❓ The Minister for Health boasts about the success of the four-hour rule in WA emergency departments, citing improved wait times and reduced mortality rates compared to other states, while also taking a jab at the Labor Party and claiming credit for the initiative.
AnsweredQoN 561Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS — FOUR-HOUR RULE
On page 17 of Monday’s edition of The Australian I noticed an article under the heading “Emergency wait times tumble as four-hour target does the trick”. Will the Minister for Health please reveal to the house how the performances of WA hospital emergency departments stand up compared with other Australian jurisdictions? Dr K.D. HAMES
On page 17 of Monday’s edition of The Australian I noticed an article under the heading “Emergency wait times tumble as four-hour target does the trick”. Will the Minister for Health please reveal to the house how the performances of WA hospital emergency departments stand up compared with other Australian jurisdictions? Dr K.D. HAMES
AnswerView source ↗
Before I start, I acknowledge students from Glencoe Primary School sitting in the back row of the Speaker’s gallery. I thank Mr Speaker for letting them sit there. Well done, guys. This is excellent news; it is stuff the Labor Party hates to hear! It comes in the form of this article. I followed the Treasurer’s practice and laminated it. It shows the eight-hour wait times in emergency departments in Western Australia compared with the rest of the Australia. I well recall when we were in opposition that Western Australia had the worst number of eight-hour waits in Australia. In fact, Fremantle Hospital had the worst eight-hour wait for a bed of any hospital in Australia. We were doing extremely poorly. Then, as we came into government and brought in the four-hour rule, and South Australia followed closely behind, we saw dramatic improvements both in Western Australia and South Australia in eight-hour waits for beds. Previously, 30 to 50 per cent of our patients were stuck in a corridor desperately waiting for a bed for eight hours or more. Now, those figures are down to around five to 10 per cent of our patient population. Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: Before I start, I acknowledge students from Glencoe Primary School sitting in the back row of the Speaker’s gallery. I thank Mr Speaker for letting them sit there. Well done, guys. This is excellent news; it is stuff the Labor Party hates to hear! It comes in the form of this article. I followed the Treasurer’s practice and laminated it. It shows the eight-hour wait times in emergency departments in Western Australia compared with the rest of the Australia. I well recall when we were in opposition that Western Australia had the worst number of eight-hour waits in Australia. In fact, Fremantle Hospital had the worst eight-hour wait for a bed of any hospital in Australia. We were doing extremely poorly. Then, as we came into government and brought in the four-hour rule, and South Australia followed closely behind, we saw dramatic improvements both in Western Australia and South Australia in eight-hour waits for beds. Previously, 30 to 50 per cent of our patients were stuck in a corridor desperately waiting for a bed for eight hours or more. Now, those figures are down to around five to 10 per cent of our patient population. Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
Before I start, I acknowledge students from Glencoe Primary School sitting in the back row of the Speaker’s gallery. I thank Mr Speaker for letting them sit there. Well done, guys. This is excellent news; it is stuff the Labor Party hates to hear! It comes in the form of this article. I followed the Treasurer’s practice and laminated it. It shows the eight-hour wait times in emergency departments in Western Australia compared with the rest of the Australia. I well recall when we were in opposition that Western Australia had the worst number of eight-hour waits in Australia. In fact, Fremantle Hospital had the worst eight-hour wait for a bed of any hospital in Australia. We were doing extremely poorly. Then, as we came into government and brought in the four-hour rule, and South Australia followed closely behind, we saw dramatic improvements both in Western Australia and South Australia in eight-hour waits for beds. Previously, 30 to 50 per cent of our patients were stuck in a corridor desperately waiting for a bed for eight hours or more. Now, those figures are down to around five to 10 per cent of our patient population. Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
This is excellent news; it is stuff the Labor Party hates to hear! It comes in the form of this article. I followed the Treasurer’s practice and laminated it. It shows the eight-hour wait times in emergency departments in Western Australia compared with the rest of the Australia. I well recall when we were in opposition that Western Australia had the worst number of eight-hour waits in Australia. In fact, Fremantle Hospital had the worst eight-hour wait for a bed of any hospital in Australia. We were doing extremely poorly. Then, as we came into government and brought in the four-hour rule, and South Australia followed closely behind, we saw dramatic improvements both in Western Australia and South Australia in eight-hour waits for beds. Previously, 30 to 50 per cent of our patients were stuck in a corridor desperately waiting for a bed for eight hours or more. Now, those figures are down to around five to 10 per cent of our patient population. Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: Before I start, I acknowledge students from Glencoe Primary School sitting in the back row of the Speaker’s gallery. I thank Mr Speaker for letting them sit there. Well done, guys. This is excellent news; it is stuff the Labor Party hates to hear! It comes in the form of this article. I followed the Treasurer’s practice and laminated it. It shows the eight-hour wait times in emergency departments in Western Australia compared with the rest of the Australia. I well recall when we were in opposition that Western Australia had the worst number of eight-hour waits in Australia. In fact, Fremantle Hospital had the worst eight-hour wait for a bed of any hospital in Australia. We were doing extremely poorly. Then, as we came into government and brought in the four-hour rule, and South Australia followed closely behind, we saw dramatic improvements both in Western Australia and South Australia in eight-hour waits for beds. Previously, 30 to 50 per cent of our patients were stuck in a corridor desperately waiting for a bed for eight hours or more. Now, those figures are down to around five to 10 per cent of our patient population. Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
Before I start, I acknowledge students from Glencoe Primary School sitting in the back row of the Speaker’s gallery. I thank Mr Speaker for letting them sit there. Well done, guys. This is excellent news; it is stuff the Labor Party hates to hear! It comes in the form of this article. I followed the Treasurer’s practice and laminated it. It shows the eight-hour wait times in emergency departments in Western Australia compared with the rest of the Australia. I well recall when we were in opposition that Western Australia had the worst number of eight-hour waits in Australia. In fact, Fremantle Hospital had the worst eight-hour wait for a bed of any hospital in Australia. We were doing extremely poorly. Then, as we came into government and brought in the four-hour rule, and South Australia followed closely behind, we saw dramatic improvements both in Western Australia and South Australia in eight-hour waits for beds. Previously, 30 to 50 per cent of our patients were stuck in a corridor desperately waiting for a bed for eight hours or more. Now, those figures are down to around five to 10 per cent of our patient population. Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
This is excellent news; it is stuff the Labor Party hates to hear! It comes in the form of this article. I followed the Treasurer’s practice and laminated it. It shows the eight-hour wait times in emergency departments in Western Australia compared with the rest of the Australia. I well recall when we were in opposition that Western Australia had the worst number of eight-hour waits in Australia. In fact, Fremantle Hospital had the worst eight-hour wait for a bed of any hospital in Australia. We were doing extremely poorly. Then, as we came into government and brought in the four-hour rule, and South Australia followed closely behind, we saw dramatic improvements both in Western Australia and South Australia in eight-hour waits for beds. Previously, 30 to 50 per cent of our patients were stuck in a corridor desperately waiting for a bed for eight hours or more. Now, those figures are down to around five to 10 per cent of our patient population. Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
Members can see from this graph that Western Australia is now the lowest of all states for our eight-hour wait. Interestingly, the article in The Australian states that a national snapshot shows that Western Australia brought in the four-hour target a year before it was earmarked for national rollout as part of the federal government’s health reforms. The article still tries to give credit to the federal government that it had anticipated by a year the fact that we were rolling out that four-hour reform. Of course the reality is—the Minister for Health in South Australia will confirm this—that we initiated it in Western Australia. The South Australian Minister for Health copied it in the lead-up to the election because he thought the opposition in South Australia might jump in first and embarrass him, so he brought it in first; and then the commonwealth, through its reforms, copied it off Western Australia. What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
What is even more important is the mortality rates within our hospitals. When we were in opposition in 2005 or 2006, Dr Sprivulus from Fremantle Hospital wrote a report showing that about 120 patients in our tertiary hospitals were dying needlessly each year because of that eight-hour wait. Behind that 120, there were about 800 whose morbidity was increased. That means if a person has something wrong with a leg, whereas otherwise the leg might have been saved, the leg is lost. That is what morbidity refers to. There were about 800 behind that 120, which was based on studies from about 2002–03. When we improved our eight-hour ED waits, we expected mortality figures to come down. That has proven to be the case. In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
In an early study—it is not yet completed; it still has to go through peer review—by Professor Gary Geelhoed, who is a former president of the Australian Medical Association and also a physician at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, he has compared 2009–10 with 2010–11. That study shows there have been 80 fewer deaths. But when we look at the increase in demand in our hospitals and the expected growth in mortality rates, it means that in one year, 236 fewer people have died going through our tertiary hospitals than would have been the case if we had not brought in the four-hour rule. That is 236 people. I am often asked why I wanted to go into politics rather than medicine, because in medicine I can save lives: this government has saved 236 lives in one year alone by bringing in that four-hour rule.
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.