Doctors who care for some of WA's most sick children fear plans to move the state's main women's and babies' hospital south of the river risk increased "mortality and morbidity" of critically unwell infants.

I don’t really understand why KEMH being ~100 years old is such a problem, as indicated? This is the reason for the move given by the Premier.

So, whats with the rush to get out of KEMH?

  • NathMA
    1·
    1 year ago

    There are lots of advantages to the KEHM site. It’s a lot more central. It’s very close to Charlie’s and the Children’s hospitals in Nedlands. Moving to Murdoch has to have several disadvantages besides the money it’ll cost to move operations.

    Someone has convinced the government to spend Millions on this move. I assume the disadvantages to the current building are unsurmountable. I don’t know what the 20-year delay is about, but I can see that being a major factor in this decision.

    I don’t buy the risk of moving patients between Murdoch and PCH argument. Each individual patient transfer will be assessed at the time. If there’s a risk with a neonatal kid being moved from one site to the other, they simply won’t do it. If this leads to Murdoch becoming something of a second paediatric hospital to care for kids close by, that’s a long-term advantage.

    There are a lot of people down there who will find Murdoch easier to get to than Nedlands. I’m only 10-15km from the Nedlands site, and it takes me up to 30 minutes to get there. I can’t imagine how hard it is for someone down Cockburn way.

    • Gorgritch_Umie_KillaOPM
      2·
      1 year ago

      Maybe thats part of the reason. The few times i’ve been to the PCH/Charlies precinct it has seemed fairly squashed in as well. So construction time delays, and maybe, ongoing access issues are driving this.