Redevelopment plan for hospital

Press, 11 September 1986, Page 3

Redevelopment plan for hospital

A free-standing neo-na-tal unit, designed to replace the present overcrowded facilities, is one of the key features in a $2 million redevelopment proposal for Christchurch Women’s Hospital. A report to the Canterbury Hospital Board’s health services committee has recommended that the neo-natal unit be developed near the hospital’s labour ward. The unit would take up to five years to complete. In the interim the hospital’s ward four would be altered to enlarge the existing neo-natal inten-sive-care ward. The 20-bed obstetric unit at Burwood Hospital would once the unit was set up be relocated to ward four.

Gynaecological wards one and two would also be altered so that each housed 25 patients and ward three would be developed into an ante-natal obstetric ward.

The redevelopment would solve most of the obstetrical problems facing the board, said the board’s medical superin-

tendent-in-chief, Dr Ross Fairgray. Present facilities were inadequate and overcrowded. The hospital, which provided regional obstetric, gynaecological, and neonatal services, was a modified version of what was originally an obstetric unit designed for about 100 patients and known as St Helens Hospital. The hospital, which now has about 160 beds, provided high-quality care in spite of limitations. There were no special facilities for ante-natal patients who needed to be admitted to hospital before delivery, except in exceptional cases. Obstetric services were fragmented in Canterbury with, excluding the private hospital, St George’s, 2700 deliveries at Christchurch Women’s Hospital and about 1200 at Burwood Hospital each year. Centralising obstetric services would justify the appointment of a specialist anaesthetist and would prevent duplication of staff and services.

The neo-natal intensivecare unit, with facilities for six babies, was too small and usually overcrowded, he said. Its location, in what was originally a link corridor joining two wards, was on a top floor, and too far from the obstetric delivery suite. Gynaecological services were of a good standard, but the physical layout was inadequate and inefficient, with four wards each housing from 12 to 20 patients at a time. The proposal was drawn up by the board’s medical advisory committee, based on Health Department recommendations. The estimated cost of the proposal was slightly more than that estimated for the department’s proposals, but Dr Fairgray said the additional cost was justified because the services would be better, over-all maintenance costs would be less, and the unit at Burwood Hospital would be available for other services at little extra cost.