Obstetrics service group suggested

Press, 10 November 1983, Page 7

Obstetrics service group suggested

Constant criticism aimed at Christchurch Women’s Hospital is one reason for the latest suggestion of an obstetrics service development group. The Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Medical Association has put the idea to the North Canterbury Hospital Board. Service development groups are a big part of proposed legislation to reorganise hospital boards into area health authorities. A board sub-committee of six was set up yesterday to investigate the proposal. The chairman of the board’s health services committee, Mrs L. C. Gardiner, said most board members agreed with such groups in principle but a lot of homework was needed to make them work. The Canterbury branch secretary of the association, Mr J. R. Doig, said after the committee meeting that one reason for the idea was to relieve pressure on Christchurch Women’s Hospital and provide a more evenly distributed standard of maternity care at other hospitals.

“At the moment we feel some people are placed at a disadvantage where they are forced to go to Burwood when they would prefer to go to Christchurch Women’s,” he said. Staff at Burwood Hospital did their best but it did not have the same facilities as the larger hospital. “There is also a feeling that perhaps a service development group would provide a more representative opinion from all obstetric users than at the moment when largely the specialists have the say,” Mr Doig said. “What we are trying to do is tone down a lot of the criticism and get a constructive policy that represents everyone’s views.” Board members felt that membership of the group should be limited to about 10. ' ■ ' The board’s chief executive officer, Mr R. I. Parker, told the committee it should look at how many service development groups it eventually wanted and their roles before deciding membership of just one group. Another problem was that group members might not be prepared to work the

long hours required without payment. Mr T. M. McGuigan said there was no reason why the sub-committee could not look at the wider implications of an obstetrics service development group. “I see no point in deferring discussion until we make up our minds whether we are going to have groups because that could go on and on,” he said.

The board’s medical superintendent-in-chief, Dr R. A. Fairgray, also presented a report on obstetric services. It summarised points of concern raised by the association, the Canterbury branch of the Royal College of General Practitioners, and other interest groups in the last year. Dr Fairgray said the board was still waiting for comments from the Royal College on several matters before it made any decisions. Unanswered points included procedures for referring patients with infertility problems to Christchurch Women’s Hospital, a general review of obstetric procedures, and the patient complaints system.