Dr Megan Brooks gives explosive evidence to parli committee

Explosive claims of political intimidation of a top doctor, flawed investigations of deaths, refusal to investigate clusters of adverse patient events, and more were made at a parliamentary hearing.

Bombshell evidence at a parliamentary committee hearing alleges a crown solicitor’s letter from the Attorney-General’s Department threatened a top doctor with a maladministration and misconduct investigation for “embarrassing the state”, after she made contact with a coroner over multiple deaths linked to ramping.

Former medical director of the Royal Adelaide Hospital emergency department Dr Megan Brooks — at one stage her voice wavering — said even now: “I remain concerned, such was the tenor of the correspondence from the Attorney-General.”

Dr Megan Brooks said she was placed in an incredibly difficult position, noting it was “unique in Australia to have someone prevented from giving evidence to the Coroner.”

In evidence to the health services committee Dr Brooks said she was placed in an incredibly difficult position, noting it was “unique in Australia to have someone prevented from giving evidence to the Coroner.”

She was granted immunity by the Coroner’s Court to give evidence about the deaths of Anna Vincenza Panella, Bernard Anthony Skeffington, and Graham Henry Jessett, linked to ambulance ramping.

However, she received correspondence from the department “which was horrible for a clinician, to be talking about my motivations for doing this.”

“It was deeply upsetting to have my motivations questioned, to say I somehow had an agenda to embarrass the state or anything other than that,” she said.

“I’ve only ever sought to be a good representative clinician and try and have good outcomes for my patients, and to have people infer that I’ve leaked things to the media … I never did that. I’m an incredibly committed public servant, and to have those kind of assertions made about me was really hurtful.”

Dr Brooks continued: “It was also made very clear in that correspondence to me they would be looking to investigate me for maladministration or misconduct as a public sector employee because I made myself aware to the Coroner.”

Dr Brooks’ immunity was quashed by a Supreme Court appeal by the government, but she was later allowed to give evidence — on condition she was not questioned by her own lawyer.

Further explosive evidence includes that the Griggs McNeil report, into clinicians’ claims ambulance arrivals leapfrogging more serious cases in waiting rooms had led to deaths, was flawed.

Explosive evidence about patient deaths in hospitals. Picture: Calum Robertson

Dr Brooks said the investigators made a basic mistake by looking in the wrong place in SA Health’s record system for evidence of such catastrophes, noting she was not questioned by the inquiry.

She also said senior RAH management refused her requests for inquiries into “clusters” of adverse events for patients including one who died.

Dr Brooks resigned from the RAH ED in December 2022, saying the state of its emergency department “offends the very humanity” of doctors working there and SA Health was bleeding cash due to “delusional” accounting.

She was in charge of the move to the $2.7bn new RAH in 2017 and gave an alarming account of the changeover, saying the design of the new ED caused immediate problems.

Management reassurances that a “quick look” triage system would speed patient flow proved to be a spectacular failure, phones issued to staff for emergencies did not work and clinicians “took in sleeping bags” to sleep in offices amid growing chaos.

Dr Brooks said it would be naive to think ramping would be fixed by this time next year.

Responding to Dr Brook’s evidence given, a government spokesperson refuted her claims, and said the correspondence to Dr Brooks was from the Crown Solicitor's Office, and not the A-G himself.

“The government sought judicial review of the issuing of a certificate by the Deputy State Coroner,” a spokesperson said.

“The judicial review of the issuing of a certificate was initiated to ensure that the granting of immunity was lawful, as it was the first issuing of such a certificate in South Australian coronial proceedings.

“In December 2024, the Supreme Court determined that the certificate had not been issued in accordance with the law.

“As is usual practice, the Crown Solicitor’s Office represented the Government in these proceedings and all relevant correspondence was between them and Ms Brooks’ legal representatives.“

Originally published as Dr Megan Brooks gives explosive evidence to parli committee