❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding a 10-year-old patient with appendicitis being asked to travel from Bunbury to Perth for treatment due to perceived lack of surgeon availability. The Minister acknowledges failings and promises action.
AnsweredQoN 948Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the case of 10-year-old Maddison Coxall of Gelorup. As a matter of good faith, I gave the minister reasonable notice of this question. Specifically, I refer to the fact that last Tuesday evening young Maddison was diagnosed with appendicitis by the accident and emergency ward of the State’s largest regional hospital in Bunbury. Her distraught parents were told by hospital staff that a surgeon was not available and that they would need to drive Maddison immediately to Princess Margaret Hospital for Children in Perth for treatment. (1) Why was no surgeon available? (2) In the absence of a surgeon, why was the family not provided with an ambulance escort; the family was instead asked to drive their 10-year-old girl, who had a potentially life-threatening ailment, two hours to Princess Margaret Hospital in Perth? (3) Is it correct that when the family asked for directions to Princess Margaret Hospital, they were told that they might be able to get a lift with another person in the ward who had also been asked to travel to Perth? (4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(1) Why was no surgeon available? (2) In the absence of a surgeon, why was the family not provided with an ambulance escort; the family was instead asked to drive their 10-year-old girl, who had a potentially life-threatening ailment, two hours to Princess Margaret Hospital in Perth? (3) Is it correct that when the family asked for directions to Princess Margaret Hospital, they were told that they might be able to get a lift with another person in the ward who had also been asked to travel to Perth? (4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(2) In the absence of a surgeon, why was the family not provided with an ambulance escort; the family was instead asked to drive their 10-year-old girl, who had a potentially life-threatening ailment, two hours to Princess Margaret Hospital in Perth? (3) Is it correct that when the family asked for directions to Princess Margaret Hospital, they were told that they might be able to get a lift with another person in the ward who had also been asked to travel to Perth? (4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(3) Is it correct that when the family asked for directions to Princess Margaret Hospital, they were told that they might be able to get a lift with another person in the ward who had also been asked to travel to Perth? (4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(1) Why was no surgeon available? (2) In the absence of a surgeon, why was the family not provided with an ambulance escort; the family was instead asked to drive their 10-year-old girl, who had a potentially life-threatening ailment, two hours to Princess Margaret Hospital in Perth? (3) Is it correct that when the family asked for directions to Princess Margaret Hospital, they were told that they might be able to get a lift with another person in the ward who had also been asked to travel to Perth? (4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(2) In the absence of a surgeon, why was the family not provided with an ambulance escort; the family was instead asked to drive their 10-year-old girl, who had a potentially life-threatening ailment, two hours to Princess Margaret Hospital in Perth? (3) Is it correct that when the family asked for directions to Princess Margaret Hospital, they were told that they might be able to get a lift with another person in the ward who had also been asked to travel to Perth? (4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(3) Is it correct that when the family asked for directions to Princess Margaret Hospital, they were told that they might be able to get a lift with another person in the ward who had also been asked to travel to Perth? (4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(4) Is it correct that numerous patients are still being sent to Perth for routine surgery, including 79-year-old Doreen Platts who broke her arm and fractured her hip and pelvis four weeks ago and was told that she would need to take a bus or train to Perth for treatment? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
(1)-(4) I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has enabled me to get some background to the specific incident to which he has referred; that is, 10-year-old Maddison Coxall. Having received that information, I find that what occurred at Bunbury Regional Hospital was not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it was not acceptable in terms of the treatment of the patient. From the information I have received, what occurred to that patient on that occasion concerns me. Secondly, it concerns me that communication within the hospital was not all that it should have been. Accordingly, this whole incident has caused some disquiet on my part. I am not happy to accept the traditional Department of Health approach, which was to advise me that on this occasion the doctor on duty made the decision after clinical assessment of the child. A lot more factors were involved in this matter that require ongoing attention. I will be demanding of that hospital acceptable protocols to ensure proper patient treatment in Bunbury. That is the general background to this issue. I appreciate the way in which the member for Mitchell has raised this matter here today. I will deal with the specific matters that the member raised. Firstly, why was no surgeon available? I am advised that a surgeon was available. That matter goes back to the earlier point I made about my concern about internal communication within the hospital. A surgeon was available on the night in question, but this information was not known to the emergency department or the doctor on duty in that ward, who did not check on the availability of an on-call surgeon. If those sorts of communication failures are occurring within the hospital, I find that to be unacceptable. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: For approximately half of each month the on-call surgeons are not available. That is the essence of the problem. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will come to that issue in a minute, because there is a long-term solution to this problem. The third question related to the response received from the doctor in question. In the period since I received notice of this question it has not been possible to contact the doctor who made the decision that the child should be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital to confirm what he did or did not say. I cannot confirm the accuracy of that point, nor that those comments were in fact made. The other issue that is important in answering this question, and goes to the interjection that the member made, is that patients are referred to Perth only when they have been medically assessed as requiring surgical referral and when a surgeon is not available at the Bunbury campus. Currently, three surgeons are contracted to provide an on-call surgical roster at the Bunbury campus. A minimum of four surgeons are required to provide seamless surgical cover - that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - so there are gaps in the system at the moment. The South West Area Health Service is currently negotiating a medical services agreement with a fourth surgeon. It hopes that that surgeon will be able to come to the hospital to ensure that what occurred on this occasion - that is, the belief that a surgeon was not available to conduct the operation - does not occur in the future. I will raise these matters very forcibly with the hospital because this is not the first time this has happened. The member referred in his question to Doreen Platts. That illustrates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the Bunbury hospital. I will pursue that matter in great detail.
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.