Last week we reported there would be 10 fewer intensive care/high dependency beds in the new hospital on opening, and cuts to the number of mental health beds for older people were more severe than expected.
It is difficult to understand why, three months on from the announcement about the slimmed down hospital, we are still in the dark about where all the bed cuts will occur.
The new hospital, as announced by Health Minister Simeon Brown at the end of January, has 59 fewer beds on opening than the original plan.
With work expected to resume on the hospital site mid-year, we would have expected this information to be readily available by now.
It is not a public relations triumph for the government to have the information trickling out as a result of formal Official Information Act requests or from other sleuthing by reporters.
RNZ reported Mr Brown calling Labour criticism around the lack of transparency around bed numbers completely wrong.
He told the broadcaster changes had been open and had been made in consultation with clinicians.
He could not say if the reported figures were accurate.
It may be a great thing a new model of care is being developed for those with psychogeriatric and dementia conditions across the country, and that this may reduce the requirement for hospital beds.
However, if this model is not yet complete, we cannot imagine how this will be in play when the new hospital hopefully opens in six years’ time.
We would hope any new model would not mean the pushing of responsibility on to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) without proper investment in facilities, staffing and oversight.
It was concerning to hear associate professor of psychiatry and consultant psychogeriatrician Dr Yoram Barak describe the planned reduction in beds as "a very, very unwise decision that will impact our ability to help the older adult community in Otago and Southland for many, many years going forward".
"On a scale of 1, not too bad, to 10, catastrophic, I would give it an 8+."
He said he was stunned by who made these decisions and did not know what they were based on.
Such comments do not suggest clinical consultation has been rigorous and meaningful.
It should not be forgotten that before the original design was chosen there had been years of discussions and no doubt many concessions made by various specialties.
The ongoing lack of clarity about bed numbers will be doing nothing to help workforce project fatigue, identified as one of four high risks to the project in a Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora report last October.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was not keen to get into any of the specifics of the hospital rebuild when he visited Dunedin last week.
We were not questioning whether the plan is to build the hospital, but we were keen to know what is going to go inside it.
We know there is considerable scepticism about whether the $1.9 billion spend limit is realistic given the lengthy delays on the project.
But instead of giving any steer on that, Mr Luxon stuck to the mantra of Labour not delivering anything in six years and how great it was that National was on the job.
"It’s great that the Otago Daily Times is right behind us encouraging us, and saying well done, thank you National for delivering us an awesome hospital which we look forward to getting into construction in the middle of the year."
Mr Luxon then went on to say the government was doing exactly what it said it would do because "we actually follow through and deliver on our promises".
Southerners who remember National’s campaign trail promise to build the hospital back to the original specifications might wonder about that.
Because we like to be encouraging, we encourage the government to detail what we can expect in the new hospital when it opens.
