Vol. 517 No. 4
50 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Health and Children whether pregnant women and infants are being exposed to excessive doses of radiation due to the use of obsolete x-ray equipment at the Coombe Hospital in Dublin; whether his attention has been drawn to a report that describes some of the machines used as unsafe; and the action taken to date to address this serious problem. [9884/00]
The replacement of medical equipment in the hospital is a matter, in the first instance, for the hospital, in conjunction with the Eastern Regional Health Authority.
I am aware the x-ray equipment in the Coombe Women's Hospital's general x-ray room is old and is in need of replacement. Although the radiation doses required to achieve satisfactory images using this equipment are higher than with more modern equipment, I am assured by the hospital that its continued use is not exposing patients to excessive radiation doses. In fact, the hospital itself has publicly confirmed this and is adamant the equipment is safe and has been licensed by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. The ERHA is currently assessing all the hospital's proposals in line with regional care priorities and in the context of the national development programme. It is expected to conclude its assessment shortly.
The need to replace some of this x-ray equipment first arose in 1998 when a specific difficulty with the x-ray generator was identified. While repairs were effected in order to allow this equipment to function safely and without risk of excessive radiation doses, it was considered that it required replacement with more modern equipment. I understand the cost of re-equipping the general x-ray room will be in the order of £70,000 at today's prices and that the hospital is in the process of obtaining quotations.
As part of an ongoing programme to enable hospitals generally to update their medical equipment, my Department has provided specific funding for this purpose in each hospital's letter of determination since 1998. The Deputy will appreciate that it is the responsibility of each hospital, including the Coombe Women's Hospital, to determine its priority equipping needs and to ensure that equipment is replaced as required in accordance with these needs.
The Coombe Women's hospital was allocated capital funding of £160,000, £170,000 and £170,000 in 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively towards the cost of replacing medical equipment and for minor capital works under this programme. The hospital has submitted a comprehensive list of replacement equipment proposals to the ERHA and has x-ray equipment as a priority for replacement.
Has the Minister seen the report that confirms pregnant women and infants were subjected to excessive doses of radiation? Does he accept that the doses of radiation to which they are currently being exposed substantially exceed the national average and are in breach of legislation? Is he aware that the report to which I refer describes some of the equipment concerned as unsafe and will he acknowledge that no such equipment should be used in our hospitals? Will he confirm that this issue will be addressed urgently?
I am aware of correspondence between the medical physicists and the radiation protection adviser at the Coombe Women's Hospital to the Master in relation to the replacement of x-ray equipment in the above unit. He refers to his report of April 1998, which is perhaps the report to which the Deputy refers, indicating that the machine is unsafe and the nature of this equipment is such that if certain complex examinations were to be performed higher than usual exposures could occur. However, Dr. Dowsett, the radiation protection adviser, in correspondence to the Master in April 2000 stated, "at no time are patients exposed to excessive radiation since remedial action was taken immediately after my report", and "radiology procedures involving children are examined where possible using alternative portable equipment". That is what the hospital is advising me on this issue and the correspondence from the radiation protection adviser at the hospital to the Master makes the same point.
Will the Minister acknowledge that if alternative portable equipment is used for x-ray purposes for children there must be still a real problem with this equipment? Is the Minister aware and does the documentation he has seen state that some of the equipment used exceeds its life span by more than 15 years? Does he acknowledge that the hospital equipment in so far as it is substantially out of date and out of user time encompasses the neonatal intensive care unit, delivery suites and the special care baby unit? Will he agree that in this day and age with the resources that are available to the State, this equipment should have been taken out of the hospital and replaced? Will he confirm that, two years after this correspondence, it has not been replaced?
The funding to replace it has been made available by the State. In terms of the service plan put forward by the hospital, it was the plan for 2000 that identified the need to replace it. As I stated, funding of £160,000, £170,000 and £170,000 over the past three years has been made available to the hospital and a sum of money in addition to that was made available for the neonatal unit.
Was that specifically for this equipment?
The hospital must prioritise its equipment needs. I agree that equipment of this kind should be replaced. There is not a difficulty in making capital available to replace this equipment. We have asked the ERHA, as the new authority in the Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare area, to make an overall assessment of equipment needs of all hospitals under its jurisdiction with a view to allocating significant capital funds under the national development plan capital framework for the replacement of such equipment. The cost of replacing it is not excessive, it is in the region of £70,000.
The time for this question has expired.
Will the Minister ensure it is replaced?
Yes.
