Co-location Opinion Piece From The Advertiser

The arguments of Dr Chris Cain (Advertiser, 17/3/09) do not ring true.

He shows no interest in discussing one of the central themes of the debate – the cooperative co-location of RAH with academic institutions, the IMVS and the world renowned Hanson Institute.

Dr Cain reminds us that the RAH “is in need of redevelopment” but is unaware that the process began in 1997, is more than 50% completed and an estimated $130 million has been spent in rebuilding and refurbishing the “central” block and the new “P Wing”. More than 15 separate high cost areas have been brought up to world standard and these include Intensive Care, Emergency Department, Burns Unit, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Radiology etc.

This is far better value than the waste of $1.7 billion of tax-payer money which duplicates our flagship hospital.

Even though we read that he is a Senior Visiting Specialist to the RAH Spinal Unit, he makes no mention that the Spinal Department offices are brand new and that the Spinal Ward is currently being expanded and reconfigured to occupy the entire 4th Floor of R Block.

In a tone similar to Health Minister John Hill’s opinion piece of 12/2/09 (Advertiser), he forecasts uncertainties about our needs “beyond 2015”, “workforce dynamics” and “population growth”. He predicts that we will need “more inpatient beds” but fails to point out that the railway-sited RAH will have the same number as the existing one (around 700).

The current RAH, he laments, cannot accommodate changes because these “just will not fit” but again he ignores the 1997 Redevelopment which was devised and approved by the same government experts who are now critical of it.

He continues. On average, patients will be “around 70 years” of age and will have at least “two co-morbidities” (significant medical complaints). What relevance does it have to the location of the RAH?

Dr Cain solemnly reminds us that single rooms will deliver “holistic care in a well supervised and monitored environment”. (As if supervision and monitoring of patients and trainees do not exist in these times but will only be introduced in 2016).

He omits that the new site will have only 60% single rooms (currently 25%).

Our Nostradamus is confident that care will be “world class” but does not provide proof or a guarantee. Having abandoned $1 billion in health assets at the world famous Frome Road site, we are reassured that “operating theatres, imaging, research and educational facilities” will be “state of the art” – they already are!

Continuing his aversion for the existing site, he offers outrageous and untrue excuses for not rebuilding such as “about 20%” of the hospital “will have to be closed or vacated”. Obviously, he has been oblivious to the rebuilding that has been going on around him during the last decade. It should be proof to him that such tasks can be completed without disruption as has occurred at RAH and capital cities all over the world.

Lastly, Dr Cain paraphrases others about the things that determine “reputation and status” of a hospital. He has twisted and completely missed the wisdom of the commonly-heard saying – “it’s not bricks and mortar which make up institutions, it’s the people who work inside them”.