By Hamish Hastie
The release of a 181-page business case that prompted the government to move the location of the $1.8 billion women’s and babies’ hospital from Nedlands to Murdoch has done little to alleviate concerns from the state’s medical fraternity and parents.
On Thursday West Australian Health Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson tabled the business case as well as an Infrastructure WA report in parliament, which she said justified the government’s controversial decision to abandon the original Queen Elizabeth II medical precinct.
WA Health Minister Amber-Jade SandersonCredit: WAtoday
The change of location has been met with significant opposition from WA’s health sector, which is worried about the 20-kilometre distance between the premier babies’ hospital and Perth Children’s Hospital, where the state’s most experienced and specialised neonatal medical staff are located.
Sanderson said the documents showed the QEII option could take up to 20 years to complete and would cost $229 million more than the $1.78 billion committed to the project as well as create “insurmountable” issues at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.
“The document states there is a risk that ongoing services and operations at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital will be materially and adversely disrupted by construction activities,” she said.
“You can now see for yourselves the evidence that to proceed with building the hospital that QEII would have been irresponsible.”
The business case included no input from medical professionals and Sanderson conceded the decision was ultimately an infrastructure one but downplayed concerns about the number of newborns who required immediate surgery after birth.
She said that only occurred in about 30 births a year and that in most cases newborns that required immediate surgery were diagnosed in the womb, so their surgeries could be planned.
“We’re working with those clinicians around the very small number of mostly planned births of children who require immediate surgery, and we’re working on what that might look like,” she said.
These comments incensed Helping Little Hands’ chief executive Joanne Beedie.
“We find it incredibly upsetting that the number, the small number apparently, of premature and sick babies [is] used as if those lives are less valuable than any other child’s. That they are somehow dispensable in this decision making,” she said.
“[It is] utterly ridiculous and ignorant, ill-informed and disrespectful.“
She wanted to know who would take responsibility for clinical outcomes which could include death and disability for this group of babies.
There were about 200 babies per year that required time-critical transport to Perth Children’s Hospital where the state’s most specialised pediatric surgeons were based.
“These babies do not have the time or the capacity to spend in an ambulance for another 20 kilometres [from Murdoch to Nedlands],” she said.
“A tri-located site is the international gold standard.”
Beedie said Perth Children’s Hospital was the only hospital in the state with a concentration of sub-specialty medical staff that sick babies required and it was unlikely these could be duplicated or extended to Fiona Stanley Hospital.
This was echoed by Australian Medical Association WA president Michael Page who accused the government of being naive in its defence of the Murdoch plan.
“The premier and the health minister have both stated that neonatal surgery can be performed at Fiona Stanley Hospital if and when required. That is news to the pediatric surgeons of Perth,” he said.
“It also shows a naivety as to how pediatric surgery is performed.
“You need the right ICU set up, you need the right nursing setup, you need all the allied health support, you can’t simply ask a surgeon to drive down the freeway to do an emergency operation in a hospital.”
The business case, completed by a consultancy firm in March, did not recommend the government move the hospital to Murdoch next to Fiona Stanley Hospital.
However, it found 45 risks posed to the QEII precinct, including parking issues and disruptions to medical services at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.
Shadow health minister Libby Mettam said the business case actually justified that the hospital should proceed at QEII, and she questioned why they wouldn’t spend the extra money for a tri-located precinct.
“Why is it that this Labor government continued to cut corners on health when they continue to spend billions in additional funding in transport projects, we’ve seen Metronet blowout by about 300 per cent,” she said.
The business case worked on the assumption that the new hospital would be completed by 2034, but the Infrastructure WA report suggested delays and complications once construction began were likely and, with upgrades to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital also needed, the timeframe would blow out.
An e-petition launched just six days ago by the opposition calling for the government to reverse its decision and opt for a co-location model has already received 2394 signatures.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.