❓ Mr Barron-Sullivan questions the Minister for Health about elective surgery wait times, specifically regarding Mrs Sealey's case. The Minister responds by outlining improvements made and addressing Mrs Sealey's case, citing a lack of updated medical information.
AnsweredQoN 376Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(2) Will the minister explain to Mrs Gwen Sealey, a 66-year-old Rockingham resident, who is also sitting in the Speaker’s gallery today and who has been on the official waitlist for a category 2 hip replacement operation for more than 380 days, why he has not improved the management of elective surgery, in line with the Auditor General’s recommendations? (3) When will the minister act on these recommendations and ensure that people who are enduring tremendous pain receive elective surgery within an acceptable time frame? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The issue of the number of people waiting for elective surgery and the time they wait is one of the more pressing matters confronting the Department of Health. It was for that reason that the Premier agreed to make additional funds available late last year to ensure that people who had waited far longer than was acceptable be offered their surgery. We made a commitment on that occasion to ensure that any person who had been waiting for more than 500 days for surgery was offered surgery by 30 June. As I have indicated, we have met that commitment. All 3 250 people who had been waiting for longer than 500 days at 30 November last year have been offered their surgery. As a result of that injection of $10 million a very significant improvement, albeit still unacceptable, has occurred in the waitlist picture. As at this week, 3 120 people in Western Australia are on the waitlist for elective surgery. That compares with the figure of 14 411 in January this year. We are measuring the full impact of that additional $10 million, which was to offer surgery to people in addition to those who would ordinarily receive their surgery. There has been a reduction of about 10 per cent in the number of people on the accepted waiting list for elective surgery in the past five or six months. In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
(3) When will the minister act on these recommendations and ensure that people who are enduring tremendous pain receive elective surgery within an acceptable time frame? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The issue of the number of people waiting for elective surgery and the time they wait is one of the more pressing matters confronting the Department of Health. It was for that reason that the Premier agreed to make additional funds available late last year to ensure that people who had waited far longer than was acceptable be offered their surgery. We made a commitment on that occasion to ensure that any person who had been waiting for more than 500 days for surgery was offered surgery by 30 June. As I have indicated, we have met that commitment. All 3 250 people who had been waiting for longer than 500 days at 30 November last year have been offered their surgery. As a result of that injection of $10 million a very significant improvement, albeit still unacceptable, has occurred in the waitlist picture. As at this week, 3 120 people in Western Australia are on the waitlist for elective surgery. That compares with the figure of 14 411 in January this year. We are measuring the full impact of that additional $10 million, which was to offer surgery to people in addition to those who would ordinarily receive their surgery. There has been a reduction of about 10 per cent in the number of people on the accepted waiting list for elective surgery in the past five or six months. In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The issue of the number of people waiting for elective surgery and the time they wait is one of the more pressing matters confronting the Department of Health. It was for that reason that the Premier agreed to make additional funds available late last year to ensure that people who had waited far longer than was acceptable be offered their surgery. We made a commitment on that occasion to ensure that any person who had been waiting for more than 500 days for surgery was offered surgery by 30 June. As I have indicated, we have met that commitment. All 3 250 people who had been waiting for longer than 500 days at 30 November last year have been offered their surgery. As a result of that injection of $10 million a very significant improvement, albeit still unacceptable, has occurred in the waitlist picture. As at this week, 3 120 people in Western Australia are on the waitlist for elective surgery. That compares with the figure of 14 411 in January this year. We are measuring the full impact of that additional $10 million, which was to offer surgery to people in addition to those who would ordinarily receive their surgery. There has been a reduction of about 10 per cent in the number of people on the accepted waiting list for elective surgery in the past five or six months. In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
(1)-(3) The issue of the number of people waiting for elective surgery and the time they wait is one of the more pressing matters confronting the Department of Health. It was for that reason that the Premier agreed to make additional funds available late last year to ensure that people who had waited far longer than was acceptable be offered their surgery. We made a commitment on that occasion to ensure that any person who had been waiting for more than 500 days for surgery was offered surgery by 30 June. As I have indicated, we have met that commitment. All 3 250 people who had been waiting for longer than 500 days at 30 November last year have been offered their surgery. As a result of that injection of $10 million a very significant improvement, albeit still unacceptable, has occurred in the waitlist picture. As at this week, 3 120 people in Western Australia are on the waitlist for elective surgery. That compares with the figure of 14 411 in January this year. We are measuring the full impact of that additional $10 million, which was to offer surgery to people in addition to those who would ordinarily receive their surgery. There has been a reduction of about 10 per cent in the number of people on the accepted waiting list for elective surgery in the past five or six months. In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case.
Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case.
The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
(3) When will the minister act on these recommendations and ensure that people who are enduring tremendous pain receive elective surgery within an acceptable time frame? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The issue of the number of people waiting for elective surgery and the time they wait is one of the more pressing matters confronting the Department of Health. It was for that reason that the Premier agreed to make additional funds available late last year to ensure that people who had waited far longer than was acceptable be offered their surgery. We made a commitment on that occasion to ensure that any person who had been waiting for more than 500 days for surgery was offered surgery by 30 June. As I have indicated, we have met that commitment. All 3 250 people who had been waiting for longer than 500 days at 30 November last year have been offered their surgery. As a result of that injection of $10 million a very significant improvement, albeit still unacceptable, has occurred in the waitlist picture. As at this week, 3 120 people in Western Australia are on the waitlist for elective surgery. That compares with the figure of 14 411 in January this year. We are measuring the full impact of that additional $10 million, which was to offer surgery to people in addition to those who would ordinarily receive their surgery. There has been a reduction of about 10 per cent in the number of people on the accepted waiting list for elective surgery in the past five or six months. In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The issue of the number of people waiting for elective surgery and the time they wait is one of the more pressing matters confronting the Department of Health. It was for that reason that the Premier agreed to make additional funds available late last year to ensure that people who had waited far longer than was acceptable be offered their surgery. We made a commitment on that occasion to ensure that any person who had been waiting for more than 500 days for surgery was offered surgery by 30 June. As I have indicated, we have met that commitment. All 3 250 people who had been waiting for longer than 500 days at 30 November last year have been offered their surgery. As a result of that injection of $10 million a very significant improvement, albeit still unacceptable, has occurred in the waitlist picture. As at this week, 3 120 people in Western Australia are on the waitlist for elective surgery. That compares with the figure of 14 411 in January this year. We are measuring the full impact of that additional $10 million, which was to offer surgery to people in addition to those who would ordinarily receive their surgery. There has been a reduction of about 10 per cent in the number of people on the accepted waiting list for elective surgery in the past five or six months. In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
(1)-(3) The issue of the number of people waiting for elective surgery and the time they wait is one of the more pressing matters confronting the Department of Health. It was for that reason that the Premier agreed to make additional funds available late last year to ensure that people who had waited far longer than was acceptable be offered their surgery. We made a commitment on that occasion to ensure that any person who had been waiting for more than 500 days for surgery was offered surgery by 30 June. As I have indicated, we have met that commitment. All 3 250 people who had been waiting for longer than 500 days at 30 November last year have been offered their surgery. As a result of that injection of $10 million a very significant improvement, albeit still unacceptable, has occurred in the waitlist picture. As at this week, 3 120 people in Western Australia are on the waitlist for elective surgery. That compares with the figure of 14 411 in January this year. We are measuring the full impact of that additional $10 million, which was to offer surgery to people in addition to those who would ordinarily receive their surgery. There has been a reduction of about 10 per cent in the number of people on the accepted waiting list for elective surgery in the past five or six months. In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
In addition, as a direct consequence of targeting people who have waited the longest - they should not have had to wait that long - a reduction has occurred in the time people are waiting for their surgery. In January this year, the average wait across the waitlist was 4.77 months. That has decreased to 4.21 months. It is a significant improvement but it is one on which I would like to see far more action taken. Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case.
Mrs Harris was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by her general practitioner on 22 February 2003. The referral note indicated that Mrs Harris suffered moderate to severe left hip osteoarthritis causing considerable pain and a limping gait, but she was otherwise well. The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case.
The test must be always “clinical need”. This was considered, as these matters must be, by the orthopaedic registrar at Royal Perth Hospital, who made the obvious classification, based on the available medical advice, that this was a routine non-urgent case. The point has been made that since that date, the GP treating Mrs Harris has not made any contact with Royal Perth Hospital or the Department of Health to say that her condition has deteriorated or that more information could be provided. If Mrs Harris’s condition is that which has been described in the media - I have no reason to think it is not - she warrants higher consideration and more urgent treatment. I suspect that if the full information had been provided from day one, Mrs Harris would have had her treatment by now. I have no reason to think that would not be the case.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Unfortunately, I cannot compete with interjections from the member opposite today. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have written to Mrs Harris’s general practitioner advising that no contact had been made since the routine non-urgent category was applied to Mrs Harris’s condition on the basis of the then available medical evidence and that, if the GP had any material that he wished to place before Royal Perth Hospital, her classification would be considered. The criteria to be applied here is not that of who can make the most noise in the media; it is that of clinical need. That is what this particular case will be assessed on. I make this offer to Mrs Harris here today that if she would like to discuss the matter with me after question time today, I would be delighted to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she has made no contact with me or my office. If there is evidence of Mrs Harris’s condition beyond what has been provided by her GP, that will obviously be taken into account in determining the priority she will be given. I can assure Mrs Harris that we have her interests very much at heart. I am very interested in making sure that she receives treatment commensurate with her clinical need.
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.