The Titanic moves full speed ahead!!
Much to my amazement, with a financial position worsening and Foundation Status further away the Board meeting of the Epsom and St Helier Trust anounced today it was still going forward with plans to resurrect the Critical Care Hospital on the Sutton site.
I suggested to them that such a proposal would at best be for a very small unit attached to the Royal Marsden. They claimed it would still be a big hospital.
I also asked where the money would come from and they basically said they would pay for it from a mortgage based on their revenue income. This is despite the fact that they seem to have a declining income as a result of PCT's at last implementing a revenue led form of Better Health Care Closer to Home through their Turnaround Plans.
The entire debate seemed like a scene form the film "Downfall" on the last days of Hitler, where imaginary armies were committed to battle.
Having reported at the Board that only 7 people would transfer a day from Epsom to St Helier under the new changes so that the new daily figures were now Epsom 143 and St Helier 227, I suspect many people would now prefer to accept this current unpalatable change and no further. Instead after the likely transfer of maternity services from Epsom to St Helier with no birthing unit to replace it (despite what Jayne McCoy hopes) the Board want to take away further significant services from Epsom and St Helier.
If in the end Patients Choice combined with clinical change leads to a slow decline of the Trust, so that in the end St Georges, Kingston and St Peters become the main regional Critical Care Centres with Epsom and St Helier slowly declining into Local Care Hospitals, then that is something we will all have to work together to at least mitigate, but the public themselves will have spoken through their own choices which we all may have to respect. However the proposal by the Trust to develop a new Critical Care Hospital is not patient led but actually bureacracy led.
My advice to the Trust is to drop this mad plan and get on with working with the PCT on better community serves for which the Epsom and St Helier Trust could also be the largest provider for.
Though I am not convinced they will be successful in the current national climate, they could end up wasting a lot more money on more abortive plans. Perhaps Health Scrutiny people might like to ask about this?
I suggested to them that such a proposal would at best be for a very small unit attached to the Royal Marsden. They claimed it would still be a big hospital.
I also asked where the money would come from and they basically said they would pay for it from a mortgage based on their revenue income. This is despite the fact that they seem to have a declining income as a result of PCT's at last implementing a revenue led form of Better Health Care Closer to Home through their Turnaround Plans.
The entire debate seemed like a scene form the film "Downfall" on the last days of Hitler, where imaginary armies were committed to battle.
Having reported at the Board that only 7 people would transfer a day from Epsom to St Helier under the new changes so that the new daily figures were now Epsom 143 and St Helier 227, I suspect many people would now prefer to accept this current unpalatable change and no further. Instead after the likely transfer of maternity services from Epsom to St Helier with no birthing unit to replace it (despite what Jayne McCoy hopes) the Board want to take away further significant services from Epsom and St Helier.
If in the end Patients Choice combined with clinical change leads to a slow decline of the Trust, so that in the end St Georges, Kingston and St Peters become the main regional Critical Care Centres with Epsom and St Helier slowly declining into Local Care Hospitals, then that is something we will all have to work together to at least mitigate, but the public themselves will have spoken through their own choices which we all may have to respect. However the proposal by the Trust to develop a new Critical Care Hospital is not patient led but actually bureacracy led.
My advice to the Trust is to drop this mad plan and get on with working with the PCT on better community serves for which the Epsom and St Helier Trust could also be the largest provider for.
Though I am not convinced they will be successful in the current national climate, they could end up wasting a lot more money on more abortive plans. Perhaps Health Scrutiny people might like to ask about this?
posted by Charlie Mansell at 4:11 pm
2 Comments:
Mr Mansell- What on earth are you blathering about?
You could have at least had an interesting pseudonym, if you insist on remaining anonymous. Presumably you are one of the 27% in Sutton who support the Sutton General site and wish to resurrect this failed proposal.
The problem is:
1. There isn't the money
2. The Royal Marsden have moved on to other projects
3. It is strongly opposed by residents around the site.
4. Across the London borough of Sutton 59% prefer St helier to the 27% who support Sutton General.
5. It is opposed by both the Hospital branches of Unison and RCN.
6. All three of the MP's covering the St Helier Hospital catchment area oppose it.
7. Based on my conversations about two-thirds of Sutton Councillors oppose it, even though the Lib Dem Council leadeship is sitting on the fence on officer advice.
I think the alliance against is two strong for certain elements in the local NHS to get their way, so why not get on with investing for phased improvements in the St Helier site and the development of proper PCT and Council led community services, partly provided by the local acute Trust!
Post a Comment
<< Home