Today I spoke at a public meeting to say no to the threat to close
King George Hospital A&E and over 400 beds. The other speakers included:
Chris Carter (
Ilford Recorder Editor);
Mike Gapes MP;
Fr. Benjamin Rutt-Field;
Lee Scott MP; Cllr Ralph Scott; and a range of other local faith leaders.
In my speech I said the following:
It is great news and testament to the community campaign that you have carried out that, as announced by
Mike O'Brien, the Minister of State for Health Services,
the Government have referred the decision about whether or not A&E and maternity services at King George’s Hospital will close to an independent reconfiguration panel for review. I echo what
John Lister, of the pressure group
Health Emergency is quoted in this week’s Ilford Recorder as saying, "It shows that if you don't clamour, your hospital will close down.”
But, he goes on to say that, “the fight is still on and campaigners need to keep the pressure on.” With that in mind I would to highlight something Mike O’Brien said last Wednesday which gives cause for concern and an indication of how the campaign may need to be taken forward.
Mike O’Brien was quoted in the Recorder as saying: "I’ve been to see the services for myself and it’s clear that there’s a great deal of affection for this hospital.” That sounds positive and straightforward but the language politician’s use is always significant and the subtext to this statement is that local campaigning is based on sentiment not facts. Local ‘affection’ for a place is not a substantial argument for keeping it open and the key to keeping these services at King Georges will not be sentimental affection but facts about the best way of delivering healthcare in this area. So the perception that this campaign is based on sentiment rather than facts is one that will need to be challenged and changed in the next phase of the campaign.
One aspect of the health services’ plan to challenge is their intention to engage in social engineering. Their plans to close A&E at King Georges are based on their judgement that 75% of those people currently treated at A&E can be treated as effectively elsewhere. So their plans, as they have set them out, rely completely on that significant group of A&E users changing their behaviour and using either the new Urgent Care Centre or their GP. We all know what would actually happen if those plans became reality, even if the planners refuse to acknowledge it, less A&E with similar numbers of people trying to access those reduced services. So, the campaign focus needs to be on the ways in which the arrangements for change don’t stack up.
As a local faith leader, I see on each visit to parishioners in hospital the value of locally provided healthcare and, with those of my parishioners who have to go further afield to receive the treatment they require, also see the pressure that longer and more difficult journeys place on family and friends as they seek to supplement the care provided by the health services.
Centralising emergency services may save the NHS money but only at a real cost to all its users who then have to travel out of their local area to access these vital services. That cost won’t appear on any NHS balance sheet, nor, I imagine will the significant cost of making these changes be offset against the savings made. We all know, from the recent Audit Office figures on Government Department reorganisations, how much change can cost significantly reducing the savings achieved.
For all these reasons, and more, it is vital that this campaign keeps the pressure on until A&E and maternity at King Georges are saved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writz -
Night Nurse.
