Health Infrastructure is not saying yet which option it prefers, despite completion of a clinical services plan and a draft business study.

Representatives are already based in Goulburn, figuring out how best to spend the state government’s $120 million commitment to the facility.

Community and medical opinion is split on whether the city needs a new hospital on a greenfield site or a new facility.

But planners are not dropping any hints yet.

A spokesperson for Health Infrastructure would only say the organisation was working with the Southern NSW Health District on a solution that would address service and community needs.

“Planning to date has explored a range of different scenarios, with a focus on future models of health care delivery that will best meet the needs of patients, carers and their families,” a spokesperson said.

“Architects, engineers and a cost management team will shortly be appointed to assist with further detailed planning for the redevelopment.”

Last year, authorities said a business case would be finished by June, 2015. It was subsequently revealed this was only a preliminary study and the final document wouldn’t be completed until mid- 2016.

Health Infrastructure has defended the timeframe.

“The NSW Health Process of Facility Planning guides the development of all health infrastructure projects,” the spokesperson said.

“This process ensures that a value for money and fit for purpose solution is delivered.

The services to be included in the Goulburn Hospital redevelopment are identified in the Southern NSW Local Health District’s Clinical Services Plan (CSP).

“The CSP provides a roadmap for public health services in the region and proposes the way services will be structured in the future.”

She said planning to date had focused on a “high-level understanding” of how health services were structured and assessing the community’s future requirements.

The current phase would develop and assess options for the redevelopment and define a preferred option.

The state organisation says consultation is ongoing with staff user groups, both clinical and non-clinical, the Goulburn Community Consultation Committee and Medical Advisory Council.

Health Infrastructure would not specifically say what challenges it was encountering, physical or otherwise, in the hospital’s current layout and the dispersion of medical services in Goulburn.

The clinical services plan had identified this fragmentation was a significant issue which “impact(ed) on clinicians’ ability to provide continuity of care for patients and to deliver services safely and efficiently.”

Patient handover was compromised, medical records were duplicated, mental health was provided across three separate campuses and palliative care and oncology were several blocks away from the hospital in Bourke St.

“The process has and will continue to consider the way services are currently structured across the Goulburn Health Service, and the opportunities to maximise value from the redevelopment,” a spokesperson said.

She confirmed that planning was expected to continue into 2016.

“It will involve consultation and engagement with staff and the broader community to inform development of the preferred option,” she said.

In July Goulburn man Rod Kelly criticised the time that planning was taken. 

He said what was billed as urgent work had become mired in bureaucracy. Mr Kelly doubted it would happen under Goulburn MP Pru Goward’s term.

However Ms Goward promised it would happen before 2019 and defended the process as necessary.