Talk:The Children's Hospital at Westmead

Largest hospital?

User 203.194.17.6 added a sentence stating that CHW and Westmead Hospital combined forms the largest hospital complex in the Southern Hemisphere. Royal Brisbane Hospital seems larger though, and CHW is independent of Westmead anyway. Is there a reliable source of info on this? Techelf 11:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Westmead Hospital ~900 beds; CHW ~250 beds; (total ~1150). Royal Brisbane ~948 beds covering adults and kids. Westmead claims to be the largest hospital and health precinct in the southern hemisphere, but there are no independent references to evidence this. The two hospitals are administered seperately, as the delivery of kids' health services is significantly different from adult health services. Sick kids transition to adult care at 16 yrs. Jherschel (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a dental hospital as well that you are forgetting - all three are connected by internal corridors, then there is the Cumberland (Mental) hospital on the same grounds and the Westmead private hospital, which is across a street but has many doctors who work there and the public hospital. There are also 2 helicopter retrieval services based there. When people talk about 'largest campus/precinct in the southern hemisphere' they are talking about all of these things grouped together, not just the the adult hospital and CHW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.160.171 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge New South Wales Centre for the Advancement of Adolescent Health

I support a strong merge of this into this hospital article. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Establishment of Local Hospital Networks

On 29 September 2010, the NSW Government announced the final boundaries for new Local Health Networks (LHNs). NSW will have 18 LHNs in place from 1 January 2011 with eight LHNs covering the Sydney metropolitan region, and seven covering rural and regional NSW. Two specialist networks will focus on Children's and Paediatric Services, and Forensic Mental Health. A third network will operate across the public health services provided by three Sydney facilities operated by St Vincent's Mater Health: these include St Vincent's Hospital and the Sacred Heart Hospice at Darlinghurst and St Joseph's at Auburn.

To support well-established clinical networks across the NSW public health system, three Clinical Support Clusters will also be established to ensure vital, state-wide services continue to function across the LHNs in key areas such as cancer, renal, Aboriginal and mental health. The Networks will be administered by a Chief Executive and local Governing Council that will include clinicians, healthcare management experts and community representatives. Existing local Health Advisory Councils will continue to play a role in ensuring hospital administrators are aware of community needs and expectations. With the significant increase in localisation and specialisation comes an added responsibility that every public health organisation in NSW meets high standards of patient care.

The question now lies, where does this page sit? Should seperate pages be created for the 18 LHNs? It is interesting to note that only one AHS has not been dismantled, covering Hunter/New England. Jherschel (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC VFH information addition

I'd like to start adding some information about the role that Westmead Hospital and The Children's Hospital at Westmead play with the treatment of Viral Hemorrhagic Fever does anyone else think this is a worthwhile addition? Mrbuskin (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Footnotes and the NAPP – Transgender care controversy

Re this set of edits with edit summaries including:

• "NAPP has and does receive requests for submissions for various parliamentary, academic and NGO bodies" — May be correct despite being unsourced, but the [sourced] point made is that the NAPP is not consulted "in the way established bodies are". The footnote is to provide context and evidence for claims being made in the section about the relative expertise and regard of each body. The claims are cited and they explicate the matter at hand in the section.
• The same applies to the ES "This information on NAPP irrelevant to the context and subject of the article and should be removed" and removing statement about the type of submissions NAPP has made. Rather contradictory to assert in one ES that its submissions are sought (unsourced), and in the next ES to assert that discussing its submissions is "irrelevant" and out-of-scope, no?

Could the IP editor –or others– please discuss here before removing the footnotes?

Also, please don't change to US-style dates.

As well as restoring the above discussed in modified form, I removed the following {{cn}}-tagged statements:

• The press coverage also attracted several thousand highly pejorative public comments about gender-diverse children and adults and their treating physicians.
• it is not found in any diagnostic manual.
• Several LGBTI human rights groups pointed out that the Westmead group's study runs counter to the NSW Health Strategy for transgender young people and questioned whether Westmead was fit to continue treating transgender children and adolescents in a non-discriminatory and therapeutically beneficial way.

Likely true I imagine, but removed ftm pending sourcing.

I acknowledge the concern that the whole gender service section is too long and is becoming somewhat WP:UNDUE for this article, as it is now a large proportion of it (which I have had a part in enlarging, I know). On the other hand, it's hard to do justice to such a complex issue in one or two pars, which is probably the length it should be in an article of this size, that's supposed to be on the hospital in general. Advice? Thoughts? AukusRuckus (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)