The Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, has today given his support for the Health for north east London proposals to go ahead. This follows advice from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) which conducted an extensive review to consider whether the proposals were in the best interests for the local [sic!] community.
The IRP agreed that our proposals will enable the provision of safe, sustainable and accessible [sic!] services and offer real benefits in terms of clinical and service quality. The report is available online at http://www.irpanel.org.uk/. The Secretary of State supports the panel’s advice in full. Whilst considering the concerns raised by some stakeholders, [that's our 3 MPs, All our councillors plus a mega petition: Ed] the Secretary of State recognised the need for large scale change to secure a sustainable local [sic!] healthcare system, and noted the IRP’s view that there was genuine and extensive effort made to engage and consult [but not listen] appropriately.
This means we can now move forward with our plans to bring about significant improvements to local [sic!] health services. Concentrating services on fewer sites [somewhere else] will ensure that hospitals can increase senior consultant presence on wards, meaning faster, better decisions – and improved patient outcomes [provided you can get there on the bus].
We also today received the [damning] report of the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) investigation into the quality of care provided at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. The CQC’s report set out a range of quality and safety priorities which the trust must urgently address, with the support of local commissioners and partners.
Improvements in the management, culture and working practices at the trust were identified, but the CQC said more needs to be done, particularly in relation to maternity services. As you know, NHS ONEL and the trust, working with other hospitals across north east London, have already implemented a new maternity plan that is keeping the numbers of women delivering at the hospital within safe limits on very busy days. [So where does the overflow go?] We need to do more, however, to increase the capacity of maternity services and choice for pregnant women locally. [In my experience pregnant women do not get a choice as to when baby is ready to exit]
Addressing those urgent safety and quality issues identified by the CQC is the immediate priority, but once this has happened, we can then move forward with implementing the service changes proposed in Health for north east London.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that implementation of the Health for north east London proposals should proceed immediately after improvements across both Queen’s and King George hospitals have been demonstrated.
GP commissioners and other clinicians are leading the implementation of the changes. Their priority will be to ensure that any changes are made safely and effectively. We will be working with GP leaders and local trusts to progress the IRP’s recommendations fully and develop an action plan to address these. We will continue to involve patient representatives and LINks, along with staff and other stakeholders.
You can read more about the Health for north east London plans at http://www.healthfornel.nhs.uk/. If you have any queries please contact the NHS outer north east London communications team.
Heather Mullin
Chief executive
NHS outer north east London
Redbridge’s A&E and labour unit axed - Ilford Recorder
Lest anybody is unaware, "Heather Mullin" was previously known as Heather O'Meara.
ReplyDeleteIt was with utter dismay, and disbelief, that I learned earlier this afternoon of the Health Secretary's decision regarding the future of maternity and A&E services currently provided at King George Hospital.
Given the report earlier in the day about the CQC's latest findings at Queens Hospital the transfer of service to that hospital from King George defies all logic and reason. I can only assume that Andrew Lansley is as inept as some councillors in challenging the advice of his officials. And this despite all the pre-election hype, spin, and big talk about keeping hospital facilities threatened with closure.
I first worked in support of a Conservative candidate in the 1951 general election when I was a Young Conservative in Dagenham. I have voted for the party's candidates at every election since 1957. But I have no hesitation in saying, given the evsnts of the last 17 months, that never again will I do so for as long as Cameron remains leader of the party. I would have more confidence in buying goods or services from a "cold caller" at the front door.
In the meantime the campaign for saving services at King George must continue.
An appalling decision. Redbridge needs to change its slogan from "A better place to live" to a better place to die"!
ReplyDeleteMargaret Hodges was interviewed by BBC News and she was scathing about Lansley's moronic decision. He lied about closures. Same for Chase Farm Hospital, where my father was taken after his first heart attack. It saved his life.
Years ago, ambulance men warned that closing the A&E at King George's would cost lives. They know the traffic jams that build up between Ilford and Romford.
The fight must go on.
Re maternity services, the proposals include directing women living in the Brentwood/Chelmsford areas away from Queens (no, I can't imagine why they were coming to Romford), and sending Redbridge mothers who are having elective Caesarians to Homerton Hospital (no, I can't imagine why you would send a woman with known problems well away from their home area).
ReplyDeleteIt is a fact that keeping an A&E requires keeping expensive theatres and staff open full-time - BHRUT Trust has been so badly managed for at least 10yrs that it is well over £100mil in debt, one of the highest in England, so that can no longer be afforded. In the winter of 2009, the NHS as a whole was ordered to start reducing its expenditure by £20-30billion nationwide over the next 5 years.
It is my opinion that the NHS has been an unworkable structure since its inception. While it was based on undoubtedly noble concepts, its planning was built on ignorant premises ("when the nation's health improves there will be dwindling use of medical services" - Aneurin Bevan) and utterly unsound financial planning, as Herbert Morrison warned.
comment @ 27 October, 2011 19:33
ReplyDeleteSeems to be a trend among ex-Redbridge conservative cllrs.
So, Judith, what justice is there when the person who presided over this scandal as chief executive for part of the time then gets promoted to a bigger job? All the evidence suggests that she might well lack the competence required to organise a vicarage tea party.
ReplyDeleteHeather Mullin was Chief Executive of the Redbridge Primary Care Trust, which she undoubtedly left in a better financial and administrative position than where it was when she started.
ReplyDeleteMark Rees was Chief Executive of the Hospital Trust, and it was under his charge that the situation there deteriorated badly. Mr Rees left his position, with no notice, days before the Trust's annual accounts were published. Accounts which finally revealed some of the Trust's debts. Mr Rees walked away with a handsome pension pot, and has since set up a Health Management Consultancy.
It might be satisfying to attribute all known ills to one hate figure, but it's rarely a fully accurate diagnosis.
The only options left now,are to go above
ReplyDeleteLansbury's head, to Cameron and Clegg, but not
only them but also the Head of State, if only
for the publicity it will create.If and when that fails our elected representatives should
then consider what sanctions they should take against the Government (i.e. the threat of retaining Business Rates)or other sanctions which do not put them at such risk.
Sorry, dopeyf. Nice idea, but a non-starter. Cameroon has already lost credibility on this one with the volte face over Chase Farm A&E, and Cleggover has little or no political advantage to make in this part of the world. The "Head of State", ie the Queen, has only a symbolic role and certainly not one for intervention. Withholding business rates means nothing. Redbridge's position regarding government grant means already that they retain all of the NNDR collected as a credit towards that grant. In practical terms they could withhold only from themselves.
ReplyDeleteI see that Heather Mullin has been appointed to oversee the closure - a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
ReplyDelete