‘All possible being done for elderly’, say Bd officers

Press, 1 July 1978, Page 8

‘All possible being done for elderly’, say Bd officers

By

JOHN BROWN

Senior officers of the North Canterbury Hospital Board are adamant that all possible is being done for the future care of Christchurch’s elderly. This view is not shared by some board members, who feel they have not been kept fully informed about proposals which will i affect more than 30,000 elderly people. , Inquiries show that few i board members seem aware of new proposals which might use S4M of public money, and fewer still have anything but a hazy knowledge of plans which will cost even more.

The proposals concern the suggested use of. the Christichurch Women’s Hospital as | a geriatric unit; the buildling of the city’s second geriatric assessment and rehabilitation unit at Burwood Hospital for about SIM; the proposal for a S3M second day hospital at Burwood; and for an important extention to home nursing care of the elderly.

The present controversy over the proposal to turn the Christchurch Women’s Hospital into a geriatric unit has stirred up a hornet’s nest because some members of the board assumed that the decision was “cut and dried”; some have never given it any serious consideration, and others believe they have been ill-informed about the background to the proposal. An attempt to clear up the confusion over the Women’s) Hospital proposal was made' at a special meeting of some of the board and representatives of the elderly on Wednesday. In a further move to counter criticism of the board’s handling of plans for care of the elderly, the board’s chief executive (Mr R. I. Parker) asked me to a special press conference yesterday.

I was given a report prepared by the board’s medical superintendent-in-chief (Dr

L.McH. Berry) which only a handful of board members have seen. The report gave clear recommendations from the Geriatric Advisory Committee chaired by Dr Berry. It was dated March 8, 1977. This committee has no formal status on the Hospital Board and is advisory only to Dr Berry who from time to time makes verbal reports on the committee’s deliberations ito the full board. The committee has never discussed the proposed use of the Christchurch Women’s Hospital as a geriatric unit. A prepared statement was given to me over the signa-1 Itures of Dr R. A. Fair-, ;gray, acting medical) I superintendent-in-chief, and' 'Dr Margaret Guthrie, nis I I assistant.

In this statement and in subsequent discussions with Dr Fairgrav and Dr Guthrie, the chairman of the board (Mr T. H. Grigg), and Mr Parker, it was said that the board was doing all it could to overcome problems in caring for the elderly.

The group was referring to staffing problems at the Princess Margaret Hospital geriatric assessment unit; planning for the S3M geriatric dav hospital to be built near the unit; and for extensions to the unit.

Dr Guthrie and Dr Fairgray and Messrs Grigg and Parker emphasised the important part played by Dr Berry’s Geriatric Advisory Committee in planning. It is this committee, however, which many board members feel is not making enough information available to the full board.

The March 8, 1977. report on priorities suggested bv Dr Berry’s Geriatric Advisory Committee said that “efforts should be maintained to recruit additional staff (for the assessment unit). Further medical staff would be the key to many of our present problems.”

The board has, however, been unable to fill these posts in spite of personal approaches, which Dr Fairgray

said had been made to many highly qualified persons. In the report Dr Berry had emphasised that the proposed day hospital was “of the highest priority.” But yesterday the group said that even if a geriatrician was appointed immediately to lead the unit it could not be opened in less than 18 months.

When I asked why the day hospital—which Dr Berry’s committee considered in March last year should be “regarded as our major development”—had not proceeded faster, Dr Fairgray |and Mr Grigg said that little progress could be made until' I a geriatrician was appointed, i Development of the hospital 'depended very much on 'what the head geriatrician might decide for the pro- ' posed day hospital. | Advances made in the care of the elderly since Dr Berry’s committee placed them on the priority list last year include the post to coordinate support services to the elderly. This step is a reflection of the board’s positive attitude of consulting with other agencies working with the elderly. The post of co-ordinator has been set up with a $125,000 Government grant and the leader, Mr Peter Andrew, has started work. The board has also acted on other priorities suggested by Dr Berry’s committee. It has set up extended home care for the elderly in the fields of physiotherapy, occupational therapy and some social work. There has been no action on extending the assessment unit to 142 beds from its present 68, as urged by Dr Berry last year. Another two of his priorities, the second assessment unit at Burwood Hospital and a further geriatric day hospital attached to it, have not got to drawing board stage.

The extension of the home nursing service to the elderly as outlined yesterday by Dr Guthrie will be a “crisis team” to cope with problems which occur aftei

the present nursing service for the elderly at home finishes at night. This proposal is unknown to three members of the board spoken to yesterday after my meeting "with Dr Guthrie, Dr Fairgray, Messrs Grigg and Parker. Doctor Fairgray said that many of the proposals fo: care of the elderly were

• “board business.” He sugi gested that many were “purely medical decisions” and were not always for public consumption. When I suggested that many board members and representatives of the elderly thought the proposal to use the Christchurch Women’s Hospital as a geriatric unit was “now board policy” I was told that there was “no policy” on the issue. The group, however, agreed that no other proposal had been pursued with the same vigour as had the geriatric proposal. Doctor Fairgray suggested that the other alternatives had not been released for “public consumption.” However, I pointed out that Dr Berry had released them at a public meeting of the board early last year. t Mr Parker then . produced the report used by Dr Berry at that time. This showed that, with the geriatric hospital proposal, the other alternatives were an alcoholism unit, hostel beds to serve medical areas at Christchurch Hospital, shortstay accommodation for handicapped persons, and use of the building for medical teaching. None of these proposals has ever been seriously canvassed by the board. When it was suggested to the group that the representatives of the elderly wished to see more status given to the Geriatric Advisory Committee with direct access to the full board, Dr Fairgray and Dr Guthrie said that “to single out geriatrics and devise new channels of communication to the board would be a dangerous and undesirable precedent.”