Debate contribution: Altnagelvin Hospital: Access to Accident and Emergency
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 21 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Altnagelvin Hospital: Access to Accident and Emergency
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4749975
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the discussion and thank the Member for bringing it to the House. I welcome the opportunity to put on record our sympathy with the hundreds, if not thousands, of families who feel failed by the situation at Altnagelvin, our solidarity with the super staff who are struggling day and night to see and care for a steady tsunami of patients and our support for any initiatives to improve the situation and any investment required to do so. Most of us will have borne witness to the huge demand at Altnagelvin. I had to bring my two-year-old son to accident and emergency one night in the run-up to Christmas. Believe it or not, it was not that easy a decision to make, knowing the pressure that staff and the system were under, but, on the advice of a health professional, we packed our bags and prepared for the long haul that lay ahead. Once there, I spoke with elderly patients who sat on chairs for hours on end, and families who lamented the lack of privacy and dignity as loved ones were treated in hospital corridors or cupboards. There was a look of sheer exhaustion on the faces of overstretched staff as they worked doubly hard again to cover for colleagues who had fallen foul of flu. Every patient to whom I spoke that night, and every person from whom I have heard since, or even before, about their Altnagelvin experience have praised the staff but cursed the system and the set-up. I should add that the care that our Naoise received and the reassurance that we, as parents, received that night was amazing. Of course, the problems that we see at the emergency department interface are symptomatic of many other problems that plague our health service, not just our hospitals, including a lack of access to care packages to let patients get home, workforce issues and delays in treatment and discharge. Many patients cite referrals from their GP, and others cite the fact that they could not get to see theirs. The issue is much wider than A&E alone, but that is where many of the problems come together. Combined with a combustible mix of people presenting in mental health crisis and others often under the influence of all sorts of substances, it creates a chaotic picture that leads some people in need of urgent care opting not to seek it. The Western Trust has made efforts. Plans for a new emergency department at Altnagelvin have been in the pipeline for some time. The trust does not need us to tell it that the current provision is not fit for purpose. Almost six years ago, we were told that the business case was submitted to the Department for consideration as part of its 10-year capital priorities plan, but the cash to deliver that upgrade was not there, and there was no voice in the Chamber at that time to do anything about it because the Assembly had collapsed. A new business case has been submitted. As others have said, we need to see that being progressed without delay. Other improvements have been made. We have seen the introduction of a children's area and the opening of a new minor injury unit, which aims to divert 17,000 patients a year away from the main ED. The patients are all singing its praises. The PSNI has a new custody suite, only across the road, and that takes another bit of pressure off. Despite those interventions and the Herculean efforts of our heroic health workers, the situation is worse than ever. Why? Years of inaction, underinvestment and political paralysis have pushed our health service into a state of emergency. There has been no driving of, or funding for, the transformation that we need. Instead, we have seen the collapse of services across the North and then a transformation or reconfiguration sticker put on them. It is evident that the situation at Altnagelvin has worsened since the reconfiguration at the SWAH and elsewhere, as Mr Delargy indicated. Have bed capacity and staffing resources at Altnagelvin been increased to cope with an increase in patient numbers? I have spoken before about the particular challenges that trusts face in border areas. We used to risk losing staff to Brisbane; now, they can go to Bridgend for better pay and conditions. That needs to be recognised in the capitation formula. The Member who secured this topic for debate called for a joined-up approach between trusts, the Department and community organisations, but we need to see a joined-up approach here and in the Executive. The Executive need to agree priorities and agree to fund priorities.
OK. The health and well-being of our constituents will always be our priority.
792 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.79 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.11 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.