6. If it is found that section 64D has been properly enlivened, there is still the fact that it has happened to be considered. That in itself is relevant at an Inquest. It shows that the significance of an event has been appreciated by a hospital and proper inquiries of its own instituted. This is relevant in a consideration of the likelihood that the event may occur again, and any recommendation that the Coroner’s Court might make under section 25(2) of the Coroners Act 2003. I should point out that the Coroners Act 2003 expressly acknowledges section 64D. However, that provision simply provides that the Coroners Act 2003 does not derogate from section 64D; it does not affect anything I have said so far. As I have observed, section 64D protects confidential information. That is defined as information relating to the health service in the identity of the patient or person providing the service is revealed. The Royal Adelaide Hospital, in its written submissions, went so far as to claim that it would be contrary to section 64D to reveal whether a section 64D investigation has occurred because that would necessarily reveal the identity of the patient or the person providing the service. Nevertheless, the Royal Adelaide Hospital disclosed the fact that a review was conducted by the Neurosurgery Department under section 64D. I do not agree with the Royal Adelaide Hospital’s far reaching submissions as to disclosure of the fact that a section 64D inquiry has occurred. The confidential information protected by section 64D is information to a health service”. “relating A service” is defined in section 64D as follows: “health any service designed to promote health; or ‘(a) (b) any therapeutic or other service designed to cure, alleviate or afford protection against any mental or physical illness, abnormality or disability; or (c) any paramedical or ambulance service; or (d) any prescribed service;’ I do not consider that the information that a section 64D inquiry has been conducted is relating to a health service” within that definition. The conduct of a “information section 64D inquiry is not, in itself, the provision of a health service. I acknowledge that there is an argument that health service includes a service designed to promote health, and that an inquiry into an adverse event that is intended to prevent repetition
6. If it is found that section 64D has been properly enlivened, there is still the fact that it has happened to be considered. That in itself is relevant at an Inquest. It shows that the significance of an event has been appreciated by a hospital and proper inquiries of its own instituted. This is relevant in a consideration of the likelihood that the event may occur again, and any recommendation that the Coroner’s Court might make under section 25(2) of the Coroners Act 2003. I should point out that the Coroners Act 2003 expressly acknowledges section 64D. However, that provision simply provides that the Coroners Act 2003 does not derogate from section 64D; it does not affect anything I have said so far. As I have observed, section 64D protects confidential information. That is defined as information relating to the health service in the identity of the patient or person providing the service is revealed. The Royal Adelaide Hospital, in its written submissions, went so far as to claim that it would be contrary to section 64D to reveal whether a section 64D investigation has occurred because that would necessarily reveal the identity of the patient or the person providing the service. Nevertheless, the Royal Adelaide Hospital disclosed the fact that a review was conducted by the Neurosurgery Department under section 64D. I do not agree with the Royal Adelaide Hospital’s far reaching submissions as to disclosure of the fact that a section 64D inquiry has occurred. The confidential information protected by section 64D is information “relating to a health service”. A “health service” is defined in section 64D as follows: ‘(a) any service designed to promote health; or (b) any therapeutic or other service designed to cure, alleviate or afford protection against any mental or physical illness, abnormality or disability; or (c) any paramedical or ambulance service; or (d) any prescribed service;’ I do not consider that the information that a section 64D inquiry has been conducted is “information relating to a health service” within that definition. The conduct of a section 64D inquiry is not, in itself, the provision of a health service. I acknowledge that there is an argument that health service includes a service designed to promote health, and that an inquiry into an adverse event that is intended to prevent repetition
CAMPANELLA%20Cosmo%20Joseph.docx