Today St John's Seven Kings hosted a meeting of the Save King George Hospital campaign. The following was my contribution to the debate:
With Andrew Lansley’s decision to make the closure of A&E and Maternity Services at King George Hospital conditional on the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust achieving the recommendations in the Care Quality Commission’s report, we reach a new and more complex stage in the campaign opposing the Trust’s plans.
Our consensus to date has been simple and clear; to oppose the closure of A&E and Maternity Services at King George. Now, though, we are also faced with the broader issue of campaigning for a better NHS deal overall for local residents. The two issues are tied together because the closure of A&E and Maternity Services at King George is conditional on the Trust achieving the targets set in the CQC report. Achieving those targets will improve the NHS deal for residents locally but will result in the closure of the services we wish to retain at King George.
That seems a Catch 22 situation and there is indeed an element of dark comedy and bleak farce to the decision to close A&E and Maternity Services at King George Hospital
“… the [CQC] report makes it clear that although services at King George were reduced over the years, it has not led to efficiency savings. All it has done is reduce the quality of care in a hospital that serves my constituents and those of a number of other MPs. The cost of doing that has not led to improvements in efficiency; on the contrary, it has contributed to the ongoing deficit problems in the dysfunctional trust.
There we have it. The Secretary of State receives a report from the IRP recommending the endorsement of NHS London’s vision to downgrade services at King George hospital in Ilford. He then receives a report saying that there are two hospitals in the trust, covering 750,000 people in the community in the three boroughs, one of which is doing badly and there are criticisms of the other. He therefore endorses the recommendations to cut the services at the hospital that is doing better, on the aspiration, but with no evidence, that it will lead to a miraculous Stakhanovite improvement in the services at the bigger, supposedly better and more expensive hospital in the long term. You really could not make it up.”
On this basis, how can the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust expect to reverse the situation, including delivering a better Maternity and A&E service - with the 25% less staff outlined in the closure plans and a rapid increase in the populations of the boroughs it serves - when the A&E service at Queens Hospital has been found to be approaching collapse by the CQC and large numbers of pregnant women are being diverted away from Queens/King George because existing staff cannot cope? Clearly, there needs to be tight, accurate monitoring of the improvements in service that the trust will claim as they seek to address the CQC targets. Ensuring that that occurs and that claimed improvements are real improvements should, presumably, be part of our campaign in its next phase.
Essentially, we need a new consensus for our campaign. Do we continue to campaign simply and solely against the closure of A&E and Maternity Services at King George or do we broaden our campaign to include a better NHS deal for our residents? Suggestions, which others have made for doing the latter, include:
1) Asking for a monthly report detailing how the trust is working towards meeting the targets set in the CQC report and holding quarterly meetings to discuss progress.
2) Seeking assurances that the two month deadline for caesarian sections to be brought back into the Trust to prevent women having to travel to Hackney is on track to be met.
3) Ask for A&E temporary closures to be published on the Health for NE London website within 48 hours.
4) Seeking support for a research study into the mortality rates for people taken to Urgent Care Units who are then transferred to a proper A&E against those who go straight to an A&E.
So, how to take forward the campaign? That, I suggest, is the key question facing us today. It is also a key question facing us as we reflect on other successful community campaigns in this area as several of the key organisers involved in those campaigns are no longer able to take that work forward as they once did. I’m thinking of the three founder members of TASK particularly. As a result, there is a need to reassess how community campaigns are organised in future: whether we continue with single issue campaigns; whether we utilise local community groups like Resident’s Associations more effectively; whether we join a broader campaigning coalition like London CITIZENS, as Chris Connelly was suggesting before his move. I suggest a meeting be organised in the New Year to explore this issue with all those locally who are concerned to see improved facilities and resources in the local area.
That is a side issue though to today’s meeting and I hope and anticipate that through the inputs of other speakers we will hear ideas and proposals which can build a new consensus to take this vital campaign, which is about the future of health services in this area, further forward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kids in Glass Houses - Gold Blood.
No comments:
Post a Comment