Marshall Liberal Government releases ‘secret’ Royal Adelaide Hospital safety report

SA HEALTH has 90 days to get the $2.3 billion Royal Adelaide Hospital into shape or risk losing accreditation needed for the hospital to function.

• Introducing the new Royal Adelaide Hospital
• Feds ‘deeply concerned’ over unreleased RAH report
• Incoming health minister faces first landmine
• Nurses threaten action over new RAH safety concerns

SA HEALTH has 90 days to get the $2.3 billion Royal Adelaide Hospital into shape or risk losing accreditation needed for the hospital to function.

A damning report into safety and quality issues — buried during the election campaign — shows “risks to patient safety”. The independent investigation found 24 areas, including seven “core” areas, where critical safety and quality standards were not met at the RAH and its nearby sister facilities.

All core issues must be met for a health service to be accredited by the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards.

Three of these core areas relate to medication safety and management — with the risk it could “result in patient harm” — while another centred on lack of information being passed on to GPs for ongoing management of patients.

Another area deemed not up to scratch was efforts to minimise risks to patient safety. This was given a “moderate risk” rating, with the warning that not identifying risks and managing them “could impact on patient safety”.

Investigators singled out lack of action on risks identified in a Mental Health Service ligature audit.

SA Health Minister Stephen Wade speaks to the media about the report. Picture: David Mariuz

Eight of the 24 areas not up to standard had a “moderate” risk rating, including five of the seven core areas, while the rest were rated as “low” risk.

SA Health received the report on March 5 and has until June 3 to rectify the issues or face losing accreditation to operate — a situation that new Health Minister Stephen Wade said could see the hospital unable to function.

However, the assessor is more likely to grant an extension if it believes genuine efforts to rectify the situation are under way.

“SA Health has 90 days to June 3 to respond to the issues raised and if they are not addressed to the satisfaction of the agency, accreditation could well be lost,” Mr Wade said.

“If the accreditor decides not to renew accreditation, my understanding is it (the RAH) will not continue to operate. Obviously the agency will take into consideration the action plan, but it is a matter for the accreditors.”

Labor refused to release the report during the election campaign, saying it was in caretaker mode and it was an interim report — a defence Mr Wade rejected as he used his first day in the job to release it. He noted there was no indication it was an interim report.

The report covers the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, including the RAH and Queen Elizabeth Hospital as well as the Hampstead and Glenside facilities.

The 17 “developmental” areas that did not meet standards include help for patients who don’t understand their healthcare rights, ensuring patients/carers are actively involved in decision making, training issues, and ensuring consumers understand issues around blood transfusions.

Another area with a series of failures to meet standards was ensuring mechanisms are in place for a patient/carer to initiate an escalation of care.

Mr Wade said the public had a right to know the contents of the report before the election.

“Given that this matter was a significant issue in the campaign, the people of South Australia had the right to know that their new $2.3 billion hospital had not met accreditation standards before casting their ballots for a new government,” he said.

Mr Wade likened the situation to the recent education debacle when TAFE courses lost accreditation.

Australian Medical Association state president Associate Professor William Tam urged SA Health to work closely with clinicians to resolve outstanding issues at the RAH.

“Doctors, nurses and the broader team at the RAH are working hard to make the most of this brand-new facility and the promise it offers,” he said.

“But there are clearly issues that remain to be resolved. The most important priority is the safety and quality of the care, and any issues raised by accrediting agencies — or those working on the ground in the hospital — must be addressed as a matter of urgent priority.

“This report highlights a range of areas to be addressed. The public can be reassured the risks have been assessed as low or moderate. But risks are still risks, and it is important that all standards are passed. Our community and our patients deserve no less.”