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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.