Meeting with BHRUT today

Paul McGeary, Gwen Nneji and I had a meeting with Steve Russell BHRUT Deputy Chief Exective and Rachel Royal Communications Director. The issue of bed closures was discussed. BHRUT disputed the figure of 228. BHRUT have promised to supply their figures by Thursday.

On another issue Ross Lydall of the Evening Standard claims in his blog that BHRUT is among the 10 worst trusts in the country. An extract from his blog http://rosslydall.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/ae-crisis-three-london-trusts-named-among-10-worst-in-country-for-delays/ follows

"Three London hospital trusts were named today as among the worst 10 in the country for A&E delays as figures showed the NHS was under the heaviest winter pressure for a decade.

A total of 436,229 people sought emergency help across the country in the week ending on Sunday [December 7] – almost 30,000 more than the average for the same period last year.

In London, the trusts that run Northwick Park, Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals again fell far short of Government targets to see patients within four hours – adding further controversy to the decision to close two neighbouring casualty units in September.

Severe delays were also reported at the east London trust that runs Queen’s hospital in Romford and King George in Ilford, where only 76 per cent of patients attending the main A&E units were seen in time."

Why have 228 beds gone from Queens and King George Hopsitals?

I wrote the below to Cllrs in Havering, Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge earlier today

Is the Secretary of State being ignored over 228 bed closures at Queens and BHRUT?

 

On 29 September Councillors Canal, Streeting, Bartlett, Tarry, Dodin and Burton went to 10 Downing Street to say the proposed closure of King George A&E should be scrapped. The Department of Heath sent back the attached letter to me of 17 October. I confess not to even forwarding the letter to Councillors at the time as it had the usual mention of a guarantee from the Secretary of State that:

 

“...no changes were to take place until he was assured that the quality of services across maternity and A&E within Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust had improved”

And

 

“There has been no downgrading of services at the King George Hospital”

 

Pages 91 Page 92 of the 2010 NHS decision making business case attached shows 740 beds at Queens and 387 beds at King George Hospital in 2010-11.

 

A Freedom of Information letter from BHRUT of 11 December 2014 shows 620 beds at Queens 279 beds at King George Hospital at 11 November 2011.

 

This means losses of 108 beds from King George Hospital and 120 from Queens. And a total loss of 228 beds or 20.2% of the total since 2010.

 The 2010 NHS target for the end of this year to achieve the closure of King George A&E in 2014 was a cut of 250 beds given at page 91. BHRUT is only 22 beds behind the 2010 target.

NHS statistics cut and pasted to http://savekinggeorgehospital.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/9746-nhs-beds-lost-since-2010-no-more-should-go-from-bhrut/ show 110,568 general and acute beds 2010 being cut to 103,690 in 2014, a reduction of 6.2%. It seems clear local residents are being treated unfairly when it comes a fair deal from the NHS.

 

These bed cuts at our hospitals suggest the plan to close King George A&E is going ahead without democratic oversight promised by Mr Lansley, the Secretary of State in 2011. The public were told earlier this year there are no plans to close King George A&E in the foreseeable future. These bed cuts appear to undermine this claim.

This large reduction in our local NHS is impacting upon patient care. The BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25055444 report 4 hour waiting times at Queens and King George of 76.4%, the national average is 87.7%, the safe level is 95%. The bed occupancy rate at Queens was 94% on 11 November and at King George it was at 97.1%, both well over the safe level of 85%. The NHS website gives the most recent national average bed occupancy of 87.6%.

 

Another NHS benchmark is Referral to Treatment within 18 weeks. I wanted to check if BHRUT was also behind average here, but cannot report because BHRUT has not filed the October return,  A poor showing here has the ability to impact on death rates.

I have put in a FoI for the number of medical staff employed by BHRUT in our hospitals on 1^st January 2010 and how many are employed today using the same methodology used by the NHS when at page 123 of the attached decision making business case. Page 123 of this staff shows 25% of the medical posts to go by next year since 2011 and I am concerned we may have lost a large number of medical staff as well as beds.

 

I have a meeting with BHRUT on Tuesday 9:30, it seems an ideal time to ask questions about whether Mr Lansley’s promise is being adhered too. Please let me know if you can attend too.

 

If no evidence of can be provided of these large bed cuts being signed off by Mr Hunt the Secretary of State for Health, then there appear grounds for asking him to reverse the bed cuts as part of the improvement plan for Queens and King George Hospitals. 

 

Both QH and KGH seem to have been "downgraded"

 

Regards

Andy Walker 07956 263088

 

Mike Gapes, Lee Scott & Wes Streeting speak out

Ahead of the Friday 14 November meeting for 730pm at Barkingside Library the platform speakers have their say below

Lee Scott MP says

We have worked together long and hard on the ‘Save King George Hospital’ campaign and have a very robust case to make on health provision in the area. The great strength of our local effort is that it has, so far, been non-party political. Our factual case has been argued and presented in the same way regardless of which party happened to be in power at the time.

Mike Gapes MP says

In 2011 Andrew Lansley the then Health Secretary announced plans to close  both the accident and emergency and maternity at  King George hospital within around two years.  Despite a growing young population Ilford's maternity services were closed in 2013. Mothers are now forced to go to Queens Hospital Romford. However the A and E closure has been delayed because Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, covering both Queen’s and King George hospitals, cannot cope with existing demand, and it would not be safe to do so.    It also has a huge deficit and has been put in special measures.  In Parliament I pressed the current Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to drop the closure plans. But he has refused to do this.  I will continue to campaign to save our A and E at King George hospital and to improve other local NHS services.

Cllr Wes Streeting, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Health & Wellbeing said:

“It’s important that people are aware that the plan to close A&E at King George Hospital is still very much alive. Delay isn’t good enough: we want to see the plan abandoned. It’s clear that Queen’s isn’t suitable for our growing population and I will continue to fight to save our local A&E.”

Notice of next Save King George Hospital meeting

Notice of Save King Hospital Meeting

Vison Suite Ilford Town Hall Tuesday  4^th November at Midday

Agenda

1) Minutes of previous meeting

2) Matters arising

3) Discussion on how to make the public meeting of 14 November at Barkingside Library a success.

4) Department of Health letter in response to deputation to 10 Downing Street

5) Update on deputation to visit Department of Health to present case for abandoning closure.

6) Discussion on inability of BHRUT and consequently Redbridge Council to publish comprehensive Key Performance Indicators. While some information is published by BHRUT, it is out of date. On the morning of 30 October, BHRUT is publishing information about July at http://www.bhrhospitals.nhs.uk/about-us/our-performance.htm

Bed occupancy rates, one of the KPIs used by the by the Care Quality Commission to determine if a hospital crosses the clinically safe threshold, do not feature at all on the BHRUT page. On time comprehensive publication of KPIs is a pressure to ensure that KGH bed closures in preparation for closing KGH A&E improve the service as promised. If any KGH bed closures lead to death rates rising then it seems likely that the doctors, nurses and beds would go back into KGH.

Neither bed numbers, nor  an easy to understand death rate, feature on the BHRUT KPI page.

David Oliver writes at http://m.hsj.co.uk/5075988.article that the:

“The best evidence for large scale quality improvement is about clinically led standards of care; clinically led innovations in models of service delivery, linked to transparent publication of data on processes and outcomes; and a community of practice and peer support from clinical leaders.” (my emphasis)

Comprehensive timely publication of KPIs should also a  means for helping BHRUT get out of special measures, the mystery is, why are they not being published?

7) Any other business.

Public Meeting Friday 14 November Barkingside Library

Public Meeting 7:30pm Friday 14 November Barkingside Library

MPs Mike Gapes and Lee Scott along with Cllr Wes Streeting, Redbridge Council Health spokesperson will say why the plan to close King George A&E needs to be abandoned must be the recommendation of the major piece of work commissioned by BHRUT into the feasibility of closing KGH A&E.

The September BHRUT AGM papers annouce the major piece of work below:



Key risks to the strategy

HfNEL focused principally on quality, with financial sustainability considered f

or northeast London as a whole, and due to the loss of income and significant capital

development needed at Queen’s, the overall impact of the changes on BHRUT’s

financial position is expected to be negative. Implementation of the changes is

predicated on significant productivity improvements that have not yet been realised,

including reduction in length of stay to create sufficient bed capacity at Queen’s to

deal with the additional activity it will see.

Although the Trust is committed to following through on the above elements and

delivering them, before embarking on any other aspects, we have asked for a major

piece of work to take place to look again at the data – including projected population

and demand – that was used to develop the original Health for North East London

proposals. ENDs My emphasis

Recorder letter

In 2011, Mr Lansley, then Secretary of State for Health, gave safety as a key concern when deciding to close King George Hospital A&E in principal. A&E 4 hour waiting times are a vital component of whether a hospital is safe. Recent Parliamentary research shows
 King George and Queens 144th of out 145 hospital trusts for A&E waiting times in England.  To even consider closing King George Hospital A&E damages Hospital staff morale and so patient care. This is why went to 10 Downing Street last week to ask the Prime Minister to intervene and throw out the idea of closing King George A&E for good.

Photos from 10 Downing St visit today & next task in campaign

Thank you to everyone attending today. Main task appears to be pushing for publication of "major piece of work" by BHRUT into whether population growth makes the 2011 decision to close KGH A&E invalid

Councillors from Havering, Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge to lobby Number 10

Councillors Canal and Steeting from Redbridge, Bartlett and Tarry from Barking and Dagenham and Dodin and Burton from Havering go to 10 Downing Street this Friday 26 September at midday to seek the support of the PM per the letter below.

Abandon the plan to close King George Hospital A&E 

We ask for your support in our campaign to improve care at the above hospitals which are in special measures for providing unsafe care. In order for care to be improved it is vital that the plan to close King George Hospital A&E is abandoned and a commitment made to keeping an A&E at the King George site. Medical staff do not want to work at Queens because there are concerned their already heavy workload will get worse if the closure happens. Staff do not want to work at King George Hospital in case they lose their jobs if the closure goes ahead.

The addendum attached provides more detail of what is happening in our two hospitals. The hospitals’ management is currently investigating the death of a child. Investigations are continuing into whether the competence of locum doctors was a factor.

Abandoning the A&E closure plan will help bring stability to our troubled hospitals and we look forward to your reply.

ENDs

Addendum

The parliamentary research paper 14/22 Accident & Emergency Performance England 2013/14: national and regional data of 14 April 2014 shows Barking and Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals Trust (BHRUT) to be the fifth busiest NHS trust in England along with ranking 144^th out of 145 trusts for 4 hour A&E waits. This suggests the growing population of this part of North East London needs more NHS resources. On 27 October 2011, the Department of Health announced the closure of King George Hospital (KGH) A&E along with the removal of the maternity unit. This plan was based upon a NHS Decision making business case dated 15 December 2010 which forecasts, at page 123, medical staff reductions of 25% by 2014/15. This has not happened. However, this 2010 plan still guides strategy at BHRUT per this extract from the September 2014 BHRUT AGM board papers at page 14 (our emphasis)

“The Trust’s clinical strategy seeks to improve quality of care, generate benefits in centralising acute services and strengthening staffing levels, while enhancing urgent care and out of hospital care where appropriate. It is underpinned by the clinically-led Health for North East London plans (HfNEL) set out by commissioners in 2010 following major public consultation.

In summary, the key elements of our clinical strategy (some of which have now been implemented) that were developed in line with HfNEL are:
Unplanned care: Stabilise its emergency care provision and performance at QH before implementing any plans to move emergency activity from KGH to QH. The ‘Front Door’ model is under review as part of the implementation plan. This will influence access and flow through the Emergency Department

Planned care: Maximise use of the Queen’s site for complex inpatient activity, and the use of KGH for day case, short stay elective and diagnostic activity, including developing a dedicated breast services unit on the KGH site

Integrated care: Relocate and develop additional intermediate and rehabilitation services at KGH and, subject to consultation, potentially centralise community services on the KGH site.

Maternity services: KGH maternity services were successfully moved to Queen’s in
2013, with an antenatal and associated service remaining at KGH

Children’s services: A focus for specialist paediatrics at Queen’s, with paediatric inpatients and the Special Care Baby Unit to move to Queen’s and paediatric day case, elective and planned diagnostics to be centralised at KGH. To develop a women’s and children’s unit at KGH that will aim to provide a fully centralised breast
service at KGH. END of Extract

The planned loss of 340 beds of KGH (page 92 of the decision-making case) along with the 25% medical staffing cuts would damage health care in North East London and needs to be abandoned as soon as possible.

There may be a tension between maximising use of Queens for complex care while leaving day cases at KGH and providing best care. Queens occupancy rates have been as high as 98% this year, when the December CQC report gives safe level of 85%. 

This is an extract the 2013 CQC report for Queens Hospital

Intensive/critical care

The patients and relatives we spoke to in the intensive care unit (ITU) felt that they had been well cared for and involved in making decisions about their treatment. The service was well-led by a team who had identified the risks and challenges the service faced and were monitoring them. However, there was a lack of patient flow in and out of the service due to delayed discharges and high bed occupancy in other parts of the hospital. This affected the service’s ability to provide responsive and effective care to all patients. Once admitted to an intensive care ward, patients received safe and effective care from caring, qualified staff. Extract ends

Medical staff do want to work at a Trust whereas such large efficiency savings are planned because it means their jobs will be at risk. As a consequence BHRUT employs  large numbers of locum staff which is not only expensive, but increases the risk of poor patient care. The extract below is from page 115 of the September BHRUT ordinary board meeting (our emphasis)

At the meeting held in June the Panel heard two cases that had occurred within the Children’s Directorate. There were a number of issues that the Panel is seeking further assurance on and this has been requested from the Directorate.
The first case discussed was a child with complex medical problems who attended the emergency department. The other case was a neonatal death that occurred within SCBU3. Actions that the Panel has requested following review of these investigation reports are:· Establish an alert system on Symphony4 to immediately identify children with
complex medical needs.· Complete a gap analysis on competencies and capabilities on Inra-Osseous
cannula usage.· Produce a flow chart that demonstrates the level of care escalation process within
Paediatrics.· Examine the level of competencies of locum doctors covering shifts within the
Trust and how this is assured. Extract Ends

BHRUT is not certain about the level of competence of locum doctors. This will not encourage the public to think our hospitals are safe.

However, there are grounds for optimism that BHRUT is considering abandoning support for the KGH A&E closure plan along with the large bed and staffing reductions entailed. At page 14 of the AGM papers.

Although the Trust is committed to following through on the above elements and delivering them, before embarking on any other aspects, we have asked for a major piece of work to take place to look again at the data – including projected population and demand – that was used to develop the original Health for North East London proposals. Extract ends

BHRUT may be concerned that closing KGH A&E is no longer feasible due to larger than expected population growth. A very welcome development. This major piece of work to be completed as soon as possible. It seems difficult for the review to show that closing KGH A&E is feasible and needs to be abandoned before winter pressures. Dropping the KGH A&E plan is a vital part of making our Hospitals safe again.

References

1The parliamentary research paper 14/22 Accident & Emergency Performance England 2013/14: national and regional data of 14 April 2014

NHS Decision making business case dated 15 December 2010

September 2014 BHRUT AGM papers

September 2014 BHRUT ordinary meeting papers

2013 CQC report for Queens Hospital

Invitation to Councillors to Visit 10 Downing Street

Councillors in Barking & Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge were written to last week per the below

 

Dear Councillors

We are writing to all Councillors in Redbridge, Havering and Barking and Dagenham to ask if you would like to come to deliver a letter to 10 Downing St on 12:00pm on Friday 26th September 2014 asking for the closure of King George Hospital A&E to be abandoned and the return of maternity to the King George Hospital site.

We would welcome Councillors from all three boroughs and all parties to attend.
The link here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13005433

shows the last time in April 2011 a letter was handed to 10 Downing Street on the issue.

The decision to close King George Hospital A&E was made in October 2011. However, the A&E remains open, but both Queens and King George Hospitals have been put into special measures for being unable to provide safe care at all times.

Queens and other London maternity units regularly close their doors as they are unable to cope with demand. BHRUT has identified a shortage of child beds locally which puts children at risk of poor care. The purpose of the photoshoot outside number 10 will be to seek to persuade the government to abandon the plan to close King George Hospital A&E and reopen the maternity unit.

The closure plans damages health care in our hospitals because medical staff do not want to work at King George Hospital A&E when it is due to close, nor do staff want to work at Queen's when thousands of extra patients are due to be sent to a hospital that cannot cope safely with the existing demand.

Regards

Bob Archer Bill Howe Andy Walker
C/O 120 Blythswood Road IG3 8SG 07956 263088

PS since writing the above Andy attended the BHRUT board meeting and AGM.

Page 115 reports a death at the special care baby unit (SCBU3), the text is copied below. The emphasis is mine

At the meeting held in June the Panel heard two cases that had occurred within the
Children’s Directorate. There were a number of issues that the Panel is seeking further
assurance on and this has been requested from the Directorate.
The first case discussed was a child with complex medical problems who attended the
emergency department. The other case was a neonatal death that occurred within
SCBU3. Actions that the Panel has requested following review of these investigation
reports are:
 Establish an alert system on Symphony4 to immediately identify children with
complex medical needs.
 Complete a gap analysis on competencies and capabilities on Inra-Osseous
cannula usage.
 Produce a flow chart that demonstrates the level of care escalation process within
Paediatrics.
 Examine the level of competencies of locum doctors covering shifts within the
Trust and how this is assured. Extract Ends

BHRUT clearly has doubts about the competency of locum doctors at KGH and Queens. The proposed closure of KGH A&E along with a reduction in medical staff of 25% over 4 years (page 123 of the attached decision making business case) has to be a factor in why medical staff do not want to work at either Queens or KGH on a permanent basis.

Although the targets in the decision making business case are not being achieved, it still determines strategy at BHRUT.

This is from the AGM papers at page 14 (my emphasis)

The Trust’s clinical strategy seeks to improve quality of care, generate benefits in
centralising acute services and strengthening staffing levels, while enhancing urgent
care and out of hospital care where appropriate. It is underpinned by the clinically-led Health for North East London plans (HfNEL) set out by commissioners in 2010 following major public consultation.

In summary, the key elements of our clinical strategy (some of which have now been
implemented) that were developed in line with HfNEL are:
Unplanned care: Stabilise its emergency care provision and performance at QH
before implementing any plans to move emergency activity from KGH to QH. The
‘Front Door’ model is under review as part of the implementation plan. This will
influence access and flow through the Emergency Department

Planned care: Maximise use of the Queen’s site for complex inpatient activity, and the
use of KGH for day case, short stay elective and diagnostic activity, including
developing a dedicated breast services unit on the KGH site

Integrated care: Relocate and develop additional intermediate and rehabilitation
services at KGH and, subject to consultation, potentially centralise community
services on the KGH site.

Maternity services: KGH maternity services were successfully moved to Queen’s in
2013, with an antenatal and associated service remaining at KGH

Children’s services: A focus for specialist paediatrics at Queen’s, with paediatric
inpatients and the Special Care Baby Unit to move to Queen’s and paediatric day
case, elective and planned diagnostics to be centralised at KGH. To develop a
women’s and children’s unit at KGH that will aim to provide a fully centralised breast
service at KGH. END of Extract

However, there are grounds for optimism that BHRUT is considering abandoning support for the KGH closure plan along with the large bed and staffing reductions entailed. Futher on at page 14 (my emphasis)
 

Although the Trust is committed to following through on the above elements and
delivering them, before embarking on any other aspects, we have asked for a major
piece of work to take place to look again at the data – including projected population
and demand – that was used to develop the original Health for North East London
proposals. Extract ends

BHRUT may be concerned that closing KGH A&E is no longer feasible due to larger than expected population growth. A very welcome development.

Finally, 4 hour waiting times at A&E, a vital key performance indicator, and one of the reasons Queens and KGH A&E were found unsafe last year and the trust put into special measures remain well below the recommended safe level of 95%. Mr Russell, BHRUT deputy Chief Executive spoke of a deteriorating position for the August figures at the ordinary board meeting yesterday. The exact figure will be published shortly.

A&E sign update

I attended BHRUT board meeting today to hear that BHRUT has asked TFL for A&E icon on the sign per post below.

TFL still have not sent anything to Redbridge Council on this.

Safety reasons mean TFL need to get an A&E icon on sign ASAP.

Campaigners say put A&E icon on sign

Thank you to Bill Howe for photo above

Three signposts directing drivers to King George Hospital are at the junction where the Eastern Avenue meets Barley Lane.

One has been recently changed to delete Chadwell Hospital (which is closed). It is unclear whether an A&E icon has been covered up. The other two signs have Chadwell Hospital and an A&E icon on them.

Are the other signs to be changed?

Was the A&E icon whitened over?

Will an A&E icon be put on the sign in question?

TFL has not yet responded to Redbridge Council enquiries about the sign made on 28th August.

TFL need to put an  A&E icon on the sign ASAP. Visitors need all the help they can to find an A&E. Delays reaching A&E can adversely impact on patient safety.

Photoshoot Friday 29th August 12:30pm over A&E sign whte out

Three are three signs where the Eastern Avenue meets Barley Lane two have the A&E sign, one has recently had the A&E whitened out with stickers per the photos below.

There will be a photoshoot tomorrow at 12:30pm by the altered sign. The purpose is to call for the A&E icon to be put back on the sign ASAP. King George A&E will be visted by people from outside the area who will need all the help they can to find an A&E in a hurry.

I have Chadwell Cllrs to look into this and will report back later.

 

 

 

 

BHRUT change ther story on KGH Children's A&E and show wrong decision made in 2010

This is the original statement from BHRUT on why children no longer go to Children's A&E at King George Hospital

London Ambulance Service (LAS) has not taken children by emergency ambulance to King George Hospital A&E since November 2010.

Patients need to be taken to the setting that will provide them with the best care and the best outcomes. This won’t always be to the nearest hospital. This principle has saved hundreds of lives in recent years for stroke and heart attack patients in London alone. 

With a dedicated ‘high dependency’ suite for children at Queen’s Hospital, improving care for those who need more intensive nursing and medical input, it was agreed that children who were acutely unwell should be taken directly to that service. This ensures that children with complex and high dependency needs receive the appropriate care as quickly as possible and prevents any delays in care from transfer between sites.

This decision taken by LAS was agreed by  the Trust and shared with the local councils’ Health Overview and Scrutiny committees and commissioners.

This arrangement has worked extremely well over the last three and a half years. My emphasis ENDs

BHRUT are clearly saying the change was due to a high dependency suite at Queens hospital.

Well done to the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian for printing the story here today at 

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/11305938.Lack_of_leadership_blamed_for_children_being_turned_away_from_A_E/

stating the real reasons as

• A lack of clinical leadership within children's services
• Compliance with the Children's National Service Framework, a department of health programme for the health of children, being patchy
• Paediatricians being overworked and also being required to work in the neo-natal unit
• A highly-complex and poorly managed staff rota
• Inadequate medical staff assigned to the medical rotas
• Gaps in the staff rota
• Assessment by a senior doctor was not always possible 

 This is code for KGH not having the medical staff to look after children adequately, a disgrace.

BHRUT say the LAS or London Ambulance Service decided not to take Children to King George Hospital.

But London Ambulance Service say the decision was made by BHRUT per the email received by me on 10th June.

Dear Mr Walker

 

Thank you for your email which has been forwarded to the Patient Experiences Department by our Chief Executive.   I apologise for the delay in responding.

 

I have been advised that the BHRUT document "Strategy for Change - Children's Services" (July 2010) highlighted a number of concerns and shortfalls in the paediatric service across both the Queens and King George’s sites and as a result of this, the Trust wanted to cohort sicker and more complex patients on one site (Queens). This included patients needing anything more than 24 hours of care.

 

In discussing this with the LAS, we were asked whether crews could identify patients with more complex needs or who might need to be admitted for more than 24 hours, and convey these patients to Queens.

 

The Trust felt that this would be unreasonable given the difficulty of making an accurate assessment in a short time, and the potential that children have for deteriorating rapidly.  Getting the initial assessment wrong could potentially place crews / the LAS at risk.

 

It was agreed with BHRUT that we would convey all children presenting through the 999 service to Queens, and that we would only convey children to King George’s if they had been referred by a GP and specifically accepted by the paediatricians. 

 

This decision was reviewed and upheld in a number of meetings in the year that followed. my underlining ENDS

I will be asking Cllr Streeting, the Redbridge Council spokesperson for health to look into this.

The secret 2010 decision to stop children going to KGH A&E was the wrong one, and along with the related 2010 decision to cut child beds at KGH has been a factor in the child bed shortage which means children wait longer at A&E than they need to. What should have happened in 2010 is that KGH was given the resources to look after children properly on the KGH site. Why should Redbridge parents have to put up with a second rate service for their children?





 


 

Next Meeting of the Save King George Hospital Group

The next meeting of the Save King George Hospital Group will take place on Friday 13th June at Ilford Town Hall at midday.

Agenda

1) Recent BHRUT announcement that Queens maternity was shut for four hours.

press on this is here  http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/11261470.Maternity_ward_closure__normal_/

An NHS spokesperson has described this as normal for London maternity units.

2) The Sunday Times reported yesterday http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Finance/article1420038.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_06_07 that Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust  has government approval to use local authority funding to buy out the PFI deal for Hexham General hospital.

3) BHRUT child bed shortage

4) Discussion about children not being taken to King George A&E by ambulance

press on this is here

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/11209265.No_children_A_E_policy_a_disgrace___council_leader/

5) AOB

Press on Children's A&E Scandal

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/11209265.No_children_A_E_policy_a_disgrace___council_leader/

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/11203481.NHS_Trust_director_defends_decision_to_not_take_children_to_threatened_A_E/?ref=rl

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/11189753.Campaigner_warns_over_future_of_King_George_Hospital/?ref=rl

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/11182493.Ambulances_not_taking_children_to_threatened_A_E/?ref=rl

Photo re Children's A&E Scandal

 BHRUT Hospital managers obsessed with closing King George Hospital A&E decided in 2010 to stop taking young children to King George Hospital A&E by ambulance regardless of clinical need.
 
This policy has now been abandoned and clinical decision making put back in place. BHRUT are refusing to say when the clinical framework was re-instated. However, earlier this month Andy was being told off the record by NHS staff and parents that no ambulances carrying children were going to KGH A&E.

There seems to be a discrepancy between policy and practice. if it is now policy that ambulances do take children to KGH, why are staff saying that this is not happening?"

 BHRUT is setting a poor example to staff by not disclosing what goes on in our hospitals. Why and how this mistake happened needs to be opened up to prevent it from happening again.

The Trust says the decision to redirect all blue light children's ambulances to Queens was agreed by the overview and scrutiny committees, yet no-one can provide any minutes or documentation to confirm this and Redbridge councillors do not recall this ever being discussed or agreed. If KGH is a fully equipped and staffed type 1 emergency department with full adult and child resuscitation equipment then why would LAS not take acutely ill children there?

Was this decision really based on clinical considerations or on a desire to run down KGH to make it easier to eventually close it? And are we now seeing a perfectly good children's unit being deliberately underused so that there will be fewer objections to it being closed? Its important to remember that we were assured that KGH A+E would not close until there were adequate alternatives in place. Yet Queens is already at over 90% occupancy so how will it cope with the increased demand if KGH closes? It looks as if the decision to close KGH and transfer care to Queens has already been taken and the case of children's services is just one example that we have been able to unearth of where a covert policy of running down the service has been taken which is at odds with the publicly stated policy. 

Andy Walker & Dr Louise Irvine National Health Action Party

Photshoot 1pm Sunday 11 May outside Kimg George Hospital

The purpose of this Photoshoot is to request BHRUT disclose outstanding information about stopping ambulances going to King George Hospital carrying children back in 2010.

Questions for BHRUT arising from statement

1) Is the only source of Child admissions at Clover ward, King George Hospital parents bringing their children to hospital?

 

2) Do all ambulances with children, blue light or not, now go to Queens?   

 

3) At which meeting of Rebridge Health Scrutiny Committee was the November 2010 change discussed at?

Photo from today and BHRUT statement on blue light ambulances

The Recorder could not make it so a big thank you to passer by who took this.

The BHRUT statement is as follows

Regarding your query about emergency (blue light) ambulances taking children directly to Queen’s A&E, I am happy to clarify.

London Ambulance Service (LAS) has not taken children by emergency ambulance to King George Hospital A&E since November 2010.

Patients need to be taken to the setting that will provide them with the best care and the best outcomes. This won’t always be to the nearest hospital. This principle has saved hundreds of lives in recent years for stroke and heart attack patients in London alone. 

With a dedicated ‘high dependency’ suite for children at Queen’s Hospital, improving care for those who need more intensive nursing and medical input, it was agreed that children who were acutely unwell should be taken directly to that service. This ensures that children with complex and high dependency needs receive the appropriate care as quickly as possible and prevents any delays in care from transfer between sites.

This decision taken by LAS was agreed by  the Trust and shared with the local councils’ Health Overview and Scrutiny committees and commissioners.

This arrangement has worked extremely well over the last three and a half years. ENDs

The statement raises a number of issues, I expect to write further tomorrow.