I
want to thank the Green Party, Momentum, the North East London Save
our NHS, Redbridge Trades Council, the Socialist party and all the
campaigners who in April of this year helped uncover the £49M 2016
plan to close King George A&E which I have sent to all Cllrs.
On
2017 I addressed this council with a petition about King George
which
included the wording:
And
calls for Redbridge Council to campaign for the re-opening of the
closed beds along with the monthly publication of the bed numbers at
each hospital and patient death rates along with the bed occupancy
rate, staffing levels and waiting lists”
After
my presentation Councillors agreed to refer my petition to health
scrutiny committee which led to a cross party working group chaired
by Wes Streeting which produced a 110 page report into King George &
Queens.
So
I ask a Councillor in this chamber to:
refer the
matters raised in the petition to the Health Scrutiny Committee for
consideration as happened in 2017
The
petition seeks a public consultation on the new closure plan.
Page
4 of the plan states: “re-route ambulance-borne emergency patients
to Queens” and “Repurpose KGH A&E as an Ortho-Geriatric
Receiving Unit”. Page 17 talks of “consolidating..emergency care
at QH” In BHRUT speak, “consolidating” means closure. Cedar
ward at King George was “consolidated” in BHRUT speak, the rest
of us thought it closed.
Page
10: "Preliminary work has been taken internally to develop the
new clinical pathways") & page 13 “process of
transformation has already partially commenced” shows work on
the closure plan already taking place. Point 2 describes a new
pathway incorporating ambulatory and in-patient care at KGH.
These
extracts from pages 10 & 12 are at the heart of the argument for
why this Council should refer this £49M bid to your health scrutiny
committee to make a detailed examination of whether this preliminary
work should be the subject of a public consultation.
Page
10 at paragraph 4 makes it clear that whether this project should be
consulted upon was a evenly balanced decision. After getting legal
advice, BHRUT saw there was no need to consult because the works
were in line with the original 2011 closure decision!
Perhaps
you are thinking what's the point? King George A&E is still open
and BHRUT say it is going to stay open.
The
point is to discover what this “preliminary work” and partial
transformation means. We do know that this BHRUT project is radical,
part of this project is to refuse ambulatory care at King George with
the exception of the “elderly frail” and other patients being
sent to Queens. I asked Joe Fielder, the BHRUT chair to name any
other Hospital in England who similarly discriminated against
patients. He could not name one.
I
ask Cllrs to note that key parts of the closure plan have been
redacted so we cannot know for certain how much other preliminary
work has been done on the A&E closure. How many patients are
being sent to Queens which could be treated at King George is not
disclosed.
There
is a sharp difference between type 1 A&E performance between King
George and Queens. Queens was at 48% and King George at 69% in
February of this year. Wes Streeting's report found evidence of death
rates increasing with long waits in A&E. The new clinical
pathways developed by BHRUT need to be scrutinised very carefully by
Health Scrutiny to discover if they overloading Queens.
Silence
is assent to these changes, Council needs to act tonight to challenge
them.
Your
2017 Cross party report seeks greater transparency form BHRUT on bed
numbers and other information. I regret to inform you that BHRUT is
disclosing less information than it was in 2017 per an email sent to
you earlier today. This withholding of key information by BHRUT
contributes to being unable to monitor what this partial
transformation of our hospitals is doing to care.
It
is clear that BHRUT have been running a long running campaign of
deception to hide the new plan to close KGH A&E. I have sought an
apology from Joe Fielder for the poor conduct of the board, he denied
to do and yesterday denied any deception, I am baffled as to why.
Back
in November 2017, we were given an assurance that BHRUT were to carry
out a genuine review into the future of King George A&E. We now
know know this was a sham, all along since 2016 BHRUT had been
working on a new plan to close King George A&E. BHRUT now say KGH
is safe, I will believe when the secretary of sate for health
retracts the closure plan.
BHRUT
have put in a bid for £6.4M of PFI capital monies, BHRUT say it is
nothing to do with closing KGH A&E, until the bid document is
published it must be a concern that it is for advancing the plan to
close King George A&E.
The
best way to save our A&E is to extend it and I look for your
support on 20th July to campaign for a new wing for our
hospital. The statistics for BHRUT January A&E attendances speak
for themselves
2016:
was 23,696 patient
attendances
2017:
was 24,289
2018:
was 25,168
2019:
was 27,641
Email follows to BHRUT seeking information
Dear Sir or Madam
Thank you for your emails regarding the above. I have linked the requests together because they all relate to the £49M bid to close King George A&E.
A common ground for all three decision reviews is the Francis report, which demanded greater openness and transparency of NHS managers to reduce the prospect of another Mid-Staffs, is being ignored by this trust. BHRUT's refusal to supply the information I seek undermines my ability to test my argument that BHRUT, like the managers at Mid-Staffs, have become so focused on a target, namely closing King George A&E, that care has been compromised. The information sought either relates directly to the £49M bid or allows me to monitor the impact of the works already taken place to close KGH A&E outlined in the £49M bid document.
For ease of administration, I would be grateful if you send all three replies at the same time so as make it easier for any further appeal to the Information Officer's Office to take place.
Internal Review 5923 re Freedom of Information request 5751 re bed numbers, bed occupancy and excess deaths
Your point 1 about bed numbers
I maintain the points I made in my review email below of 1st March, which is copied below for ease of reference. BHRUT used to supply this information to me and the public about beds in the board papers. That that was the correct interpretation of reasonable disclosure.
Your point 2 about Critical bed occupancy
Your £49 bid to close KGH A&E mentions BHRUT does not have enough critical care beds. It must be in the public interest for this information to be published.
Regarding both point 1 & 2, BHRUT commits to sharing this information with me but only when the information has been put into the public domain. Seeing as this relates to information relates to data from October 2018 I am puzzled as to why it has not been sent to me. Can BHRUT tell me what the time lag is before this information will be sent to me?
Your point 3 on excess deaths
I supplied FoI 4318 to you to show on 10.1.17, I request the data in the format previously supplied.
Whatever you term death stats to choose is irrelevant, it will be helpful to me and the public to track these key six illnesses to track what is happening in our hospitals. Should BHRUT choose to be pedantic on this point, I can put in a fresh FoI.
Internal Review 5926 re the £49M bid to close King George A&E
Page 4 of the bid lists “Physical Assets Obtained”, a key passage has been blanked out so preventing the public knowing what assets are to be obtained. Redacting other key passages happens at page 8,9,10,15,17,19 ,22,28,29,34,36,37-39
This matters because page 10 says “Preliminary work has been undertaken” & the “process of transformation has already partially commenced”
The public need to know exactly how much “preliminary work” has taken place so as to judge whether the BHRUT decision not to provide a public consultation on this “preliminary work” should be challenged. BHRUT states this work will“radically transform the care of elderly and frail patients” at page 13.
Request 6097 £6.4M PFI bid and £3.1M
I still maintain the "resubmission" document should be disclosed in full. The limited accounting information gives the impression that is an application of a total of £6.4 is fresh capital.
You write
“The £6.4m figure quoted in the table we previously provided to you is planned to cover costs of the PFI lifecycle and PFI Managed Equipment Service for Queen's Hospital. This is not a new bid. The £3.1m relates to funds we are trying to access from national programmes including EPMA and Health System Led Investment.”
I seek a decision review because the information you provide above does not bear scrutiny.
If the PFI is existing monies there would be no need to apply, BHRUT will have signed a contract and the government would have to pay.
What the £3.1M is for exactly is to vague.
BHRUT supplied the £49M bid, I see no reason why the £25M resubmission (which includes the PFI and £3.1M should not be disclosed in full too.
Regards
Andy Walker
No comments:
Post a Comment