Hospital changes will come at a real cost

OUR city health leaders and planners are decommissioning planned highneeds mental health older persons beds at the new Dunedin hospital by half because they believe the patients don't need to be there and the community can pick them up.

In my opinion, as an experienced community mental health support worker for a nongovernment organisation, we can’t do that now.

I professionally can’t facilitate a transition between mental health and elder needs assessments and am told there are no beds. I can’t access a future pathway plan for elder persons from the community to resthomelevel care, and now I am being told the future best plan is to put same highneeds people back into the community?

In my humble opinion, our wider community, generally, is not well resourced and has access issues to primary health care, accommodation and poverty. Within this community, among the ageing demographic, from within the supportworking network we are struggling to find pathways for adequate, successionplanned healthcare.

As a frontline community worker, I can no longer effectively do my job and I am arguably part of the problem. Our elderly ‘‘failing’’ — i.e. stuck in mental health wards or refused access to primary care — is a symptom of systemic failure.

J. Davidson Pu¯ra¯kaunui

PETE Hodgson seems to regard the design changes to Dunedin's new hospital as minor, and thinks we're going to end up with ‘‘a bloody brilliant hospital’’ (ODT, 30.1.23).

Let's go back a few decades and imagine the discussion taking place as the Beehive is being planned. The budget has blown out, money must be saved, the country can't afford what was regarded as appropriate, indeed necessary, for our politicians to operate.

Where to start? Bellamys? That can go — there's a McDonald's just across the road. An office for each member? Surely they can share those meeting rooms down the corridor . . . wait, why not use that old building? It's only a short walk across the grounds. And one day we might afford a covered way between that and our new building.

But what about a common room where ideas can be sparked and discussed, networks formed and connections made? Well, we could keep the space and maybe fit it out later: we can't afford everything right now.

But these are just tweaks: we'll still end up with a state of the art debating chamber, much better than the old one.

How would you have felt about that, Mr Hodgson? All in all, you'd have ended up with a bloody brilliant hospital — I mean Parliament building. Adrian Turner

Paekakariki

I HAVE to take issue with Ingrid

Leary’s statement (ODT 2.2.23) about the paper’s coverage of the decision to save $90 million on the hospital building.

My perception is that both the council and the ODT are simply reflecting the widespread anger and concern in the community that essential amenities will be lost as a result of the cuts. If some of the statements made in articles and letters to the paper are illinformed, that is the result of our having received little official information.

It now appears that the reduction in the number of MHSOP beds from 24 to 12 is based on the assumption that there will be appropriate care provided in the community. This is highly unlikely to be implemented until well after the new hospital is completed. What happens to the growing number of older people needing mental health care in the meantime?

Rosemary Hudson Maori Hill [Abridged] .....................................

Be sure your sin will find you out. — Numbers 32.23.