Member's statement: Altnagelvin Area Hospital: Emergency Department Waiting Times
Member's statement by Mr Pádraig Delargy on .
- MLA
- Mr Pádraig Delargy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 27 May 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Altnagelvin Area Hospital: Emergency Department Waiting Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4971999
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I raise a matter of pressing concern in my constituency. We all know that waiting times in Altnagelvin hospital and in emergency departments across the North have been continually rising, but, on 15 May, the waiting time to be seen in Altnagelvin was 581 minutes. People had to wait for nearly 10 hours to be seen in our emergency department. That is absolutely disgraceful, nothing short of disgraceful. The average across the North was 190 minutes. The waiting time at Altnagelvin is consistently at least twice the average waiting time of any other emergency department across the North.
It is not just about numbers or statistics. The patients and staff at Altnagelvin are our families, neighbours and members of our communities, and they will not be treated as second-class citizens. We consistently hear from constituents who come into our office about people waiting in corridors and being left there for a long time. People are leaving the hospital having not been seen after nine or 10 hours. That, in turn, increases the pressure on primary care and on out-of-hours services.
The physical infrastructure at Altnagelvin has a key role to play in addressing the situation. The Department of Health needs to step up and do better for the patients and staff there. In January, we had an Adjournment debate on the need for Altnagelvin's emergency department to be adequately sized and resourced, on which there was consensus from all sides of the House, yet nothing has been done about it. I understand that the building of a new emergency department is a lengthy process, but, during the debate, I outlined three aims and objectives that the Department of Health could implement at Altnagelvin on that day. That debate, as I said, took place in January, yet none has been implemented. The Department has failed to commission more inpatient beds, to provide any additional staff training or bring in consultants or to tackle any issues that we raised about domiciliary care packages. This is about the pressure that is being placed on front-facing staff, who are bearing the brunt of lengthy waiting times. It is about low morale and high staff turnover. I therefore again send a message to the staff in Altnagelvin hospital that we in the Chamber have their back and will continue to be their voice to the Department of Health. Excuses about the situation being related to winter pressures do not cut it. It is nearly the summer. It is now a 365-days-a-year crisis. The Department of Health needs to step up and introduce proper procedures to support patients and staff at Altnagelvin.
436 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:33 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.