5. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
What progress have district health boards made towards shorter stays in emergency departments for patients?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) Link to this
The latest quarterly health targets, to be released shortly, will show that a record 92 percent of emergency department patients were admitted, treated, or discharged within the 6-hour target. This compares with the endless stories of patients languishing in hospital corridors for days on end only a few short years ago. For example, 2 years ago the Auckland District Health Board was at 70 percent of the target, and it is now at 95 percent. The average time for a patient to get a bed at the Auckland emergency department and go into the ward has dropped from an average of 7 hours and 48 minutes to 1 hour and 18 minutes. Congratulations to the team at the Auckland District Health Board.
How long patients wait in an emergency department has a direct impact on the outcome of their care and their recovery. Hospitals around the country are being innovative in how they make waiting times shorter. The Canterbury District Health Board, for example, has met the 95 percent target, despite losing 100 beds as a result of the earthquake and the ongoing challenges the board faces, and, for example, a minor injuries clinic at Hutt Hospital has freed up emergency departments for more serious conditions. This is in stark contrast to just 3 years ago, when patients waited to be seen for days and days and days.
Grant RobertsonCan the Minister confirm that the criteria for his 6-hour target was met, when Chris Kennedy from Timaru waited for 6 hours at Timaru’s emergency department, and was seen by a nurse who took his temperature and then left; if so, does he think that might make his target somewhat meaningless?
Mr SPEAKERI could clarify that, I think, if I could seek the leave of the House to table—and I know this is unusual—the article from the Timaru Herald of 10 August that outlines the case I raised in my question.
Leave is sought to table the document. I do not normally allow tabling from newspapers, but the Minister in answering said he would need to check the veracity so I will put the leave to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
I would have to check that, because I recall that only a few weeks ago the member tabled letters, saying that they showed people had been cut from waiting lists, when in fact in researching the cases it was shown they were never even on a waiting list.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You allowed me to seek to table the document because of the Minister’s answer. I do wonder what is available to members when, having done that, they hear the claim repeated by the Minister—which is what he did. I do not know what members on this side of the House can do when Ministers repeat something that is out of order—when they question the word of another member. It is also out of order to interject—
No, no. That is it. Let me just warn members. It is just possible the House may go into urgency. A member thrown out may be out of this House for a long time this week, so I just suggest to members they think about that and behave a little. Grant Robertson has raised a point of order, and the only advice I can offer the member is that it is possible to think of a supplementary question that could tie the Minister down. That is the way, in my view, to deal with that situation. But I acknowledge the frustration—[ Interruption] I am on my feet. As Speaker, I cannot be held responsible if there are not sufficient supplementary questions, but that is the way I would deal with that situation. But I do not blame the member for feeling frustrated.