❓ A parliamentary question addresses alleged mistreatment of Judith Park at Royal Perth Hospital, focusing on placement, treatment delays, and complaint handling. The Minister denies mistreatment and defends the actions of health officials.
AnsweredQoN 65Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
65. Hon. P.G. PENDAL to the Minister for Health:
(1) What has the Minister undertaken in the way of investigative and compensatory action for Mrs Judith Park, since being made aware of her case of mistreatment at Royal Perth Hospital in April 1998?
(2) Will the Minister acknowledge the refusal of both Health Department officials and the Office of Health Review to properly deal with the Parks' complaint for over two years?
(3) Will the Minister undertake a separate investigation to that of the police into the mishandling of Judith Parks' case in September 1999?
(4) Will the Minister advise why Judith Park was incorrectly placed in a vascular ward from 18 February 1998 to 8 April 1998 instead of the coronary car unit as necessitated her illness as prescribed by the consultant cardiologist?
(5) Will the Minister explain why ultimately delayed yet successful treatment was only undertaken after the intervention of the Park's family and her solicitor, although being told there was no hope of recovery and moving Mrs Park to Shenton Park was the only care option?
(6) What assurances can the Minister provide to the public to guarantee such a failure of treatment within the public health system and the mishandling of a complaint does not occur again?
(1) What has the Minister undertaken in the way of investigative and compensatory action for Mrs Judith Park, since being made aware of her case of mistreatment at Royal Perth Hospital in April 1998?
(2) Will the Minister acknowledge the refusal of both Health Department officials and the Office of Health Review to properly deal with the Parks' complaint for over two years?
(3) Will the Minister undertake a separate investigation to that of the police into the mishandling of Judith Parks' case in September 1999?
(4) Will the Minister advise why Judith Park was incorrectly placed in a vascular ward from 18 February 1998 to 8 April 1998 instead of the coronary car unit as necessitated her illness as prescribed by the consultant cardiologist?
(5) Will the Minister explain why ultimately delayed yet successful treatment was only undertaken after the intervention of the Park's family and her solicitor, although being told there was no hope of recovery and moving Mrs Park to Shenton Park was the only care option?
(6) What assurances can the Minister provide to the public to guarantee such a failure of treatment within the public health system and the mishandling of a complaint does not occur again?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 November 2000
Response time
97 days
The Minister Replied:
(1) A settlement of $18 615 was made in full and final settlement for a catheter tip, which was found in Mrs Park's chest wall following cardiac surgery. Since then extensive internal investigation within Royal Perth Hospital and externally by the Office of Health Review have not found any evidence of mistreatment.
(2) No. The Metropolitan Health Service Board and the Office of Health Review properly dealt with the Park's complaints. The Office of Health Review has investigated the Park's complaint twice and also had the treatment of Mrs Park reviewed by an independent Cardiologist from the Eastern States.
(3) No.
(4) Mrs Park was appropriately placed on the vascular ward for the treatment of a leg ulcer which had persisted following her previous cardiac surgery. During her admission to the vascular ward she was regularly reviewed by a cardiologist in relation to her cardiac condition.
(5) No treatment was delayed. Mrs Park was progressing well in the vascular ward with regular review from cardiology. Unfortunately, she became acutely ill, and appropriate treatment for her condition was commenced immediately. Communication with the Park's solicitor occurred before Mrs Park's deterioration and on one occasion afterwards. No meetings were held with the Park's solicitors. The option of sending Mrs Park to Shenton Park was considered by the treating medical staff before Mrs Park became acutely ill, and was an option because she was progressing well. This was discussed with the Park's family. As the family expressed the desire to care for her at home themselves, a transfer to Shenton Park was not pursued.
(6) I have no evidence of failure of treatment or mishandling of the complaint. Staff at the Office of Health Review, Royal Perth Hospital and the Metropolitan Health Service Board have spent numerous hours in discussion and correspondence with Mr Park in relation to his wife's treatment at Royal Perth Hospital.
The Western Australian Police Service is still investigating this case. It is understood that all documentation has been given to the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, who may in turn forward it to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.
(1) A settlement of $18 615 was made in full and final settlement for a catheter tip, which was found in Mrs Park's chest wall following cardiac surgery. Since then extensive internal investigation within Royal Perth Hospital and externally by the Office of Health Review have not found any evidence of mistreatment.
(2) No. The Metropolitan Health Service Board and the Office of Health Review properly dealt with the Park's complaints. The Office of Health Review has investigated the Park's complaint twice and also had the treatment of Mrs Park reviewed by an independent Cardiologist from the Eastern States.
(3) No.
(4) Mrs Park was appropriately placed on the vascular ward for the treatment of a leg ulcer which had persisted following her previous cardiac surgery. During her admission to the vascular ward she was regularly reviewed by a cardiologist in relation to her cardiac condition.
(5) No treatment was delayed. Mrs Park was progressing well in the vascular ward with regular review from cardiology. Unfortunately, she became acutely ill, and appropriate treatment for her condition was commenced immediately. Communication with the Park's solicitor occurred before Mrs Park's deterioration and on one occasion afterwards. No meetings were held with the Park's solicitors. The option of sending Mrs Park to Shenton Park was considered by the treating medical staff before Mrs Park became acutely ill, and was an option because she was progressing well. This was discussed with the Park's family. As the family expressed the desire to care for her at home themselves, a transfer to Shenton Park was not pursued.
(6) I have no evidence of failure of treatment or mishandling of the complaint. Staff at the Office of Health Review, Royal Perth Hospital and the Metropolitan Health Service Board have spent numerous hours in discussion and correspondence with Mr Park in relation to his wife's treatment at Royal Perth Hospital.
The Western Australian Police Service is still investigating this case. It is understood that all documentation has been given to the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, who may in turn forward it to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.