Page 2188 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Following on from these claims—the ones that were investigated and that were found to be incorrect—there have been further unsubstantiated claims made that infection control at the Canberra Hospital is inadequate. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Anyone running this line without evidence or facts to back it up is simply running down the reputation of the public hospital system.
Whilst there is no evidence to support the claim, there is plenty of evidence to support the contrary argument. This government has been most open in its reporting of such matters. Our two public hospitals do very well by national comparison, with rates of infection significantly lower than those in other capital cities such as Sydney and Melbourne. We have a comprehensive data management system in place to monitor hospital acquired infection rates, which enables us to quickly identify sources of infection and respond quickly.
We have introduced a range of quality improvement measures to respond to risk. These include that every positive blood culture is recorded and followed up. This is not the case in other jurisdictions. We have halved the rate of blood-borne infection acquired by intravenous canulae. We measure, record and publish our progress in monitoring and managing hospital acquired infections every quarter. We have employed an additional 1½ full-time equivalent specialist nursing staff devoted to the task of managing infection in our hospital. And we have introduced system-wide hand cleaning procedures. We have mandatory notification and online reporting systems.
We do not claim to have no infection control risks; no public hospital system—in fact, no hospital system—could claim such a thing. But we can claim to have a safe, open and accountable healthcare system that Canberrans can be confident in and proud of.
Following on from these concerns, there have been continuous allegations made—and public suggestions made—that staff will suffer repercussions by bringing these issues to management’s attention. This is just wrong—and, again, not backed up by any evidence or supported by any data on staffing rates. In relation to the ANF, no-one will find any public comment made by the ANF backing up the claims that have been made in relation to this case. In fact, I would argue that the silence of the ANF on the matter raised in relation to infection control may suggest an entirely different story.
In relation to the specific incident raised, the allegation is that one staff member in particular had her employment terminated for bringing such issues to management’s attention. ACT Health advises me that that is incorrect and that the staff member’s temporary contract was terminated for reasons other than those Mrs Burke suggested.
I have been asked again by Mrs Burke to intervene in this case. For very good reasons, I do not have the ability to hire and fire nurses. But I have asked the question, because of the continuous allegations being raised around how nurses are continuously sacked for raising complaints. Across all of ACT Health—including Calvary public hospital, which is an employer of more than 2,000 nurses—three staff have had their positions terminated over the past 2½ years. That is hardly an indication that anyone who speaks out gets sacked.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .