Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Hospital Services.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 7 April 2004

Wednesday, 7 April 2004

Ceisteanna (6)

Paul Nicholas Gogarty

Ceist:

6 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Health and Children the action he has taken to ensure that patients presenting with infectious tuberculosis can be treated at Peamount Hospital until such time as an acceptable alternative for both chronic and acute cases is provided; if he has commenced a review of practices and procedures at Peamount Hospital in view of the recent events involving the refusal by management to receive new admissions, including one seriously ill case from the Mater Hospital; his views on the lack of a timeframe for the implementation of the hospital’s new five-year strategy, and equally important the opposition to the plan among staff members, referring general practitioners and community groups. [11117/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (16 píosaí cainte)

Responsibility for the provision of services at Peamount Hospital rests with the Eastern Regional Health Authority. The background to the future organisation and delivery of respiratory and tuberculosis services can be found in a report of a review carried out by Comhairle na nOspidéal, published in July 2000, on respiratory medicine. This report found that, in line with major advances in medical treatment, the optimal in-patient care of patients with respiratory diseases, including tuberculosis, is more appropriate to local acute general hospitals, staffed by consultant respiratory physicians and other consultants and supported by an array of investigative facilities.

While recognising the valuable role which Peamount Hospital had played for many years in the delivery of respiratory services, Comhairle na nOspidéal did not regard it as an appropriate location for the future treatment of TB patients, especially those requiring ventilation and specialised treatment for other symptoms, for example, heart disease, HIV etc. who may present with TB.

Comhairle na nOspidéal subsequently appointed a committee to advise on the implementation of the 2000 report. The report of this committee endorsed the recommendations in the 2000 report and was adopted by Comhairle na nOspidéal in April 2003. Specifically, the committee recommended that Peamount Hospital should play an active role in the provision of a range of non-acute support services, including pulmonary rehabilitation, within the South Western Area Health Board. For example, it recommends that patients who have been treated in the nearby St James's Hospital and other major acute hospitals, and who require ongoing rehabilitative care, could be transferred to Peamount Hospital for completion of their care.

In addition to the Comhairle advice on this issue, the board of Peamount Hospital has developed a strategic plan for the development of services at the hospital. The hospital employed external support to assist it in this process and advise of developments in the wider health care environment. The strategy adopted by the board proposes considerable enhancement of existing services and development of new services in the areas of rehabilitation and continuing care of older people, persons with intellectual disabilities and adults with neurological or pulmonary illness.

On 22 March 2004, two of the senior medical personnel at Peamount Hospital secured interim High Court orders restraining their removal from their positions. The interim injunctions were granted to the medical director and senior medical officer at the hospital. The matter arose by virtue of the termination by the hospital board of the medical director's post and revised arrangements for the senior medical officer's post arising from the new arrangements for the delivery of services at the hospital.

The hospital's admission policy on admissions to its TB and non-TB respiratory units has been clarified following the granting of a further interim injunction by the High Court on 31 March 2004, which stated that admissions to Peamount Hospital required hospital management approval. I understand that a full hearing in the High Court is scheduled for 19 April 2004.

Additional Information

The admissions policy provides that all new referrals to the hospital must first have been assessed in an acute general hospital. The recent transfer of a patient with multi-drug resistant TB, MDRTB, to Peamount from the Mater hospital where he had been stabilised, is consistent with this approach. It also provides that the transfer of patients from other hospitals to Peamount must be considered in the context of such patients being non-acute and on the basis of the transferring consultant being fully aware of the facilities and staff available at Peamount. This is in line with the recommendations of the Comhairle report on the future organisation and delivery of respiratory and TB services. Peamount does not have a Comhairle approved consultant respiratory physician on its medical staff. Elective scheduled admissions will be postponed until after 19 April 2004, which is the date set for the full High Court hearing, and rescheduled after that date. Current patients with a diagnosis of malignancy will be admitted at the discretion of medical staff. The out-patients department will continue to be maintained.

In light of this clarification of the hospital's admissions policy, a consultative process has now been initiated by the ERHA with all referring hospitals and health boards to ensure that there is full awareness of Peamount Hospital's admissions policy. Within the functional area of the authority, hospitals are being asked to liaise with public health personnel regarding support requirements for patients with TB. The authority will also put in place contingency plans to manage patients locally.

Services in the hospital such as phlebotomy and x-ray will continue to be available to the local community and indeed much of the discussion to date has related to how Peamount can more effectively meet the primary care needs of the local population. After discussion with local GPs it is clear that key concerns have arisen regarding the management of older people with chest infections and respiratory difficulties. The authority is in continuing discussion with Peamount as to how these services will be maintained. This approach will be supported by the appointment of a consultant geriatrician to Tallaght and Peamount hospitals, approved by Comhairle, with two sessions per week specifically committed to Peamount. A joint consultant post in rehabilitation medicine is also being established between the National Rehabilitation Hospital, NRH, and Peamount. Existing day and residential services for older people, people with intellectual and physical disabilities continue to be provided.

I am advised that the direction which Peamount is now taking will see it developing its overall role and its support for acute hospitals, general practitioners and the community of the surrounding area and is in line with its duty of care to patients and its commitment to the provision of the highest quality of care to existing and future patients.

It is my view that the chief executive of Peamount, Mr. Mullen, has acted negligently and incompetently regarding patient care at the hospital, and he should resign his position immediately. He has disregarded the advice of the leading experts on TB, the advice of diligent staff and of referring general practitioners in the wider community.

It is absolutely out of order to name people in the House, and the Deputy is aware of that.

Does the Minister agree with this statement? In light of the ongoing complicity regarding patient care at Peamount and the dispute over the flawed five year strategy, does the Minister acknowledge that he is hiding behind the smokescreen of a legal argument and that he has the power to investigate and intervene if necessary on an issue of national public importance relating to patient care, especially because the Eastern Regional Health Authority funds Peamount?

Is the Minister aware that the main argument used by the managers of Peamount is utter nonsense, namely that they are acting on the advice of Comhairle na nOspidéal, as the Minister is today? This is because Comhairle's advice is just advice and can and has been ignored on countless occasions. Moreover, Peamount once wrote to Comhairle na nOspidéal stating it was ignoring its advice. This represents another U-turn.

Will the Minister also acknowledge that it is in the interest of patient care that the excellent work being carried out in the TB unit and in St. Teresa's be allowed to continue on the same terms as before until a new strategy is put in place, notwithstanding that the staff are in a state of major unrest because they believe the current strategy is flawed and that there was inadequate consultation?

Given that the members of the board of management are acting like sheep on this issue and that the chairman is equally culpable, what will the Minister do about the issue? Will he be as courageous as he was regarding the smoking ban? He can investigate and intervene. The ERHA has the power to lever the funding on Peamount. Apart from the courts issue, which is separate and to which I will not refer, what has happened in Peamount in recent weeks is scandalous.

I do not wish to be facetious but there are times when issues such as this arise. I have the highest respect for the individuals and the clinical issues involved, but there is sometimes a case for the medical community to gather in a large hall to sort out this type of matter.

Comhairle na nOspidéal is made up of a majority——

Comhairle's advice on services is non-binding.

——of medical personnel in terms of advising on strategies for the best deployment of medical personnel to achieve the best results for patients in a wide range of specialties.

It is unfair to suggest that the manager of a specific hospital is incompetent or negligent. This remark should be withdrawn in fairness to the individual concerned who cannot defend himself in the House. The manager and the hospital have received advice from the chief medical officer based on the Comhairle report. Even a lay person could see difficulties in Peamount continuing as a hospital given the absence of the requisite multidisciplinary consultant teams one would think would ordinarily be required for the admission and treatment of those who are acutely ill with TB. For example, the absence of a full-time respiratory physician and anaesthesia in the case of ventilation difficulties should be borne in mind. We have always been advised in terms of maternity and other specialties that the sooner they are located in acute hospitals and major teaching hospitals, the better.

That concludes Priority Questions.

I have one short supplementary question.

I accept there are probably issues to be considered in terms of implementation and the creation of a transitional period for such implementation. This Chamber cannot organise everything in every hospital in the country.

It has nothing organised.

That concludes Priority Questions.

May I ask one supplementary question since we are in ordinary time?

The Deputy is aware of the rules. It is a priority question and——

We are in ordinary time.

That does not matter. It is a priority question. We will proceed to Question No. 7, which is one of the ordinary questions. I remind Members that supplementary questions and the answers thereto are subject to time limits of one minute.

Barr
Roinn