❓ Ms Mettam questions the Minister for Health regarding concerns about relocating the Women's and Babies' Hospital from QEII to Murdoch, citing opposition from healthcare professionals and a charity. The Minister defends the decision, citing insurmountable challenges at QEII and benefits of the Murdoch location.
AnsweredQoN 264Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WOMEN'S AND
BABIES' HOSPITAL — RELOCATION
264. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the strong opposition
expressed by the Helping Little Hands premature and sick babies charity on 1 May
in response to the government's decision to abandon the women's
and babies' hospital at Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, stating that
relocation to Murdoch will result in premature and sick babies being cared for
in the neonatal intensive care unit having to be transported for over 20
minutes up one of Perth's busiest stretches of road to Perth Children's
Hospital in order to receive life-saving surgery and specialist treatment, and
by the previous head of King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women's
neonatal unit, Professor Karen Simmer, who has described this move as
dangerous.
(1) What does the
minister say to this level of concern expressed amongst clinical professionals
and other advocates?
(2) Former Minister for Health Roger Cook identified
parking and congestion issues for staff and patients when the site was
first announced, so what are the real reasons the government has abandoned the
QEII plan?
BABIES' HOSPITAL — RELOCATION
264. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the strong opposition
expressed by the Helping Little Hands premature and sick babies charity on 1 May
in response to the government's decision to abandon the women's
and babies' hospital at Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, stating that
relocation to Murdoch will result in premature and sick babies being cared for
in the neonatal intensive care unit having to be transported for over 20
minutes up one of Perth's busiest stretches of road to Perth Children's
Hospital in order to receive life-saving surgery and specialist treatment, and
by the previous head of King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women's
neonatal unit, Professor Karen Simmer, who has described this move as
dangerous.
(1) What does the
minister say to this level of concern expressed amongst clinical professionals
and other advocates?
(2) Former Minister for Health Roger Cook identified
parking and congestion issues for staff and patients when the site was
first announced, so what are the real reasons the government has abandoned the
QEII plan?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I am happy to answer this question, because
although this was a very difficult decision that the government had to
make, it is absolutely the right decision. It is the right decision for the
whole of Western Australia and for women and
babies across the state who need the support of our very specialised maternity,
neonatal and gynaecological supports and services. Although maternity
and neonatal is part of what the women's hospital does, gynaecology and oncology are also a significant part of
what it does. It is quite right to identify that there were some existing challenges on the site that were well
known and ventilated, as we saw through the build of Perth Children's
Hospital and some of the challenges around that site. As we went through the due diligence of government, the business case
and the project definition plan, those challenges became more acute and
insurmountable in my view. Frankly, it would have been irresponsible of the
government to barrel down a road with unending risk to time frame delivery and
disruption on the site. In a perfect world, of course a women's and
newborns' hospital would be co-located with an adult tertiary hospital so that women would have access to ICU. That is
very important. It is very dangerous for women who n eed access to ICU
and who have had adverse events, and there have been incidents in which women
have not made it in time to ICU. Having that tertiary ICU is critically
important. Of course, ideally, it would be next to a children's
hospital as well. That is why QEII was identified. It was also part of the Reid
review and it makes sense.
I will make the point that when the
Reid review was developed, Fiona Stanley Hospital did not exist. When we saw
the business case and the project definition plan and, on top of that, started
to work through the logistics of what it would mean to work at the Perth
Children's Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital site for 10 years
of construction, we saw that ambulances would potentially get caught up in
construction traffic trying to access the emergency department. We also have a single
commercial parking operator on that site,
with a contract that was signed by the former government that is incredibly
restrictive —I mean ridiculously restrictive. That has put us in
a very difficult position.
The government had to make a decision
based on the broader interests of the community and the system as a whole. Our
job is to understand system risks. It would have been far too much of a risk to
the broader system—a key tertiary hospital and Perth Children's
Hospital—to maintain that kind of disruption over 10 years.
Essentially, if we are to maintain one of those principles, which is to give
women access to an ICU and a tertiary hospital, there is only one place in
which we can do that. I do not need a business case to tell us that it should not
be located at Royal Perth Hospital. We know that will not work. There is only
one place, and that is Murdoch. Murdoch already does 3 500 births a year. It
also has neonatal specialists. That will also be better for regional women who
have to make the arduous journey to Perth and then battle the traffic. I will
make the point that 58 per cent of the patients at King Edward Memorial
Hospital for Women already come from the southern and eastern suburbs of Perth,
and 65 per cent of the patients who receive care from King Edward are not in
the catchment.
An important part of this
announcement was also the significant expansion of Osborne Park Hospital to provide a brand new family birthing centre. That
will obviously also provide hospital-based birthing options for medium
and high-risk women. We will be putting into the northern suburbs a whole suite
of maternity options that do not exist now. This will be better for women and
their babies, and better for families.
I make the point that I have met with
some of the specialists in this area. I will say that not all of them are concerned about this decision. A number of them
are very happy with this decision. However, I acknowledge the concerns of a small number of clinicians,
particularly those who are working at King Edward and those who are
working through the Child and Adolescent Health Service. In terms of numbers,
about 45 babies a year need surgery within about an hour of birth. Those births
are almost always elective caesareans, so they are almost always planned. We
will work with those women on a model of care that will enable us to deal with
those babies and those mothers in the safest and most compassionate way and
deliver the best possible care for Western Australians. This is the right
decision, it is a good decision and it is broadly backed by the community.
although this was a very difficult decision that the government had to
make, it is absolutely the right decision. It is the right decision for the
whole of Western Australia and for women and
babies across the state who need the support of our very specialised maternity,
neonatal and gynaecological supports and services. Although maternity
and neonatal is part of what the women's hospital does, gynaecology and oncology are also a significant part of
what it does. It is quite right to identify that there were some existing challenges on the site that were well
known and ventilated, as we saw through the build of Perth Children's
Hospital and some of the challenges around that site. As we went through the due diligence of government, the business case
and the project definition plan, those challenges became more acute and
insurmountable in my view. Frankly, it would have been irresponsible of the
government to barrel down a road with unending risk to time frame delivery and
disruption on the site. In a perfect world, of course a women's and
newborns' hospital would be co-located with an adult tertiary hospital so that women would have access to ICU. That is
very important. It is very dangerous for women who n eed access to ICU
and who have had adverse events, and there have been incidents in which women
have not made it in time to ICU. Having that tertiary ICU is critically
important. Of course, ideally, it would be next to a children's
hospital as well. That is why QEII was identified. It was also part of the Reid
review and it makes sense.
I will make the point that when the
Reid review was developed, Fiona Stanley Hospital did not exist. When we saw
the business case and the project definition plan and, on top of that, started
to work through the logistics of what it would mean to work at the Perth
Children's Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital site for 10 years
of construction, we saw that ambulances would potentially get caught up in
construction traffic trying to access the emergency department. We also have a single
commercial parking operator on that site,
with a contract that was signed by the former government that is incredibly
restrictive —I mean ridiculously restrictive. That has put us in
a very difficult position.
The government had to make a decision
based on the broader interests of the community and the system as a whole. Our
job is to understand system risks. It would have been far too much of a risk to
the broader system—a key tertiary hospital and Perth Children's
Hospital—to maintain that kind of disruption over 10 years.
Essentially, if we are to maintain one of those principles, which is to give
women access to an ICU and a tertiary hospital, there is only one place in
which we can do that. I do not need a business case to tell us that it should not
be located at Royal Perth Hospital. We know that will not work. There is only
one place, and that is Murdoch. Murdoch already does 3 500 births a year. It
also has neonatal specialists. That will also be better for regional women who
have to make the arduous journey to Perth and then battle the traffic. I will
make the point that 58 per cent of the patients at King Edward Memorial
Hospital for Women already come from the southern and eastern suburbs of Perth,
and 65 per cent of the patients who receive care from King Edward are not in
the catchment.
An important part of this
announcement was also the significant expansion of Osborne Park Hospital to provide a brand new family birthing centre. That
will obviously also provide hospital-based birthing options for medium
and high-risk women. We will be putting into the northern suburbs a whole suite
of maternity options that do not exist now. This will be better for women and
their babies, and better for families.
I make the point that I have met with
some of the specialists in this area. I will say that not all of them are concerned about this decision. A number of them
are very happy with this decision. However, I acknowledge the concerns of a small number of clinicians,
particularly those who are working at King Edward and those who are
working through the Child and Adolescent Health Service. In terms of numbers,
about 45 babies a year need surgery within about an hour of birth. Those births
are almost always elective caesareans, so they are almost always planned. We
will work with those women on a model of care that will enable us to deal with
those babies and those mothers in the safest and most compassionate way and
deliver the best possible care for Western Australians. This is the right
decision, it is a good decision and it is broadly backed by the community.
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.