Labour member hits Hospital Bd

Press, 26 July 1978, Page 6

Labour member hits Hospital Bd

HEALTH REPORTER

The North Canterbury Hospital Board is failing in its duty to the public because of piecemeal planning, lack of information to board members, and a “head in the sand” attitude to local needs and social change, according to Mrs M. McG. Clark, the] sole Labour member of the board. Recent articles by John Brown in "The Press” about geriatric care in Christchurch had highlighted thej lack of information which many board members felt hampered their work, she said yesterday. A lot of verbal information ; had been made available i about Canterbury’s 35.000 old; people, but there were few written reports and almost; a complete absence of accurate details about progressiveplanning. Seven projects, with an estimated total expenditure of SIOM, were listed by Mrs; Clark as part of a “planning shambles.”

These were proposals for a body scanner, two geriatric day hospitals, an extension to the geriatric unit at Princess Margaret Hospital, proposals to meet the demands caused by the closure of Karitane Hospital in December, and the board's policy to convert Christchurch Women’s Hospital to a geriatric unit.

"There is no detailed overall plan," she said. “If we want information about what is going on, we are told we can ask for it. There is nothing to give us accurate information. and few board members know in detail where we are going.” Too many decisions were being made to please authorities in Wellington, and too little notice was taken of local needs. "No matter what political! party is in power, the dutvi of this board should be seen; to be to the people of this area. At present I feel it is! not,” said Mrs Clark.

The question of the future use of Christchurch Women’s Hospital highlighted the •’sloppy-minded thinking” which surrounds much board planning. A feasibility study on the proposal to convert the hospital to geriatric care gave no estimate of cost. Few board members even knew

how much the feasibility study itself cost, she said. “This report was not made available to all board members. We surely represent the public. How can we act when we are not given information.”

I Community involvement in planning was almost nil and board members “daily” heard from staff about mistakes in board planning. ! “Too much is glossed over Iby medical staff, who still j adopt a fatherly attitude to any attempts to unearth con- | Crete information." i The time should be long ;gone when “some doctors” | could surround themselves (with a mystique more appropriate to the times when hosipital boards were charitable I institutions. “Too many i medical people forget thev are servants of the public system.” Mrs Clark said one answer to many problems both for board staff and the public, was a proper information section.

The board employed 6000 people and what it did affected many thousands of people. “Yet its attitude to publicity and information is almost Victorian.” Many board members were critical about the proposal to change the use of Christchurch Women’s Hospital, she said. Many thought the decision to turn it into a geriatric unit was a “fait accompli.” “In fact, we have never been given any accurate information on why it should change its present role. Until jwe know this, how can we know why this move is so eagerly sought by the medical people, and how can we decide it is board •policy’." Mrs Clark received 26,129 (votes in the last local body . election, and topped the poll for the hospital board. She is serving her third term on lit.

When asked yesterday to comment whether it was “board policy” to convert the hospital to geriatric use, the board’s chairman (Mr T. C. Grigg) said that the policy decision was made in 1975.

It was "splitting hairs,” said Mr Grigg, to suggest that “board policy” meant the board was committed to any course.

Mr Grigg agreed that the possible use of Christchurch Women’s Hospital as a geriatric unit was the only one of six proposals which had received any serious consideration.

“The board is not committed to go ahead with the [geriatric] proposal. Perhaps we have used the wrong word when we said ‘board policy.’ Proposal might have been a better word,” Mr Grigg said. The board had to find a “justified” use for the hospital building if it wished to proceed with planning for a new Christchurch Women’s on the Christchurch Hospital site, he said.

The cost of converting the hospital to a geriatric unit could not be estimated so far ahead: the board’s advisers were better employed on current programmes, he said. Mr Grigg said that the feasibility study on Christchurch Women’s was still with the board’s policy committee. It would be released “eventually” to the whole board.

The decision to move Christchurch Women’s was taken for “medical reasons,” he said. These related to the need to link surgical work at the hospital with other surgical units on the Christchurch Hospital site.

To Mrs Clark’s comments about the need for an information section for the board, Mr Grigg said that this was being investigated.