Five years wait for urology theatre

THE EDITOR: In the 1999/2000 Budget, the sum of $3 million was promised to the urology doctors at SFGH for private operations as a “waiting list initiative.” The doctors decided that the money would best be spent to create a special Urology Ward and Urology Theatre, with long-term benefits. Waiting list initiatives are “quick fix” publicity campaigns that are expensive and in the long run, unsuccessful. It was only in 2002, three years later just before the General Elections was there any effort to equip and open the Urology Ward. Today, in 2004, five years later, we await the 2004/05 Budget. Today, in 2004, five years later, we still await the opening of the Urology Theatre. The major stumbling block at this time seems to be operating tables. Two tables with urology specifications were ordered. The successful tender was approved.

Only, the two tables on that tender were not delivered. Two different tables were delivered, with missing attachments. In an effort to get things started, attempts are being made by the SWRHA to accept and utilise the tables, hopefully with the necessary attachments. One hopes that the bidder will be reprimanded, penalised and fined. One also hopes that a monetary refund is forthcoming from the bidder. Many experienced theatre nurses have since expressed interest in working in the Urology Theatre on a permanent or contract basis. The urologists needed to perform the surgeries are presently employed in junior positions but will need promotion as Specialist Medical Officers and Registrars. Of course, more junior doctors will be required to support the urologists.

Even the radiographers are keen to use the new C-Arm unit to obtain immediate x-rays in theatre, thus allowing them to increase the number of patients in their department. These patients can then be done as day-cases, further reducing in-patient stay and increasing the number of operating cases. The Urology Department has done a study which has shown that the lack of operating time has resulted, for patients with prostate cancer as an example, in increased cost of care by utilising injection therapy ($54,000 vs $4,500). This study was presented in Trinidad and Tobago, Caribbean Health Research Conference in Grenada and again at the Faculty of Medical Sciences Conference in October 2004 at Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex. So while many patients are suffering, taxpayers are paying extra for the fortunate few who receive the therapy. But seriously, waiting for more than five years is too long for a life that is so short.

PHILIP AYOUNG-CHEE FRCS
San Fernando