Transforming Health: SA to have fewer hospital beds in the future because we won’t need them

FEWER public hospital beds, doctors and nurses — but more efficiency, so patients don’t need them — are the core of the Transforming Heath program, its ambassador has admitted.

Generic photo of a hospital corridor. Picture: iStock

• Government’s new health plan unveiled
• $142m bid to upgrade Flinders Medical Centre
• Doctors warn against hospital changes
• Adelaide hospital can’t accept ambulances

FEWER public hospital beds, doctors and nurses — but more efficiency, so patients don’t need them — are the core of the Transforming Heath program, its ambassador has admitted.

Querying payments for the program, State Parliament’s Public Works Committee was told it would result in efficiencies and fewer beds.

It came as a petition with almost 85,000 signatures was tabled in State Parliament opposing the closure of the Repatriation General Hospital.

Liberal MPs Michael Pengilly and Tim Whetstone repeatedly asked for a “yes or no” answer to whether there would be more or fewer hospital beds, doctors and nurses under the plan.

Project ambassador Professor Dorothy Keefe declined to answer in those terms, saying efficiencies would reduce the need for beds.

She was backed by former minimiser Paul Caica who noted ruefully as a “failed footballer” that his knee operation that required eight days in hospital some decades ago was now a day surgery procedure.

“Eight people can go though that bed,” he said.

Prof Keefe repeatedly dodged the “yes or no”question about fewer beds by saying the efficiency of a new health system would negate the need for people to spend long periods in hospital.

“We will not need as many (beds) as we have now,” Prof Keefe said.

She told the committee that fewer beds would be needed because people were moving through faster, and the old style idea of hospital dormitories full of patients waiting for days to be discharged had passed.

Labor committee members told The Advertiser that fewer beds were needed because of huge advances in medical care meaning less time in hospital, while Liberal MPs said it was simply cutbacks in care.

Meanwhile, Mr Caica tried to put an age on ageing.

Multimillion-dollar plans in Transforming Heath and new health projects variously talk about ‘ageing’ ‘the elderly’ and ‘older Australians’ including millions of dollars set aside for just such people.

Mr Caica asked the cut-off age to define such people and received no set answer, with officials saying people with conditions traditionally linked to older people can get them while young.

“Old? I guess it is anyone older than me — I’m 58,” Mr Caica said while going off for a customary smoke.

“At 30 years, old age was anyone 40, at 40 it was anyone over 50, at now 58 it is anyone older than me. There’s a bit of politically correctness in all of this.”

Officials said the cut-off was based on need, not age — so elderly, aged and older people can now included teenagers under definitions being used by Health SA to assess people with conditions such as dementia.