, and diagnosis of the origin of, his headaches in the weeks prior to his death and during that period there were a number of missed opportunities to have diagnosed and treated his condition. I will come to the details of that presently, but it is as well to refer here to the evidence that demonstrated that had Mr May’s brain aneurysm been recognised at the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) where he had presented a fortnight prior to his death, as it ought to have been based upon radiological imagery taken the day before, medical intervention could have saved his life.

Further background on the circumstances of this case is that Mr May, who was 69, had gone to Wallaroo Hospital with a severe headache in early March 2009. The following day, he consulted his local GP, who arranged for him to be taken to Adelaide by ambulance for a CT scan.

Four days later, the local GP in Wallaroo was notified that the scan showed a six millimetre aneurysm, and the local GP organised for Mr May to attend the emergency department of the RAH for further treatment. However, a referral letter the local GP had sent to the hospital was not passed on to treating doctors there, and Mr May was discharged that night and returned home. Just over a fortnight later, the aneurysm burst and caused Mr May's death. As I quoted earlier, the Deputy Coroner (Mr Schapel) said that his death highlighted a number of missed opportunities for medical staff to treat the aneurysm.

The Deputy Coroner made a series of recommendations in his report. Given the time availability in question time, I won't refer to all of those recommendations other than to say they are significant recommendations directed to the CEO of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, the principal clinician of the RAH emergency department, the principal clinician of the RAH Department of Neurosurgery, the CEO or equivalent of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the CEO or equivalent of the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine. My questions are:

1. Does the minister accept that the Deputy Coroner's findings are a damning indictment of the health system under the control of the Labor government over the last 11 years here in South Australia?

2. What actions has the minister taken already to ensure that all of the detailed recommendations of the Deputy Coroner in relation to this particular case are being implemented and, if there are any that the minister has decided, on the basis of advice, that he won't see implemented, what are the reasons for not agreeing to any of the recommendations made by the Deputy Coroner?

The PRESIDENT: The Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing in the other place, referring some of the question without the opinion would be most helpful.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:36): Thank you, Mr President, in which case I will take your advice and refer the second question the Hon. Mr Lucas asked to the Minister for Health and Ageing in another place and seek a response on his behalf. The answer to the first question, of course, which was based on opinion, is no.