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?
12 HOUR VIGIL on 20th September 2008. Over 400 signatures collected.
photo copyright News Shopper.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
