All credit to the thousands of local residents who, over the course of 2008, have protested one way or another against the planned closures at Queen Mary's Hospital. Their protests have not been in vain.
The Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has written to me saying that he will pass any referral that he receives from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, something he doesn't have to do. This is excellent news as the future of Queen Mary's will now be in the hands of experts who have no political remit and who are not personally involved in the proposed reconfiguration and loss of services.
Coupled with the fact that the Chief Executive of Queen Mary's has announced her resignation to be replaced, possibly, by someone who puts the local residents first and not our discredited politicians, can we dare to hope that Queen Mary's can be saved as a fully-admitting hospital?
12 HOUR VIGIL on 20th September 2008. Over 400 signatures collected.
photo copyright News Shopper.
Thursday 27 November 2008
Thursday 9 October 2008
Bromley Council and the disappearing £5,000,000
It should come as no surprise to anyone, not that Bromley Council has possibly lost a £5,000,000 deposit in a failed Icelandic bank, but that Bromley Council has multiples of this sum to put on deposit.
Since the inception of Council Tax, the yearly increases have outstripped inflation yet Bromley Council does not appear to be spending our money on local services, but squirreling it away.
Bromley Council leader, Stephen Carr, should not be in a position to play the markets with our money. He does not have the skills to do so and he should not have been able to tuck this money away whilst all the while cutting vital services in the Borough.
If he can't get our money back then he and the councillors responsible for this situation should be considering their positions.
Since the inception of Council Tax, the yearly increases have outstripped inflation yet Bromley Council does not appear to be spending our money on local services, but squirreling it away.
Bromley Council leader, Stephen Carr, should not be in a position to play the markets with our money. He does not have the skills to do so and he should not have been able to tuck this money away whilst all the while cutting vital services in the Borough.
If he can't get our money back then he and the councillors responsible for this situation should be considering their positions.
Sunday 5 October 2008
Letter to News Shopper: 1st October 2008
It is disingenuous in the extreme to the local population for John Austin MP to claim (News Shopper letters) that "all the evidence shows this [a more specialised A&E and major trauma centre] will save lives and aid recovery."
Why can't we have this at Queen Mary's?
We now know that some of the A&E patients will have to go to Darent Valley Hospital, some 11 miles away. As for "all the evidence" Mr Austin doesn't provide any. No less a body than The British Medical Association last year, in responding to Lord Darzi's healthcare review, reported that increased journey distance to hospital is associated with increased risk of mortality.
Mr Austin then writes, "not every hospital can do everything."
Why not?
A shortage of consultants is blamed but where's Mr Austin's government's NHS money going? Not on training consultants. doctors and nurses but on management consultants which cost the NHS about £1.5 billion a year and PFI payments which will cost the NHS over £2 billion a year by 2013, to name but two.
Queen Mary's won't "remain a hospital providing vital services" and it won't be providing life-saving services to the 26,000 very major health emergencies each year that will first have a trip up or down the A20 or across Chislehurst, Bickley and beyond to look forward to before getting to an A&E.
Why can't we have this at Queen Mary's?
We now know that some of the A&E patients will have to go to Darent Valley Hospital, some 11 miles away. As for "all the evidence" Mr Austin doesn't provide any. No less a body than The British Medical Association last year, in responding to Lord Darzi's healthcare review, reported that increased journey distance to hospital is associated with increased risk of mortality.
Mr Austin then writes, "not every hospital can do everything."
Why not?
A shortage of consultants is blamed but where's Mr Austin's government's NHS money going? Not on training consultants. doctors and nurses but on management consultants which cost the NHS about £1.5 billion a year and PFI payments which will cost the NHS over £2 billion a year by 2013, to name but two.
Queen Mary's won't "remain a hospital providing vital services" and it won't be providing life-saving services to the 26,000 very major health emergencies each year that will first have a trip up or down the A20 or across Chislehurst, Bickley and beyond to look forward to before getting to an A&E.
VIGIL - 20th September 2008
Vigil for Queen Mary's Hospital raises awareness of plans to close vital services
The 12-hour Vigil for the future of Queen Mary's Hospital organised by Independents to save Queen Mary's Hospital held on Saturday 20th September collected 400 signatures on a petition objecting to the flawed process which led to the closure decision being taken (if it hadn't already been decided pre-consultation).
With placards showing the distances to the nearest hospitals, travelling times and bed-occupancy rates it was no surprise that over 1,000 motorists passing the Vigil energetically responded to the "Give a hoot for your hospital" notice.
Campaign leader John Hemming-Clark commented: "It was a very noisy day, but it went to show the strength of feeling that this decision to close vital services has aroused. All is not lost, by any means. With an independent review and judicial review application being prepared the decision to close is now out of the hands of the bureaucrats and into the hands of the Secretary of State and the High Court. Let's hope the Secretary of State is listening, not only to the people in and around Queen Mary's but also to those living further away whose A&Es and other departments in their local hospitals will also be affected.
Yesterday I visited the A&E of Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich. I met a man who had had a fall and believed that he had broken his ankle. The A&E was full to bursting, no wheel chairs were available and he was going to have a 6 hour wait. He was told that Queen Mary's A&E had no waiting and so he went over there!
The 12-hour Vigil for the future of Queen Mary's Hospital organised by Independents to save Queen Mary's Hospital held on Saturday 20th September collected 400 signatures on a petition objecting to the flawed process which led to the closure decision being taken (if it hadn't already been decided pre-consultation).
With placards showing the distances to the nearest hospitals, travelling times and bed-occupancy rates it was no surprise that over 1,000 motorists passing the Vigil energetically responded to the "Give a hoot for your hospital" notice.
Campaign leader John Hemming-Clark commented: "It was a very noisy day, but it went to show the strength of feeling that this decision to close vital services has aroused. All is not lost, by any means. With an independent review and judicial review application being prepared the decision to close is now out of the hands of the bureaucrats and into the hands of the Secretary of State and the High Court. Let's hope the Secretary of State is listening, not only to the people in and around Queen Mary's but also to those living further away whose A&Es and other departments in their local hospitals will also be affected.
Yesterday I visited the A&E of Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich. I met a man who had had a fall and believed that he had broken his ankle. The A&E was full to bursting, no wheel chairs were available and he was going to have a 6 hour wait. He was told that Queen Mary's A&E had no waiting and so he went over there!
Thursday 11 September 2008
Rejected by 10 Downing Street!!!
It appears the Prime Minister does not want anything to do with Queen Mary's Hospital. I have had an electronic petition rejected as being "impossible to understand." My nine-year old son understands the wording so what conclusion am I to draw other than my petition has been censored? The full reply from 10 Downing Street is as follows:
Hi, I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected. Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Wording that is impossible to understand
Further information: Your title should be a clear call for action, preferably starting with a verb, and not a name or statement.
If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow the following link: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/itsqmh/CheEtPDabvy1B5gJq1AYqLS
You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.
Your petition reads: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'stop the planned closures of the Accident & Emergency, Maternity, Intensive Care units and other vital services at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup because the consultation process was flawed. The process was flawed as the A Picture of Health questionnaire did not give respondents the opportunity to choose for Queen Mary's to be retained as a fully admitting hospital. All three options presented included downgrading Queen Mary's notwithstanding the majority of the 23 long list options advocating Queen Mary's remaining or becoming a fully / medically admitting hospital.'
The closure of Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup's A&E, Maternity, Intensive Care units and other vital services will put intolerable pressure on the other 3 outer south east London hospitals and Darent Valley Hospital. There is no spare capacity in the other hospitals and with a forecast growth in the population over the next ten years of 100,000 the above decision is short-sighted in the extreme. Those that will suffer most will be, once again, the most vulnerable. This includes the poor, the elderly, young families and the seriously ill. -- the ePetitions team
Hi, I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected. Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Wording that is impossible to understand
Further information: Your title should be a clear call for action, preferably starting with a verb, and not a name or statement.
If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow the following link: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/itsqmh/CheEtPDabvy1B5gJq1AYqLS
You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.
Your petition reads: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'stop the planned closures of the Accident & Emergency, Maternity, Intensive Care units and other vital services at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup because the consultation process was flawed. The process was flawed as the A Picture of Health questionnaire did not give respondents the opportunity to choose for Queen Mary's to be retained as a fully admitting hospital. All three options presented included downgrading Queen Mary's notwithstanding the majority of the 23 long list options advocating Queen Mary's remaining or becoming a fully / medically admitting hospital.'
The closure of Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup's A&E, Maternity, Intensive Care units and other vital services will put intolerable pressure on the other 3 outer south east London hospitals and Darent Valley Hospital. There is no spare capacity in the other hospitals and with a forecast growth in the population over the next ten years of 100,000 the above decision is short-sighted in the extreme. Those that will suffer most will be, once again, the most vulnerable. This includes the poor, the elderly, young families and the seriously ill. -- the ePetitions team
Sunday 7 September 2008
Appeal reaches £2,000
Many thanks to all those who have donated to the appeal to raise enough to fund a judicial review. £2,000 has already been raised but we still have a long way to go. The most heart-warming letter received so far was from a gentleman who wrote, "Please find enclosed a cheque for £40 which is a week's war disablement pension. I hope that you will be able to raise the amount you require to take this very important cause to so many of us to the High Court."
Please don't forget the Vigil on 20th September outside Queen Mary's Hospital. Please come and show your support anytime between 8.00am and 8.00pm. If you are able please bring a banner. There will be a petition to sign and more information about what we will be doing in the coming months.
Please don't forget the Vigil on 20th September outside Queen Mary's Hospital. Please come and show your support anytime between 8.00am and 8.00pm. If you are able please bring a banner. There will be a petition to sign and more information about what we will be doing in the coming months.
Monday 11 August 2008
Appeal launched to raise £75,000
WE NEED TO RAISE £75,000 TO HELP SAVE QUEEN MARY’S HOSPITAL, SIDCUP
No one is listening to us – we the people who live in the area and the businesses that operate here. We all need a fully-admitting hospital locally. As Queen Mary’s is now under imminent danger of closure of its emergency and other vital services we’re taking the fight to the High Court. But we don’t have much time.
PLEASE DONATE WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD
We need to raise £75,000 to cover the cost of a judicial review. It is a lot of money. However, 1,000 donations of £75 are achievable. Please donate as much as you can afford and tell your friends and work colleagues about this appeal. Fundraise yourself – anything – we only have until mid-October to raise the money.
DON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT
Under successive governments we have lost a fully-admitting hospital at Bromley South, Orpington Hospital continues to be chipped away at, and now they’ve started on Queen Mary’s. If we do nothing we will lose vital services at our popular hospital. Don’t let them get away with it. Thank you for your help. All donations will be acknowledged.
--------------------&---------------------------------------------------------
To make your donation
CHEQUES: Payable to “ITS QMH”
DEBIT / CREDIT CARD: - Donate online at www.faect.org.uk
- ‘Phone 020-8468 7945 anytime
- Fill in the following:
□ I wish to donate by Visa / MasterCard / Electron / Maestro / Solo / JCB / AmEx. Please debit my account with £ .
Card No: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Expiry Date: _ _ / _ _ Security Code: _ _ _ ( _ )
Issue No (Maestro/Solo): _ _ Date: Signature:
BACS: A/C Name: Independents to Save Queen Mary’s Hospital
A/C Number: 05925916
Sort Code: 72 00 00
Name:
Company (if applicable):
Address:
Please send this completed form, with payment if appropriate, to:
Independents to Save Queen Mary’s Hospital, 1a Holbrook Lane, CHISLEHURST, BR7 6PE
Tel: 020-8468 7945 Fax: 020-8295 0739
faect@aol.com www.faect.org.uk
No one is listening to us – we the people who live in the area and the businesses that operate here. We all need a fully-admitting hospital locally. As Queen Mary’s is now under imminent danger of closure of its emergency and other vital services we’re taking the fight to the High Court. But we don’t have much time.
PLEASE DONATE WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD
We need to raise £75,000 to cover the cost of a judicial review. It is a lot of money. However, 1,000 donations of £75 are achievable. Please donate as much as you can afford and tell your friends and work colleagues about this appeal. Fundraise yourself – anything – we only have until mid-October to raise the money.
DON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT
Under successive governments we have lost a fully-admitting hospital at Bromley South, Orpington Hospital continues to be chipped away at, and now they’ve started on Queen Mary’s. If we do nothing we will lose vital services at our popular hospital. Don’t let them get away with it. Thank you for your help. All donations will be acknowledged.
--------------------&---------------------------------------------------------
To make your donation
CHEQUES: Payable to “ITS QMH”
DEBIT / CREDIT CARD: - Donate online at www.faect.org.uk
- ‘Phone 020-8468 7945 anytime
- Fill in the following:
□ I wish to donate by Visa / MasterCard / Electron / Maestro / Solo / JCB / AmEx. Please debit my account with £ .
Card No: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Expiry Date: _ _ / _ _ Security Code: _ _ _ ( _ )
Issue No (Maestro/Solo): _ _ Date: Signature:
BACS: A/C Name: Independents to Save Queen Mary’s Hospital
A/C Number: 05925916
Sort Code: 72 00 00
Name:
Company (if applicable):
Address:
Please send this completed form, with payment if appropriate, to:
Independents to Save Queen Mary’s Hospital, 1a Holbrook Lane, CHISLEHURST, BR7 6PE
Tel: 020-8468 7945 Fax: 020-8295 0739
faect@aol.com www.faect.org.uk
Wednesday 23 July 2008
Calls for Kate Grimes, Chief Executive of Queen Mary's Hospital to Resign
John Hemming-Clark of Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital is today calling for the resignation of Queen Mary's Hospital's Chief Executive, Kate Grimes, following the decision of the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts to adopt A Picture of Health's Option 2 which will see the closure of Queen Mary's A&E, maternity unit and other vital services.
Commenting on his call John said "This woman is supposed to be fighting for us, the patients and local residents, but instead she calls the decision "a great opportunity" having been marched down the road of cutbacks and putting patients' lives at risk with, no doubt, the promise of another cushy managerial position somewhere else a few months down the line, leaving chaos in her wake.
Once again it has been left to the patients and local residents to fight for this decision to be reversed. And fight we will."
Commenting on his call John said "This woman is supposed to be fighting for us, the patients and local residents, but instead she calls the decision "a great opportunity" having been marched down the road of cutbacks and putting patients' lives at risk with, no doubt, the promise of another cushy managerial position somewhere else a few months down the line, leaving chaos in her wake.
Once again it has been left to the patients and local residents to fight for this decision to be reversed. And fight we will."
Monday 30 June 2008
MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS REJECT DOWNGRADING QUEEN MARY'S
THE majority of residents who responded to a consultation have rejected options to change A&E services in the area.At least a third of south east Londoners who responded to the A Picture of Health (APoH) consultation into downgrading health services in the area said that none of the proposed options were suitable.Some 2,469 residents rejected any option to close the A&E at Queen Mary Hospital, Sidcup, while only 1,949 elected to chose the most popular closure option out of the total three.
Director of the Centre for Health Management at the Imperial College London, Professor Rifat Atun, who presented the consultation results at the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich last Friday, said most of the 8,374 replies were from Bromley and Bexley residents, whom he said had responded "passionately". Pointing to a slide which showed that the majority of respondents did not want any of the options, he said: "The results are quite clear for the decision makers to see and they must take the views of the public very seriously."
All options in the consultation proposed to close the A&E at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup.
Option one - to keep an A&E department in Lewisham but to stop emergency surgery or paediatric services - was chosen by 23.3 per cent respondents.
Option two - to keep A&E as it is in Lewisham but take away children's assessment and treatment services - was chosen by 17.8 per cent.
Option three, closing the A&E at Lewisham, was chosen by 16.3 per cent. From Bexley Times 26.6.08
Director of the Centre for Health Management at the Imperial College London, Professor Rifat Atun, who presented the consultation results at the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich last Friday, said most of the 8,374 replies were from Bromley and Bexley residents, whom he said had responded "passionately". Pointing to a slide which showed that the majority of respondents did not want any of the options, he said: "The results are quite clear for the decision makers to see and they must take the views of the public very seriously."
All options in the consultation proposed to close the A&E at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup.
Option one - to keep an A&E department in Lewisham but to stop emergency surgery or paediatric services - was chosen by 23.3 per cent respondents.
Option two - to keep A&E as it is in Lewisham but take away children's assessment and treatment services - was chosen by 17.8 per cent.
Option three, closing the A&E at Lewisham, was chosen by 16.3 per cent. From Bexley Times 26.6.08
Thursday 12 June 2008
Response to Helen Cameron, Programme Director - APoH
In her letter (News Shopper 11th June) Helen Cameron, Programme Director for A Picture of Health unintentionally confirms our suspicion that the NHS bureaucrats are now seeking to give the impression that Queen Mary's Hospital's A&E admissions are now minimal, and those that there are are so low as to make keeping the A&E open unwarranted. In stating that of the 41 patients on average per day over the past year having been taken by ambulance to Queen Mary's only 2 to 3 were "blue light", i.e. requiring A&E services, she contradicts the statistics in the APoH consultation document which states that approximately 50% of A&E patients require A&E services.
This leaves a difference per day of 18 blue light patients. Where are they going? Is the APoH report wrong or is what is in fact happening is that the London Ambulance Service has been instructed to take blue light emergencies to one of the PFI hospitals first even if they're further away?
Even with an Urgent Care Centre, there will still be 30% of existing A&E activity that will be classed as a "very major health emergency" and will need to go to a fully admitting hospital. With Queen Mary's A&E attendances last year reaching 88,190, this means that over 26,000 very major health emergencies will have to go elsewhere. Anyone living in the Bexley, Sidcup or Chislehurst area, instead of having to travel a mile or so, would have to go an average 6 1/4 miles further to Princess Royal. It's one thing for the London Ambulance Service to claim its ability to get patients to hospital within target times, it's quite another for a bed to be available at a hospital that is 99.5% full.
If Ms Cameron feels her proposals foresee a bright future then she's looking through a very cloudy crystal ball indeed.
This leaves a difference per day of 18 blue light patients. Where are they going? Is the APoH report wrong or is what is in fact happening is that the London Ambulance Service has been instructed to take blue light emergencies to one of the PFI hospitals first even if they're further away?
Even with an Urgent Care Centre, there will still be 30% of existing A&E activity that will be classed as a "very major health emergency" and will need to go to a fully admitting hospital. With Queen Mary's A&E attendances last year reaching 88,190, this means that over 26,000 very major health emergencies will have to go elsewhere. Anyone living in the Bexley, Sidcup or Chislehurst area, instead of having to travel a mile or so, would have to go an average 6 1/4 miles further to Princess Royal. It's one thing for the London Ambulance Service to claim its ability to get patients to hospital within target times, it's quite another for a bed to be available at a hospital that is 99.5% full.
If Ms Cameron feels her proposals foresee a bright future then she's looking through a very cloudy crystal ball indeed.
Thursday 29 May 2008
Feedback Event
Press Release from Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital
Location of Feedback Event condemned
John Hemming-Clark, Party Leader for Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital has condemned the decision to hold the APoH Feedback Event in Greenwich.
He said, "It's as if the APoH bureaucrats, in holding the event in the middle of a University campus in Greenwich, wanted to make the event as inaccessible to those who are the most affected by the planned closures, i.e., the poor, the elderly and the sick, as well as being as far away as possible. What's wrong with Bexley or Bromley? I have written to the APoH SRO, Simon Robbins to ask for an explanation."
A copy of the full letter follows:
Mr S Robbins, SRO – A Picture of Health
Chief Executive, Bromley PCT
3RD Floor
1 Lower Marsh
LONDON SE1 7NT
28th May 2008
Dear Mr Robbins
You may be aware that at the beginning of this month I stood in the GLA elections in the Bromley and Bexley Constituency for the above Party.
Having polled 6,684 votes I believe that I speak for many in respect of the planned wanton destruction of our local hospital.
I have just received your letter inviting me to the feedback event on 20th June and would like to ask you what on earth you are thinking of in holding the event in Greenwich?
The hospital with the most changes being foisted on it is Queen Mary’s yet I understand that no attempt has been made to hold the feedback event anywhere near the hospital, where most of the affected people live. This includes the London Boroughs of Bromley and Bexley.
Notwithstanding this decision to hold the feedback event in about as far away from Queen Mary’s as you could, without going outside the affected area I will be ensuring that as many as are physically able attend the event to once more voice their opposition.
In the meantime, I should be grateful to receive your response to the accusation that you are seeking to make the feedback event as difficult as possible for people to attend by not holding it where it should be, which is at Bexley or Bromley Civic Centre if not nearer.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
John Hemming-Clark
Party Leader
Location of Feedback Event condemned
John Hemming-Clark, Party Leader for Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital has condemned the decision to hold the APoH Feedback Event in Greenwich.
He said, "It's as if the APoH bureaucrats, in holding the event in the middle of a University campus in Greenwich, wanted to make the event as inaccessible to those who are the most affected by the planned closures, i.e., the poor, the elderly and the sick, as well as being as far away as possible. What's wrong with Bexley or Bromley? I have written to the APoH SRO, Simon Robbins to ask for an explanation."
A copy of the full letter follows:
Mr S Robbins, SRO – A Picture of Health
Chief Executive, Bromley PCT
3RD Floor
1 Lower Marsh
LONDON SE1 7NT
28th May 2008
Dear Mr Robbins
You may be aware that at the beginning of this month I stood in the GLA elections in the Bromley and Bexley Constituency for the above Party.
Having polled 6,684 votes I believe that I speak for many in respect of the planned wanton destruction of our local hospital.
I have just received your letter inviting me to the feedback event on 20th June and would like to ask you what on earth you are thinking of in holding the event in Greenwich?
The hospital with the most changes being foisted on it is Queen Mary’s yet I understand that no attempt has been made to hold the feedback event anywhere near the hospital, where most of the affected people live. This includes the London Boroughs of Bromley and Bexley.
Notwithstanding this decision to hold the feedback event in about as far away from Queen Mary’s as you could, without going outside the affected area I will be ensuring that as many as are physically able attend the event to once more voice their opposition.
In the meantime, I should be grateful to receive your response to the accusation that you are seeking to make the feedback event as difficult as possible for people to attend by not holding it where it should be, which is at Bexley or Bromley Civic Centre if not nearer.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
John Hemming-Clark
Party Leader
Friday 23 May 2008
Independent Reconfiguration Panel
I have today written to members of something called the "Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee" to request that they refer the A Picture of Health consultation to the Secretary of State for Health as I am not satisfied 1. with the content of the consultation and 2. that the proposal is in the interests of the health service in our area. Will you write too? My letter follows...
The Secretary of State announced to the House of Commons last year that he would as a matter of course ask the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) for advice on any such referrals. The Secretary of State will make any final decision but the IRP may undertake a full review involving you and me and our comments and evidence.
On the strength of an IRP referral, several hospitals have been saved as fully admitting hospitals. Please write to (Bromley Council) Councillor Charles Rideout, Chairman - Adult & Community PDS Committee, c/o Members Room, Bromley Civic Centre, Bromley, BR1 3UH or (Bexley Council) Councillor David Hurt, Chairman - Delivery of NHS Services Scrutiny Sub-Group & Health Scrutiny Committee Member, c/o Bexley Civic Offices, Broadway, Bexleyheath, DA6 7LB.
Dear
I am writing to request that you ensure that the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee reports the A Picture of Health consultation to the Secretary of State for Health for referral to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel for an independent review on the grounds that your electorate is satisfied neither with the content of the consultation nor that the proposal is in the interests of the health service in the local area. The content of the consultation does not allow for respondents to choose to retain Queen Mary's as a fully admitting hospital and is not in the interests of the health service in the local area for the following reasons:
1. The further one has to travel in an A&E department in an emergency, the greater the risk of mortality.
2. There has been no forward planning to cope with the increased patient throughput at Princess Royal, both in A&E and maternity, units which are already overstretched, due to any closures at Queen Mary's and elsewhere and the projected 100,000 increase in the local population over the next 10 years.
3. All 3 options in the consultation with regard to the downgrading of maternity services are a denial of choice as voiced by the Royal College of Midwives and in contradiction of the Department of Health's stated aims.
Further reasons can be supplied, however, I would hope that the above would be sufficient to convince you of the need to refer the consultation to the Secretary of State.
I trust that you agree, and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
NAME
The Secretary of State announced to the House of Commons last year that he would as a matter of course ask the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) for advice on any such referrals. The Secretary of State will make any final decision but the IRP may undertake a full review involving you and me and our comments and evidence.
On the strength of an IRP referral, several hospitals have been saved as fully admitting hospitals. Please write to (Bromley Council) Councillor Charles Rideout, Chairman - Adult & Community PDS Committee, c/o Members Room, Bromley Civic Centre, Bromley, BR1 3UH or (Bexley Council) Councillor David Hurt, Chairman - Delivery of NHS Services Scrutiny Sub-Group & Health Scrutiny Committee Member, c/o Bexley Civic Offices, Broadway, Bexleyheath, DA6 7LB.
Dear
I am writing to request that you ensure that the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee reports the A Picture of Health consultation to the Secretary of State for Health for referral to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel for an independent review on the grounds that your electorate is satisfied neither with the content of the consultation nor that the proposal is in the interests of the health service in the local area. The content of the consultation does not allow for respondents to choose to retain Queen Mary's as a fully admitting hospital and is not in the interests of the health service in the local area for the following reasons:
1. The further one has to travel in an A&E department in an emergency, the greater the risk of mortality.
2. There has been no forward planning to cope with the increased patient throughput at Princess Royal, both in A&E and maternity, units which are already overstretched, due to any closures at Queen Mary's and elsewhere and the projected 100,000 increase in the local population over the next 10 years.
3. All 3 options in the consultation with regard to the downgrading of maternity services are a denial of choice as voiced by the Royal College of Midwives and in contradiction of the Department of Health's stated aims.
Further reasons can be supplied, however, I would hope that the above would be sufficient to convince you of the need to refer the consultation to the Secretary of State.
I trust that you agree, and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
NAME
Monday 19 May 2008
Elmstead Lane: Letter to Bromley Extra
I found the response from Cllr. Colin Smith to Bromley Extra's Elmstead Lane campaign inadequate in the extreme. He states that "quick" isn't the same as "effective" without acknowledging that both are possible. He states that it would be wrong to speculate on the causes of the two recent deaths without acknowledging that whatever the cause increased speed exacerbates a situation. He states that Bromley's overall safety record is good and that it has won government reward monies as if that absolves the Council from any urgency in tacking the problem. Finally he alludes to a period of an evaluation by traffic engineers. I would predict that the solution offered will be bumps, lumps, chicanes and other road calming methods aimed at slowing down the driver whilst damaging his back, vehicle and temper, the local scenery and council tax-payer's wallet. They will slow down the emergency services, create more noise and air pollution whilst having no impact on road casualty figures.
Bromley Council is facing in two directions. On the one hand it wants to encourage people out of their cars and has a unit dedicated to encouraging children to walk to school. On the other hand it wants to increase traffic flows through the Borough. However, freeing up the roads will then encourage other people back into their cars! We have to realise that road use will continue to increase in the future whilst pedestrians, especially younger and older ones, will become more reluctant to walk anywhere. We have to find a way of living with both cars and pedestrians. Let me propose a solution.
Chislehurst, Bickley, Petts Wood and other areas are inside a triangle formed by the A20, A224 (Sevenoaks Way) and A212 (Burnt Ash Lane through Bromley Common). Free up the traffic flow around this mini South Circular through reducing access to and from minor roads inside the triangle. Make ALL the roads inside the triangle a maximum 25mph zone with notices at every entry point to the triangle. Have full-time dedicated patrols (which would be self-funding) rigorously enforcing the speed limit quickly and effectively against EVERY speeding driver EVERY TIME. It will soon make speeding inside the triangle as unacceptable as, say, drinking and driving. Anyone driving through the triangle, which is at a maximum only about 4 miles across, will, if able to travel at the speed limit, see their journey time increase by less than 2 minutes. If you knew for certain that vehicles have slowed down considerably outside your front door and you are just not going to see a crazy speeding driver from one month to the next, would you let your granny or pre-teen out on their own? I would.
Bromley Council is facing in two directions. On the one hand it wants to encourage people out of their cars and has a unit dedicated to encouraging children to walk to school. On the other hand it wants to increase traffic flows through the Borough. However, freeing up the roads will then encourage other people back into their cars! We have to realise that road use will continue to increase in the future whilst pedestrians, especially younger and older ones, will become more reluctant to walk anywhere. We have to find a way of living with both cars and pedestrians. Let me propose a solution.
Chislehurst, Bickley, Petts Wood and other areas are inside a triangle formed by the A20, A224 (Sevenoaks Way) and A212 (Burnt Ash Lane through Bromley Common). Free up the traffic flow around this mini South Circular through reducing access to and from minor roads inside the triangle. Make ALL the roads inside the triangle a maximum 25mph zone with notices at every entry point to the triangle. Have full-time dedicated patrols (which would be self-funding) rigorously enforcing the speed limit quickly and effectively against EVERY speeding driver EVERY TIME. It will soon make speeding inside the triangle as unacceptable as, say, drinking and driving. Anyone driving through the triangle, which is at a maximum only about 4 miles across, will, if able to travel at the speed limit, see their journey time increase by less than 2 minutes. If you knew for certain that vehicles have slowed down considerably outside your front door and you are just not going to see a crazy speeding driver from one month to the next, would you let your granny or pre-teen out on their own? I would.
Thursday 17 April 2008
Letter to The Times 14th April
Your report and comment (14th April) on maternity services in the outer south east London NHS is well-timed, coming the week after a three-month consultation ("A Picture of Health") on said services in the area comes to an end. With executives at one of the hospitals that is not targeted to lose its maternity services coming out in favour of the option that reduces four maternity units to two, one has to ask, what's in it for them? With the consultation report stressing, on one hand, the aim of having patient services nearer home, whilst on the other hand recommending losing one or two maternity units, the only way the report suggests that these two "ideals" may both be met is by offering more home births as if that's going to free up staff.
Furthermore, when the, albeit small, percentage of home births become an emergency, and the mother-to-be has to be ferried by ambulance to an A & E department, only to find that they have gone the same way as the maternity units, one is left feeling that the "Picture" is becoming very unhealthy indeed.
Furthermore, when the, albeit small, percentage of home births become an emergency, and the mother-to-be has to be ferried by ambulance to an A & E department, only to find that they have gone the same way as the maternity units, one is left feeling that the "Picture" is becoming very unhealthy indeed.
Letter to Bromley Times, published 17th April
It is unfortunate that Bromley Hospital's NHS Trust should be supporting all three of the A Picture of Health options but nothing short of an obscenity that the Trust directors and chief executive are backing option 3. This is the option that would see both Queen Mary's and Lewisham lose their A & Es. The tragic plane crash at Farnborough recently shows the need to have several A & E's locally and not just two with one under the flight path. Furthermore, Queen Mary's and Lewisham's loss is the Princess Royal's gain as under the controversial payment by results plan the more A & E patients that the PRUH can treat the more they get paid. When one also factors in the aim to reduce the average length of stay within the PRUH by 34% then one gets the distinct feeling that the Trust is putting saving money first and clinical need last.
Candidates who don't live in the Constituency
If you stand in the London Borough elections as a candidate for a council seat, you have to live in the ward in which you stand. Why then do you not have to live in the constituency you hope to represent when standing in the London Assembly elections? It is, after all, also a local government election.
In a rerun of the Bromley & Chislehurst Constituency parliamentary by-election in 2006, neither the Conservative nor the Labour candidate for the Bexley and Bromley constituency live in the area, living instead in Lewisham and Shoreditch respectively. Why should anyone vote for a candidate who does not experience first-hand the concerns of the local residents?
In a rerun of the Bromley & Chislehurst Constituency parliamentary by-election in 2006, neither the Conservative nor the Labour candidate for the Bexley and Bromley constituency live in the area, living instead in Lewisham and Shoreditch respectively. Why should anyone vote for a candidate who does not experience first-hand the concerns of the local residents?
Sunday 6 April 2008
PRUH's future "very healthy"!
Letter to News Shopper 28th March.
Bromley Hospitals' NHS Trust chief executive Ian Wilson, in his interview with Thom Kennedy, makes the assertion that as the Princess Royal University Hospital (PRUH) is to remain a major admitting hospital, under the A Picture of Health (APoH) consultation, then the future for the people of Bromley "is very rosy". That is, until Queen Mary's Hospital starts sending its patients over to him. In stating that "some work is moving out and some is moving in" he is implying quite unjustifiably that the net effect will be nil. In reality, whilst the PRUH will only lose planned inpatients, day and orthopaedic surgery, and children's assessment and treatment services it will have to accommodate a new urgent care centre and a new midwife led birthing unit. It will also have to take over some of Queen Mary's A&E, non-surgical emergency, emergency and complex surgery, trauma surgery, children's services-inpatients, assessment and treatment, and doctor-led maternity unit with intensive care for babies. It will also have to cope with a forecast rise in the local population over the next 10 years by over 90,000!
These new and diverted patients will not all be able to be accommodated by the PRUH and no attempt has been made whatsoever in the APoH consultation to try to address this future needs situation, choosing instead to concentrate on a clinical version of musical chairs.
Bromley Hospitals' NHS Trust chief executive Ian Wilson, in his interview with Thom Kennedy, makes the assertion that as the Princess Royal University Hospital (PRUH) is to remain a major admitting hospital, under the A Picture of Health (APoH) consultation, then the future for the people of Bromley "is very rosy". That is, until Queen Mary's Hospital starts sending its patients over to him. In stating that "some work is moving out and some is moving in" he is implying quite unjustifiably that the net effect will be nil. In reality, whilst the PRUH will only lose planned inpatients, day and orthopaedic surgery, and children's assessment and treatment services it will have to accommodate a new urgent care centre and a new midwife led birthing unit. It will also have to take over some of Queen Mary's A&E, non-surgical emergency, emergency and complex surgery, trauma surgery, children's services-inpatients, assessment and treatment, and doctor-led maternity unit with intensive care for babies. It will also have to cope with a forecast rise in the local population over the next 10 years by over 90,000!
These new and diverted patients will not all be able to be accommodated by the PRUH and no attempt has been made whatsoever in the APoH consultation to try to address this future needs situation, choosing instead to concentrate on a clinical version of musical chairs.
Urgent Care Centres...look and smell...
Letter to Bromley / Bexley Extra, published 4th April.If Ms Liz Butler, chair of Bromley PCT, believes (report 28th March) that urgent care centres, as is proposed for Queen Mary's Hospital, "look and smell" like A&E departments then she is living in cloud cuckoo land. Let me help her out. Around 1/3rd of existing A&E patients - i.e. the ones requiring the most urgent care - would NOT be catered for by an urgent care centre. They would have to travel further for their A&E care with all the inherent risks that that poses. A&E departments are staffed by senior clinicians with intensive care back-up. Urgent care centres on the other hand would be nothing more than glorified GPs, staffed by family doctors, with outpatients and diagnostic facilities but with no emergency back-up.
The picture is beginning to not look very healthy at all.
The picture is beginning to not look very healthy at all.
Fat Cat(s) on Bexley Council
Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital has learnt that the Chief Executive of Bexley Council, for the year 2006/7, received a remuneration of £203,000, making him one of only 6 local authority employees in the country to earn over £200,000 and the fifth best remunerated. Another 7 people on Bexley Council earned over £100,000.
Despite the current government target for growth in pay of just 2%, the Chief Executive's remuneration increased by nearly 11% and the Director of Finance's by over 12%.
Commenting on these revelations, John Hemming-Clark said, "saving hospital services goes hand in glove with reducing the excessive burden of taxation. Despite Bexley Council's bragging about its lower than inflation Council Tax settlement for 2007/8 the fact of the matter is that Council Tax has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Bexley Council is making cuts across the board including to grants, funds for meals on wheels, day care and home care which are badly hitting the poor, elderly and vulnerable. At the same time they are paying their Chief Executive a sum which is more than the Prime Minster receives. The increasing burden of taxation is not being used where it is desperately needed, instead it is going to support the excessive pay rises of our senior civic office bureaucrats."
Despite the current government target for growth in pay of just 2%, the Chief Executive's remuneration increased by nearly 11% and the Director of Finance's by over 12%.
Commenting on these revelations, John Hemming-Clark said, "saving hospital services goes hand in glove with reducing the excessive burden of taxation. Despite Bexley Council's bragging about its lower than inflation Council Tax settlement for 2007/8 the fact of the matter is that Council Tax has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Bexley Council is making cuts across the board including to grants, funds for meals on wheels, day care and home care which are badly hitting the poor, elderly and vulnerable. At the same time they are paying their Chief Executive a sum which is more than the Prime Minster receives. The increasing burden of taxation is not being used where it is desperately needed, instead it is going to support the excessive pay rises of our senior civic office bureaucrats."
Wednesday 26 March 2008
Princess Royal University Hospital (PRUH) Maternity Unit closed.
Following an investigation by Independents to save Queen Mary's Hospital it was discovered that the Maternity Unit at the PRUH, Farnborough was closed for the whole of Wednesday (day and night) and the following Thursday [12th and 13th March]. This was due to what the hospital called "high activity".
Expectant mothers due to give birth at the PRUH were told to go, or diverted, to Lewisham, Darent Valley or Queen Mary's Hospital.
Commenting on this discovery John Hemming-Clark - who is standing in the London Assembly elections in May for the Bexley & Bromley Constituency - said,
"This is simply unbelievable and unacceptable. The "A Picture of Health" consultation report confirms Maternity National Service Framework (2004) and the DoE's Maternity Matters that maternity services should be "easier to access" and "delivered closer to people's homes". However, before the consultation has even finished, patients are being kept out of one of the Maternity Units that, it is planned, will remain after the consultation. The PRUH is supposed to be taking on some of the 3,000 expectant mothers per year that present to Queen Mary's. Instead, at present, it's the other way round with Queen Mary's bailing out the PRUH.
If the consultation report is approved, where are the future patients of the PRUH going to have their babies? In the kitchens?"
Expectant mothers due to give birth at the PRUH were told to go, or diverted, to Lewisham, Darent Valley or Queen Mary's Hospital.
Commenting on this discovery John Hemming-Clark - who is standing in the London Assembly elections in May for the Bexley & Bromley Constituency - said,
"This is simply unbelievable and unacceptable. The "A Picture of Health" consultation report confirms Maternity National Service Framework (2004) and the DoE's Maternity Matters that maternity services should be "easier to access" and "delivered closer to people's homes". However, before the consultation has even finished, patients are being kept out of one of the Maternity Units that, it is planned, will remain after the consultation. The PRUH is supposed to be taking on some of the 3,000 expectant mothers per year that present to Queen Mary's. Instead, at present, it's the other way round with Queen Mary's bailing out the PRUH.
If the consultation report is approved, where are the future patients of the PRUH going to have their babies? In the kitchens?"
Monday 17 March 2008
Consultation document already dead in the water
I attended - as an observer - a meeting of the Joint Committee of PCTs held on 3rd March where it was stated that 2,606 responses had been made to the A Picture of Health questionnaire.
I estimate that, bearing in mind that
1. the consultation period is already two thirds of its way through, and
2. most responses are received early on in a process
the total number of responses at the end of the review will not exceed more than about 4,000.
We are talking about the future health needs of more than a million people. 760,000 documents have been sent out which means a response of around 0.5%. A "response" includes not only a completed questionnaire but also:
1. a partially completed questionnaire,
2. just a letter, or even
3. just an answerphone message!
As such, despite Gill Galliano, Chief Executive of Lewisham PCT stating that response rates are "so far very positive" the fact of the matter is that no academic institution would accept such a minuscule response rate as a valid sample from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever.
As such, this unnecessary, expensive and bureaucratic process is already dead in the water.
I estimate that, bearing in mind that
1. the consultation period is already two thirds of its way through, and
2. most responses are received early on in a process
the total number of responses at the end of the review will not exceed more than about 4,000.
We are talking about the future health needs of more than a million people. 760,000 documents have been sent out which means a response of around 0.5%. A "response" includes not only a completed questionnaire but also:
1. a partially completed questionnaire,
2. just a letter, or even
3. just an answerphone message!
As such, despite Gill Galliano, Chief Executive of Lewisham PCT stating that response rates are "so far very positive" the fact of the matter is that no academic institution would accept such a minuscule response rate as a valid sample from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever.
As such, this unnecessary, expensive and bureaucratic process is already dead in the water.
Monday 10 March 2008
Consultation Report a Sham
I have written to A Picture of Health to complain that none of the 3 "short list" options presented to local residents includes retaining Queen Mary's A & E.
In the full report 23 "long list" options were developed in which 70% proposed keeping Queen Mary's as a fully admitting hospital (13 options) or a medically admitting hospital (3). However, by the time that these 23 options had been mysteriously whittled down to 3, not one of the 16 options to have Queen Mary's as a fully or medically admitting hospital had been retained. The 3 short list options all include Queen Mary's as a borough hospital, the lowest type of hospital.
The final 3 options were selected and articulated by the NHS behind closed doors and has left the public with what amounts to Hobson's choice. None of the 3 options provide for a fully functioning A & E, non-surgical emergencies, emergency and complex surgery, trauma surgery, children's services - inpatients, assessment and treatment, doctor-led maternity unit with intensive care for babies, or midwife-led birthing unit.
In the questionnaire the residents of the Boroughs of Bexley and Bromley are permitted to select "none of these [3] options", having been told in the consultation report that to leave things as they are "is not an option"!
The consultation report is a sham, asking for residents to respond to closed questions relating to limited options preselected by NHS bureaucrats.
In the full report 23 "long list" options were developed in which 70% proposed keeping Queen Mary's as a fully admitting hospital (13 options) or a medically admitting hospital (3). However, by the time that these 23 options had been mysteriously whittled down to 3, not one of the 16 options to have Queen Mary's as a fully or medically admitting hospital had been retained. The 3 short list options all include Queen Mary's as a borough hospital, the lowest type of hospital.
The final 3 options were selected and articulated by the NHS behind closed doors and has left the public with what amounts to Hobson's choice. None of the 3 options provide for a fully functioning A & E, non-surgical emergencies, emergency and complex surgery, trauma surgery, children's services - inpatients, assessment and treatment, doctor-led maternity unit with intensive care for babies, or midwife-led birthing unit.
In the questionnaire the residents of the Boroughs of Bexley and Bromley are permitted to select "none of these [3] options", having been told in the consultation report that to leave things as they are "is not an option"!
The consultation report is a sham, asking for residents to respond to closed questions relating to limited options preselected by NHS bureaucrats.
Thursday 6 March 2008
A midwife speaks
Over 1,500 took part in a march through Sidcup on Saturday 1st March (my birthday!) to protest at the planned closures at Queen Mary's Hospital.
The focus has so far been on the loss of accident and emergency facilities at Queen Mary's, but just as important is the loss of maternity facilities at the hospital. Here a midwife speaks to Bromley Times about the impact closures at Queen Mary's will have on the PRU at Farnborough:
"I am here [on the march] because I am livid. "I am worried because we don't have the capacity at the Princess Royal. They have just spent a lot of money only last year on a midwifery-led unit at Queen Mary's so what is the point of spending all that money? "I just don't understand the thinking. We just feel they are not looking at how it is. "The journey from here to the Princess Royal can take an hour-and-a-half. "
The maternity unit at the Princess Royal is very stretched at the moment. It is very stressful. It is continuous. It is day, night, every day, because of the workload. "There is no way they can expand out. There will still be the same number of staff. "We would just have to manage.
Because of the debt, there is no way we can employ more people. It is just an impossible situation." http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk
The focus has so far been on the loss of accident and emergency facilities at Queen Mary's, but just as important is the loss of maternity facilities at the hospital. Here a midwife speaks to Bromley Times about the impact closures at Queen Mary's will have on the PRU at Farnborough:
"I am here [on the march] because I am livid. "I am worried because we don't have the capacity at the Princess Royal. They have just spent a lot of money only last year on a midwifery-led unit at Queen Mary's so what is the point of spending all that money? "I just don't understand the thinking. We just feel they are not looking at how it is. "The journey from here to the Princess Royal can take an hour-and-a-half. "
The maternity unit at the Princess Royal is very stretched at the moment. It is very stressful. It is continuous. It is day, night, every day, because of the workload. "There is no way they can expand out. There will still be the same number of staff. "We would just have to manage.
Because of the debt, there is no way we can employ more people. It is just an impossible situation." http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk
Wednesday 5 March 2008
A Picture of Health - letter to the Editor
From: Gill Galliano, Chief Executive, Lewisham Primary Care Trust to News Shopper 27th February 2008
Your reader...takes us to task for wasting "time, money and resources on what are clearly half thought-out plans."
A Picture of Health is a vital consultation about NHS services for more than a million residents of Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham.
I'm pleased [the reader] took the opportunity to return a questionnaire - because we do want to know what people think before we make final recommendations.
This is why we printed more than 700,000 booklets. The cost was the equivalent of one second class postage stamp for every resident in the four boroughs - 24p.
Response levels to the consultation are so far very positive.
I am concerned she found the document difficult to understand. I can assure her we are working hard to explain the proposals fully to everyone.
For instance, our full page adverts in the local media explain the options in an at-a-glance style.
and our response.......
The Chief Executive of Lewisham PCT states (letters, 27th February) that the cost of each of the 700,000 A Picture of Health booklets is 24p. Funny that. When I was at the Bexleyheath roadshow I was told by another PCT employee that the cost was 46p each.
The booklets were not personalised and / or delivered by Royal Mail, rather a private delivery company was used. In the words of this same employee, "When you get down to the person who is actually delivering the booklets, some of the individuals are bound to be less than thorough in their delivery methods." I can't argue with that. Several thousand extra booklets had to be redelivered as there were parts of Orpington and Petts Wood that were inexplicably not delivered to first time around. Despite deliveries supposedly being completed in January, I have yet to receive my booklet and at the roadshow I was told by one lady that none of her extended family (five separate addresses) had received theirs either. Only 250 individuals attended the Bexleyheath roadshow (which was advertised in the booklet) which represents only about 0.1% of the population locally. If this is mirrored in the number of responses to the consultation questionnaire then the Chief Executive's comment that "response levels...are so far very positive" begin to appear to be very wide of the mark.
John Hemming-Clark
Your reader...takes us to task for wasting "time, money and resources on what are clearly half thought-out plans."
A Picture of Health is a vital consultation about NHS services for more than a million residents of Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham.
I'm pleased [the reader] took the opportunity to return a questionnaire - because we do want to know what people think before we make final recommendations.
This is why we printed more than 700,000 booklets. The cost was the equivalent of one second class postage stamp for every resident in the four boroughs - 24p.
Response levels to the consultation are so far very positive.
I am concerned she found the document difficult to understand. I can assure her we are working hard to explain the proposals fully to everyone.
For instance, our full page adverts in the local media explain the options in an at-a-glance style.
and our response.......
The Chief Executive of Lewisham PCT states (letters, 27th February) that the cost of each of the 700,000 A Picture of Health booklets is 24p. Funny that. When I was at the Bexleyheath roadshow I was told by another PCT employee that the cost was 46p each.
The booklets were not personalised and / or delivered by Royal Mail, rather a private delivery company was used. In the words of this same employee, "When you get down to the person who is actually delivering the booklets, some of the individuals are bound to be less than thorough in their delivery methods." I can't argue with that. Several thousand extra booklets had to be redelivered as there were parts of Orpington and Petts Wood that were inexplicably not delivered to first time around. Despite deliveries supposedly being completed in January, I have yet to receive my booklet and at the roadshow I was told by one lady that none of her extended family (five separate addresses) had received theirs either. Only 250 individuals attended the Bexleyheath roadshow (which was advertised in the booklet) which represents only about 0.1% of the population locally. If this is mirrored in the number of responses to the consultation questionnaire then the Chief Executive's comment that "response levels...are so far very positive" begin to appear to be very wide of the mark.
John Hemming-Clark
"We're doing this from a clinical perspective"
I guess if you say it often enough people will begin to believe it. Why else would Simon Robbins, Senior Responsible Officer for A Picture of Health have blurted the above out at the JCPCT meeting on 3rd March? Unfortunately for Mr. Senior Responsible Officer, the people of Bexley and Bromley Boroughs and elsewhere have already seen through the mutterings of the unelected bureaucrats that are attempting to force through this APoH consultation document that many don't even understand.
The focus has been on the loss of A & E but let's for a moment look at children's services. The Healthcare Commission has given Queen Mary's a "good" for services for children, whilst PRU (Farnborough) and Woolwich both only get a "fair". Yet which hospital is going to lose its children's services - inpatients, assessment and treatment, in all 3 options? Answer: Queen Mary's.
"Clinical perspective" indeed. It would be funny if these people weren't actually deciding our children's future health care provision.
The focus has been on the loss of A & E but let's for a moment look at children's services. The Healthcare Commission has given Queen Mary's a "good" for services for children, whilst PRU (Farnborough) and Woolwich both only get a "fair". Yet which hospital is going to lose its children's services - inpatients, assessment and treatment, in all 3 options? Answer: Queen Mary's.
"Clinical perspective" indeed. It would be funny if these people weren't actually deciding our children's future health care provision.
Monday 3 March 2008
KEEP OUR N H S PUBLIC
Across England NHS patients and local communities have been linking up with nurses, doctors and other health care workers to meet, march, protest and lobby as they fight to stop further closures and cuts in local NHS services. Beds, wards and even whole hospitals are closing down.
Thousands of health workers' jobs are being axed.But alongside the cuts, an unprecedented process of privatisation is under way: vital services and precious NHS resources are being handed over to the private sector, including companies run for profit for shareholders here and overseas. Now is the time to fight back to Keep Our NHS Public!The campaign was launched in September 2005 and has won the backing of hundreds of senior doctors, academics, health workers and trade union leaders, celebrities, MPs and local campaigners for its launch statement. Now we are inviting all those who support our appeal to JOIN Keep Our NHS Public, and to work with us to build local broad-based campaigns that can stop and roll back the juggernaut of a government policy that is wrecking our NHS.We campaign for our aims and principles.
Chief amongst these:
To inform the public and the media what is happening as a result of the Government's "reform" programme.
To build a broadly based non-party political campaign to prevent further fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS.
To keep our NHS Public. This means funded from taxation, free at the point of use, and provided as a public service by people employed in the NHS and accountable to the public and Parliament. To call for a public debate about the future of the NHS and to halt the further use of the private sector until such a debate is had.
from Keep our NHS Public http://www.keepournhspublic.com
Thousands of health workers' jobs are being axed.But alongside the cuts, an unprecedented process of privatisation is under way: vital services and precious NHS resources are being handed over to the private sector, including companies run for profit for shareholders here and overseas. Now is the time to fight back to Keep Our NHS Public!The campaign was launched in September 2005 and has won the backing of hundreds of senior doctors, academics, health workers and trade union leaders, celebrities, MPs and local campaigners for its launch statement. Now we are inviting all those who support our appeal to JOIN Keep Our NHS Public, and to work with us to build local broad-based campaigns that can stop and roll back the juggernaut of a government policy that is wrecking our NHS.We campaign for our aims and principles.
Chief amongst these:
To inform the public and the media what is happening as a result of the Government's "reform" programme.
To build a broadly based non-party political campaign to prevent further fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS.
To keep our NHS Public. This means funded from taxation, free at the point of use, and provided as a public service by people employed in the NHS and accountable to the public and Parliament. To call for a public debate about the future of the NHS and to halt the further use of the private sector until such a debate is had.
from Keep our NHS Public http://www.keepournhspublic.com
Saturday 23 February 2008
John to stand in London Assembly elections as a candidate for Bexley & Bromley Constituency
I am pleased to announce today that I will be standing as a candidate in the forthcoming London Assembly elections to be held on 1st May. I will standing in the Bexley & Bromley constituency as a candidate for Independents to save Queen Mary's Hospital. Unfortunately our local politicians are are not doing anything like enough to stop our A & E from closing. Therefore, by standing, every vote that I receive will be a vote that sends a message to our local and national government that we demand a local hospital that offers ALL services. I read today that quangos - that's semi-public bodies with financial support from, and senior appointments made by, the government - now spend £123,000,000,000 of our - the taxpayers' - money a year! The interviewers and interviewees for these quangos are all part of the same cosy club with multiple "directorships" and big salaries to match. I want some of that money and I want it for our local hospital in order that it can continue to offer a full health service.
Nothing less will do.
Nothing less will do.
Tuesday 5 February 2008
Derek Conway MP must go....now?
It comes as no surprise that despite 91%* of Old Bexley & Sidcup constituents saying that he should "go now", at the time of writing it appears that Derek Conway MP is going to attempt to hang onto his job until the general election, which could be over 2 years away, with his salary, expenses and extremely generous pension remaining intact. Let's get one thing clear - this guy has misappropriated YOUR money. Why should he be allowed to remain as an MP, whether as a Conservative or not?
The problem that the Conservatives are going to have come the general election, should Derek Conway hang on, is that the voters of Old Bexley & Sidcup are going to see that a vote for CONSERVATIVE X is an endorsement of a party that accepts the shenanigans of its previous MP. I will take on whoever stands as the Conservative candidate in Old Bexley and Sidcup, even if I do have to wait until the general election. I would love to say "bring it on" now and let's have a by-election...but, although I can understand people thinking that "if he says he wants x he actually wants y", my job would become easier by the day, week and month, taking on a failed politician, so that at the last, when the general election is called, the voters will say, "good riddance to bad meat" and vote anything but CONSERVATIVE X. So, if he's not going to do the moral thing and go now, then that suits me just fine.
*'Phone poll, 4.2.08, by Independents to save Queen Mary's Hospital, of 137 voters who expressed an opinion
The problem that the Conservatives are going to have come the general election, should Derek Conway hang on, is that the voters of Old Bexley & Sidcup are going to see that a vote for CONSERVATIVE X is an endorsement of a party that accepts the shenanigans of its previous MP. I will take on whoever stands as the Conservative candidate in Old Bexley and Sidcup, even if I do have to wait until the general election. I would love to say "bring it on" now and let's have a by-election...but, although I can understand people thinking that "if he says he wants x he actually wants y", my job would become easier by the day, week and month, taking on a failed politician, so that at the last, when the general election is called, the voters will say, "good riddance to bad meat" and vote anything but CONSERVATIVE X. So, if he's not going to do the moral thing and go now, then that suits me just fine.
*'Phone poll, 4.2.08, by Independents to save Queen Mary's Hospital, of 137 voters who expressed an opinion
Derek Conway MP faces challenge from Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital
Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital, the party set up last October to fight to prevent any reduction in and closing of services at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup which is in Derek Conway's constituency, today announced that its party leader, John Hemming-Clark, will stand in the Old Bexley & Sidcup Constituency at the next General Election.
Commenting on this announcement, John said,
"Having stood in the by-election in 2006 in the neighbouring Constituency of Bromley & Chislehurst, I know only too well how the electorate is completely fed up with MPs putting themselves before their constituents. (The Conservatives nearly lost this seat which was previously thought of as very safe).
Derek Conway should be spending his time fighting for our local Queen Mary's Hospital to retain its services, including Accident & Emergency which is under serious threat of closure. However, we find he is more interested in getting his family onto the Westminster gravy train than campaigning locally.
Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital's aims include rebuilding first-rate services for local people, including the local health provision and we, and not Derek Conway, are the only party to fight for local people to acheive these aims."
Commenting on this announcement, John said,
"Having stood in the by-election in 2006 in the neighbouring Constituency of Bromley & Chislehurst, I know only too well how the electorate is completely fed up with MPs putting themselves before their constituents. (The Conservatives nearly lost this seat which was previously thought of as very safe).
Derek Conway should be spending his time fighting for our local Queen Mary's Hospital to retain its services, including Accident & Emergency which is under serious threat of closure. However, we find he is more interested in getting his family onto the Westminster gravy train than campaigning locally.
Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital's aims include rebuilding first-rate services for local people, including the local health provision and we, and not Derek Conway, are the only party to fight for local people to acheive these aims."
Monday 28 January 2008
Short Trip to A & E was a life-saver
Dear Mr Hemming-Clark
Please continue to do all that you can to keep Queen Mary's A & E open. A few days ago I had the most acute asthma attack, so bad that I needed resuscitation.
I thank God for Queen Mary's A & E and the medical staff; without them or the fact that Queen Mary's was so near to my home I know that I would be dead.
Yours
Susan M
25th January 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
I would not be alive today if I had the longer journey to the Princess Royal [Farnborough] or the Queen Elizabeth [Woolwich] hospitals.
After I suffered a heart attack, the ambulance arrived quickly. the paramedic worked on me all the way to Queen Mary's - a journey of six to eight minutes.
Within minutes of arrival, I has a cardiac arrest. Shortly after being resuscitated , I had another. The doctors told me I had been a challenge for the medical team and I was very lucky to be alive.
Thank you to the staff and the closeness of Queen Mary's A & E.
Valerie Watts, Robin Hill Drive, Chislehurst - from Bromley Extra 25/1/08
Please continue to do all that you can to keep Queen Mary's A & E open. A few days ago I had the most acute asthma attack, so bad that I needed resuscitation.
I thank God for Queen Mary's A & E and the medical staff; without them or the fact that Queen Mary's was so near to my home I know that I would be dead.
Yours
Susan M
25th January 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
I would not be alive today if I had the longer journey to the Princess Royal [Farnborough] or the Queen Elizabeth [Woolwich] hospitals.
After I suffered a heart attack, the ambulance arrived quickly. the paramedic worked on me all the way to Queen Mary's - a journey of six to eight minutes.
Within minutes of arrival, I has a cardiac arrest. Shortly after being resuscitated , I had another. The doctors told me I had been a challenge for the medical team and I was very lucky to be alive.
Thank you to the staff and the closeness of Queen Mary's A & E.
Valerie Watts, Robin Hill Drive, Chislehurst - from Bromley Extra 25/1/08
The Scandal of Mixed Sex Wards
Naturally, in an emergency, you would be grateful of a bed in any part of the hospital, even if it were in the corridor, although emergency beds are normally in individual booths. However, when you are moved to a ward, is it not reasonable to expect that you (or your teenage daughter or elderly mother) would be able to be moved to one that was caring for patients of the same sex as you (or them)? Despite the Conservatives in the 1990s pledging to abolish mixed sex wards, they didn't. Despite the Labour Party pledging in 1997 to abolish mixed sex wards it has now withdrawn that pledge, suggesting today that the only way to make single sex wards work would be to put each patient in their own individual ward.
What nonsense!
Once again our politicians are chipping away at all that was excellent about our National Health Service, pushing us into accepting this change "because there is no alternative". There is an alternative, that is voting for a party that will rebuild first-rate services for local people, including the local health provision, that is: Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital.
What nonsense!
Once again our politicians are chipping away at all that was excellent about our National Health Service, pushing us into accepting this change "because there is no alternative". There is an alternative, that is voting for a party that will rebuild first-rate services for local people, including the local health provision, that is: Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital.
Monday 14 January 2008
Consultation Proposals to close Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup's A & E mean a disaster waiting to happen
With more people in our area, including more young, more old, more sick, more vulnerable, not forgetting a major A-road into London, we should be INCREASING our hospital services. However, the consultation report published last week proposes, in all of the options, closing the A & E at Queen Mary’s. This means that, if the report is accepted, that the A & E at Queen Mary’s will definitely close.
With the closure of the A & E there will also be the loss of maternity, emergency surgery and the intensive care unit. The top part of the Queen Mary’s site will become redundant and will be sold off for development as happened at Orpington and Bromley Hospitals. Nearly all of the patients will have to travel to Farnborough, Woolwich or Dartford, 3 hospitals that, as well as being further away, are already running to capacity in their A & E departments. If the A & E closes it will mean a disaster.
This is nothing short of an obscenity from a government that is spinning the fact that under it health care is improving, with local politicians who were unable to stop the closure of Bromley Hospital or the A & E at Orpington hospital.
We will continue to state the obvious, that the further you have to travel in an emergency, the more at risk patients will be from dying. We must as a community, all protest at these proposals, by whatever means.
With the closure of the A & E there will also be the loss of maternity, emergency surgery and the intensive care unit. The top part of the Queen Mary’s site will become redundant and will be sold off for development as happened at Orpington and Bromley Hospitals. Nearly all of the patients will have to travel to Farnborough, Woolwich or Dartford, 3 hospitals that, as well as being further away, are already running to capacity in their A & E departments. If the A & E closes it will mean a disaster.
This is nothing short of an obscenity from a government that is spinning the fact that under it health care is improving, with local politicians who were unable to stop the closure of Bromley Hospital or the A & E at Orpington hospital.
We will continue to state the obvious, that the further you have to travel in an emergency, the more at risk patients will be from dying. We must as a community, all protest at these proposals, by whatever means.
Letter to Bromley Extra
Your report Prof. Sir George Alberti as saying, in relation to the likely loss of A & E services at Queen Mary’s Hospital, that “it is obvious that no change is not an option, both clinically and economically.” To our minds this is the comment of someone totally out of touch with reality.
Clinically, the further one has to travel in an emergency, the greater the risk of mortality.
Economically, the planned NHS computer system that was originally to cost £2 billion, has now reached £12 billion. It will probably cost have £20 billion by the time it is implemented. This is enough money to keep Queen Mary’s going for over 200 years.
We used to have six A & Es in the area, soon we will be down to 2.
Sir George says, “If change is needed, let’s get on with it.” Yes, we agree that change is needed, but in improving our local hospitals, not closing them down bit by bit.
Clinically, the further one has to travel in an emergency, the greater the risk of mortality.
Economically, the planned NHS computer system that was originally to cost £2 billion, has now reached £12 billion. It will probably cost have £20 billion by the time it is implemented. This is enough money to keep Queen Mary’s going for over 200 years.
We used to have six A & Es in the area, soon we will be down to 2.
Sir George says, “If change is needed, let’s get on with it.” Yes, we agree that change is needed, but in improving our local hospitals, not closing them down bit by bit.
FROM 6 A & Es to JUST TWO IN 10 YEARS
Accident & Emergency departments in the outer south east London area in the process of reducing in number from six to just two in 10 years.
When Orpington Hospital lost its A&E in 2000 the local residents were assured by the Hospital’s Board that Bromley Hospital and Farnborough Hospital would cover the extra work and that there were no further closures planned. When Bromley Hospital closed in its entirety in 2003 the local residents were assured by the Hospital’s Board that Beckenham Hospital and the rebuilt Farnborough Hospital would cope and that there were no further closures planned. Now we have recommendations to close two more A&Es from Queen Mary’s and Lewisham.
There are well over 1,000,000 people living and working in the area covered by these four hospitals and the recommendation to service the A&E needs of these patients in just two hospitals is madness.
The recent briefing on behalf of the Primary Care Organisations and Hospital Trusts in the outer south east London area states that “everyone is very excited about the opportunity…” and that “…a move towards two hospitals would be preferred to deliver maximums benefits in terms of improving patient care.” These are the comments of the senior clinicians who are supposed to have the health needs of the local people first and foremost. But they don’t…they have finance.
Despite Queen Mary’s A&E treating tens of thousands of patients each year, including over 20,000 children, it is in the firing line for closure. Once the A&E unit closes, the maternity unit will close. We will then lose the intensive care unit. All the buildings at the top of the site will then become redundant and we will see the land sold of for residential development as happened at Orpington Hospital and Bromley Hospital.
Fifty years ago we were slowly building a National Health Service, free for all, that was becoming the envy of the world, putting patients first. Now, piece by piece that same health service is being dismantled by governments of both hues and senior clinicians, who are putting finance first and patients second.
We are all entitled to proper medical care within reasonable reach. We will all, wherever we live, end up travelling further in an emergency (as well as for planned treatment), with an increased risk of mortality . This must not be allowed to happen.
When Orpington Hospital lost its A&E in 2000 the local residents were assured by the Hospital’s Board that Bromley Hospital and Farnborough Hospital would cover the extra work and that there were no further closures planned. When Bromley Hospital closed in its entirety in 2003 the local residents were assured by the Hospital’s Board that Beckenham Hospital and the rebuilt Farnborough Hospital would cope and that there were no further closures planned. Now we have recommendations to close two more A&Es from Queen Mary’s and Lewisham.
There are well over 1,000,000 people living and working in the area covered by these four hospitals and the recommendation to service the A&E needs of these patients in just two hospitals is madness.
The recent briefing on behalf of the Primary Care Organisations and Hospital Trusts in the outer south east London area states that “everyone is very excited about the opportunity…” and that “…a move towards two hospitals would be preferred to deliver maximums benefits in terms of improving patient care.” These are the comments of the senior clinicians who are supposed to have the health needs of the local people first and foremost. But they don’t…they have finance.
Despite Queen Mary’s A&E treating tens of thousands of patients each year, including over 20,000 children, it is in the firing line for closure. Once the A&E unit closes, the maternity unit will close. We will then lose the intensive care unit. All the buildings at the top of the site will then become redundant and we will see the land sold of for residential development as happened at Orpington Hospital and Bromley Hospital.
Fifty years ago we were slowly building a National Health Service, free for all, that was becoming the envy of the world, putting patients first. Now, piece by piece that same health service is being dismantled by governments of both hues and senior clinicians, who are putting finance first and patients second.
We are all entitled to proper medical care within reasonable reach. We will all, wherever we live, end up travelling further in an emergency (as well as for planned treatment), with an increased risk of mortality . This must not be allowed to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
