ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

Next page . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 9 Hansard (24 August) . . Page.. 3796..


MS GALLAGHER (continuing):

way of doing things. We are going to look at that. But as part of the credentialing process—I do not accept that the credentialing process at the Canberra Hospital, or at Calvary Hospital for that matter, is not robust, because it is a very thorough analysis of a clinician's clinical skills.

MR COE: What other areas of ACT Health lack robust recredentialing processes?

MS GALLAGHER: I think I answered that in the first part of the question. Our credentialing processes are robust. The review has identified other processes that should be part of a credentialing process that is not standard as a way of credentialing clinicians at the moment. I think a number of clinicians will have a view about whether credentialing should incorporate non-clinical aspects to their performance overall, and we are consulting with clinicians over that.

MR HANSON: Minister, do you therefore disagree with the findings of this report?

MS GALLAGHER: I saw Mr Smyth ask that question, and then you get up and ask it, and it is a typical Brendan Smyth question, trying to—

MRS DUNNE: Answer the question—do you disagree?

MS GALLAGHER: Thanks, Mrs Dunne. I know enough to know that I can answer the question and that I have two minutes in order to do it, without taking advice from you. Mr Smyth asked Mr Hanson to ask me a supplementary; I was merely drawing that to the chamber's attention. No, I do not say that the review is wrong, or whatever the words were that you used. I am saying they have identified additional issues which they think should be part of the credentialing process, which are not standard and which clinicians will have a view about. And, you know, we need to talk to the doctors. We have to talk to the doctors about what that means. If credentialing no longer just focuses on clinical expertise or clinical capacity, then that is fine and good, but we need the doctors to agree to that in the first place. So it will be a discussion we have with clinicians. We are having it with them at the moment as to whether issues outside of their non-clinical skills should be part of whether or not they have access or rights to practise at a hospital.

MR HANSON: A supplementary, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hanson.

MR HANSON: Minister, is there anything in the report that you actually agree with?

MS GALLAGHER: Yes. I have said a number of times that there are a number of recommendations on which there are mixed views and I am treading carefully about how we manage that process. There are mixed views between the midwives, the public staff specialists, the private obstetricians. We have allowed six weeks to consult further with staff. As part of that, I will have a number of meetings with different individuals as part of working our way forward.

But what I am very keen on doing is using this clinical review—and I sense there is a willingness from the AMA and the private obstetricians and the public obstetricians


Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search


If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT