[SWP] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:47 pm
Well it took six weeks, but they did eventually reply:
Hi Aidan
Thank you for your email. Please refer to the responses to your questions below.
Conspicuously absent was any mention of option zero (keeping the WCH in its current location). Did you neglect to consider it?
The original Business Case identified that rebuilding on the existing site was not efficient or economical and would incur significant disruption to the existing healthcare services. The Government has committed to relocating the New WCH to the broader Adelaide Biomedical Precinct.
Option 1 scored poorly because of lack of opportunities to extend the RAH. But was the possibility of an underground extension (beneath the parklands) considered?
Due to flood levels, the post disaster requirements and resilient design mean critical services underground is not a viable option. The review also explored undergrounding the train line with this option being extremely disruptive and costly.
Why would option 3b block off Hindley Street rather than extend it?
(They seem to have missed that my original question said …extend above it?)
Locating critical care services on one floor was a key issue raised by clinicians during consultation and is considered by the Women’s and Children’s Health Network as the clinically optimal model. In light of this, building over Hindley Street was required to achieve a floor plate of 18-20,000sqm to accommodate Critical Care Services, Birthing, Theatres, 23-hour ward, Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and Neonatal ICU all on one floor in this option. To achieve this, Hindley Street would need to be closed for traffic.
Was the option of a tunnel instead of a footbridge considered for option 3?
Due to underground services and connectivity to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, a bridge provided a better, more efficient and direct connection.
Why is option 3's location on major roads considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage?
Traffic flows and management need to be maintained in this heavily utilised area and introduction of increased flows is seen as a disadvantage, particularly for emergency access at times of peak demand.
How much of option 3’s low clinical score was due to architectural decisions rather than factors intrinsic to the site?
Options 3A and 3B scored lower clinically as they do not provide for optimal ambulance access due to the location of the land area and the traffic volume that uses that area. This location, situated adjacent to two major arterial roads, with very heavy traffic volumes would create significant issues in terms of ambulance access. These options were considered to provide a very poor solution to a safe and time critical emergency pathway to provide response for critically unstable patients (women) and subsequent transfers between the New WCH and the Royal Adelaide Hospital. It was considered that these options had poor access to Aboriginal and culturally sensitive and family-friendly environments and very poor access to Park Lands. Additionally, these options were discounted due to cost.
Why wasn’t a hybrid option with part of the hospital south of North Terrace considered?
The Government is committed to an integrated New Women’s and Children’s Hospital and the proposal to locate part of the hospital on the south side of North Terrace would not achieve this, resulting in a separation of critical care services, duplication of functions and would not meet the identified clinical requirements that are achieved in the proposed solution.
Kind regards
The New WCH Project Team.
Hi Aidan
Thank you for your email. Please refer to the responses to your questions below.
Conspicuously absent was any mention of option zero (keeping the WCH in its current location). Did you neglect to consider it?
The original Business Case identified that rebuilding on the existing site was not efficient or economical and would incur significant disruption to the existing healthcare services. The Government has committed to relocating the New WCH to the broader Adelaide Biomedical Precinct.
Option 1 scored poorly because of lack of opportunities to extend the RAH. But was the possibility of an underground extension (beneath the parklands) considered?
Due to flood levels, the post disaster requirements and resilient design mean critical services underground is not a viable option. The review also explored undergrounding the train line with this option being extremely disruptive and costly.
Why would option 3b block off Hindley Street rather than extend it?
(They seem to have missed that my original question said …extend above it?)
Locating critical care services on one floor was a key issue raised by clinicians during consultation and is considered by the Women’s and Children’s Health Network as the clinically optimal model. In light of this, building over Hindley Street was required to achieve a floor plate of 18-20,000sqm to accommodate Critical Care Services, Birthing, Theatres, 23-hour ward, Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and Neonatal ICU all on one floor in this option. To achieve this, Hindley Street would need to be closed for traffic.
Was the option of a tunnel instead of a footbridge considered for option 3?
Due to underground services and connectivity to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, a bridge provided a better, more efficient and direct connection.
Why is option 3's location on major roads considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage?
Traffic flows and management need to be maintained in this heavily utilised area and introduction of increased flows is seen as a disadvantage, particularly for emergency access at times of peak demand.
How much of option 3’s low clinical score was due to architectural decisions rather than factors intrinsic to the site?
Options 3A and 3B scored lower clinically as they do not provide for optimal ambulance access due to the location of the land area and the traffic volume that uses that area. This location, situated adjacent to two major arterial roads, with very heavy traffic volumes would create significant issues in terms of ambulance access. These options were considered to provide a very poor solution to a safe and time critical emergency pathway to provide response for critically unstable patients (women) and subsequent transfers between the New WCH and the Royal Adelaide Hospital. It was considered that these options had poor access to Aboriginal and culturally sensitive and family-friendly environments and very poor access to Park Lands. Additionally, these options were discounted due to cost.
Why wasn’t a hybrid option with part of the hospital south of North Terrace considered?
The Government is committed to an integrated New Women’s and Children’s Hospital and the proposal to locate part of the hospital on the south side of North Terrace would not achieve this, resulting in a separation of critical care services, duplication of functions and would not meet the identified clinical requirements that are achieved in the proposed solution.
Kind regards
The New WCH Project Team.
