St Helier and Epsom Hospitals - Where Now?
The following is an update on where things are after recent media reports.
Following the well attended Epsom Hospital March, Unison have now called for a March over the future of St Helier Hospital on 25 November. Marchers will assemble at the car park near the Junior Tennis Centre in Rosehill Park and march to the open space opposite the hospital for a rally. Please support it.
Despite senior Trust officers saying I was wrong at their recent Board meeting, I was proved right when the whole St Helier and Epsom issue appeared on Sunday on TV on "The Politics Show"
It was good to see local MP's united on the issue with the realisation that we have moved on from previous site debates.
Below I set out a likely scenario for the coming years.
Over the next year. Maternity will shift from Epsom. The 7 patient a day A&E shift from Epsom will also remain, so instead of it being 150-220 daily split between Epsom and St Helier as it was up until September, it will now be 143-227.
Thus we will from next year have the Critical Care Hospital that was proposed in the 2000 Nigel Sewell "Investing in Excellence" proposals, which came before BHCH and is still worth reading.
Assuming downgrading to St Georges occurs, St Helier will survive as the current CCH for 2-3 years before up to 50 patients a day transfer to St Georges. This will probably split 13 extra from Epsom and 37 from St Helier.
Thus at the end of the change process in the next 5 years probably 130 patients a day will still go to Epsom for minor injuries/elderly breathing problems etc, 190 to St Helier and 50 to St Georges compared to the September 2005 position of 150-220-0 respectively.
In the longer run it is possible that has home based services develop, less people will go to minor injuries units, though I suspect you will see more GP services provided from Epsom and St Helier.
In the unlikely event they succeed with the the Sutton Hospital option, the 50 a day figure will go there, with the 130-190 figure respectively for Epsom and St Helier remaining.
Thus the next desperate argument will be that the real long-term choice is between St Georges and a suggested Sutton site. In a year or two I predict that certain people in Epsom will switch to supporting their Reigate Council and Surrey County Council colleagues who have already expressed a preference for the Sutton site over Epsom and who have already abandoned the Epsom site for A&E purposes.
Sutton residents are by a 2-1 majority in the Trust's own consultation strongly opposed to the development of the Sutton site. However I do not believe there is any money to fund a Sutton site and the Royal Marsden seem much more interested in spending money on their "West London" projects.
Thus I suspect Epsom and St Helier would become downgraded health facilties with links to super hospitals at Kingston, Mayday, St Georges in London and East Surrey and St Peter's in Surrey.
Nevertheless it is worth fighting to protect local services at St Helier as well as campaign for phased investment in the site in the coming years.
The figures above are based on Keith Ford's CCH presentation at the ICR building from November 2005 extrapolated on to the recently reported daily figures that I got out of them from the last Trust Board meeting. Health Scrutiny might want to ask them to set out the whole issue of likely daily patient flows under the changing arrangements as until they do. my analysis is likely to be the only one around.
Whilst the Sutton and Epsom Post is totally right that the NHS could make up to 20 million from the sale of the Epsom site, it is unlikely to make any money from the St Helier site as it is actually owned by Sutton Council which it leases to the NHS for the specific purpose of providing "a hospital for the community of St Helier". I know as Nigel Sewell showed the lease to me.
Thus the only organisation that would gain from the redesignation of the St Helier site would be Sutton Council, who as planning authority are currently reviewing their planning policy. No wonder some in Sutton Council want the Sutton Hospital site as Sutton could make up to 20 million from a disposal. There would be a large number of objections to any proposed redesignation.
However, I suspect Sutton Council will sensibly not have the guts to do this, so assuming St Helier is downgraded, it is likely to be kept for NHS purposes and GP services, Intermediate Care and mental health wards are likely to be proposed for the site. Epsom is much more likely to be a prime spot for the development of privately provided NHS services, which of course will still be free at the point of use but privately managed. In addition I suspect other social care services will also be relocated on the Epsom site, through commissioning by Surrey County Council.
Following the well attended Epsom Hospital March, Unison have now called for a March over the future of St Helier Hospital on 25 November. Marchers will assemble at the car park near the Junior Tennis Centre in Rosehill Park and march to the open space opposite the hospital for a rally. Please support it.
Despite senior Trust officers saying I was wrong at their recent Board meeting, I was proved right when the whole St Helier and Epsom issue appeared on Sunday on TV on "The Politics Show"
It was good to see local MP's united on the issue with the realisation that we have moved on from previous site debates.
Below I set out a likely scenario for the coming years.
Over the next year. Maternity will shift from Epsom. The 7 patient a day A&E shift from Epsom will also remain, so instead of it being 150-220 daily split between Epsom and St Helier as it was up until September, it will now be 143-227.
Thus we will from next year have the Critical Care Hospital that was proposed in the 2000 Nigel Sewell "Investing in Excellence" proposals, which came before BHCH and is still worth reading.
Assuming downgrading to St Georges occurs, St Helier will survive as the current CCH for 2-3 years before up to 50 patients a day transfer to St Georges. This will probably split 13 extra from Epsom and 37 from St Helier.
Thus at the end of the change process in the next 5 years probably 130 patients a day will still go to Epsom for minor injuries/elderly breathing problems etc, 190 to St Helier and 50 to St Georges compared to the September 2005 position of 150-220-0 respectively.
In the longer run it is possible that has home based services develop, less people will go to minor injuries units, though I suspect you will see more GP services provided from Epsom and St Helier.
In the unlikely event they succeed with the the Sutton Hospital option, the 50 a day figure will go there, with the 130-190 figure respectively for Epsom and St Helier remaining.
Thus the next desperate argument will be that the real long-term choice is between St Georges and a suggested Sutton site. In a year or two I predict that certain people in Epsom will switch to supporting their Reigate Council and Surrey County Council colleagues who have already expressed a preference for the Sutton site over Epsom and who have already abandoned the Epsom site for A&E purposes.
Sutton residents are by a 2-1 majority in the Trust's own consultation strongly opposed to the development of the Sutton site. However I do not believe there is any money to fund a Sutton site and the Royal Marsden seem much more interested in spending money on their "West London" projects.
Thus I suspect Epsom and St Helier would become downgraded health facilties with links to super hospitals at Kingston, Mayday, St Georges in London and East Surrey and St Peter's in Surrey.
Nevertheless it is worth fighting to protect local services at St Helier as well as campaign for phased investment in the site in the coming years.
The figures above are based on Keith Ford's CCH presentation at the ICR building from November 2005 extrapolated on to the recently reported daily figures that I got out of them from the last Trust Board meeting. Health Scrutiny might want to ask them to set out the whole issue of likely daily patient flows under the changing arrangements as until they do. my analysis is likely to be the only one around.
Whilst the Sutton and Epsom Post is totally right that the NHS could make up to 20 million from the sale of the Epsom site, it is unlikely to make any money from the St Helier site as it is actually owned by Sutton Council which it leases to the NHS for the specific purpose of providing "a hospital for the community of St Helier". I know as Nigel Sewell showed the lease to me.
Thus the only organisation that would gain from the redesignation of the St Helier site would be Sutton Council, who as planning authority are currently reviewing their planning policy. No wonder some in Sutton Council want the Sutton Hospital site as Sutton could make up to 20 million from a disposal. There would be a large number of objections to any proposed redesignation.
However, I suspect Sutton Council will sensibly not have the guts to do this, so assuming St Helier is downgraded, it is likely to be kept for NHS purposes and GP services, Intermediate Care and mental health wards are likely to be proposed for the site. Epsom is much more likely to be a prime spot for the development of privately provided NHS services, which of course will still be free at the point of use but privately managed. In addition I suspect other social care services will also be relocated on the Epsom site, through commissioning by Surrey County Council.
posted by Charlie Mansell at 3:01 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home