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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
