Shocking level of arrogance from Trust Chief Executive
Save The Alex campaign have said whilst they are disappointed, they are not surprised by comments made by Penny Venables the Chief Executive of Worcester Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.
The campaign have said Ms Venables and her management team seem to clearly believe that West Midlands Clinical Senate will report in favour of the clinical model designed to deliver so called modified option 1, and to believe this despite the senate taking evidence from the same front line clinicians who resigned over the proposed model and stating in a damning letter to the Trust, shows how out of touch the management team are.
In the letter sent by the 4 resigning consultants they state
“In our collective opinion modified option 1 does not secure an A&E Department for the people of Redditch and its environs. Modified option 1 provides a minor injuries and GP service with a very limited adult’s only emergency centre.
“This in our opinion is neither an A&E service nor a safe service.”
Neal Stote, Chair of the campaign said:
“It is impossible to believe anything this Trust’s management team says. After all it was they who called for this review in November 2011. It was they who championed the 6 botched options in June 2012 and it was they who tried to force through a major downgrade of A&E and other services of the Alex in February 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-21598807
For the same Trust management team now to say changes are happening and they will be good for us shows just how arrogant they really are. The example of major trauma and stroke that Ms Venables uses as an example of successful centralisation is backed by evidence. However the evidence for cutting maternity and the other services at risk is weak at best and these cuts should not even be being considered till ALL possible ways of keeping these services at the Alexandra Hospital have been explored.
The Trust keep telling us it’s a commissioner led review. If this is true why is it that we are not hearing from Redditch and Bromsgrove Clinical Commissioning Group about how wonderful these proposed changes will be? Why is that for the best part of 2013 they wanted to see other options explored and why is that the 22 GP’s raised concerns about the proposed model and again called for all options to be explored? (See here) Is it perhaps that the current proposal is not all that Ms Venables claims? I want to hear from our CCG, who, it has to be said, seem to have gone very quiet on this matter. Why have not all options been explored? Are the CCG happy with clinical model proposed even though front line staff at the Alex clearly don’t support it?
As for Ms Venables’ comments about the “Save Our Services” rally on May 2nd this again shows a shocking level of arrogance. Has she forgotten that over 55,000 people signed a petition against any downgrade of A&E and maternity services? These services are still very much at risk. If Ms Venables wants to know why people are marching then I suggest she and her out of touch Management team attend the rally and take time to speak to the thousand plus people we expect to join us. It should not be forgotten that it is we, the Taxpayers, who are funding this mismanagement.
For more information on the May 2nd Rally click here.
SEE LINKS that question centralisation of some services
Women in labour who take 20 minutes or more to get from their home to hospital by car at full term are more likely to suffer death or serious complications for both mother and or babies according to new research.
A study published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, looked at 751,926 full term births in the Netherlands from 2000 to 2006.
Taken From – https://www.onmedica.com/NewsArticle.aspx?id=c99464fc-b938-455f-bd8f-3e26dd8b6ed3
NHS Myth Busting – Centralising services would save money and improve quality at the same time.
There’s no question this is sometimes true: stroke is the most well-worn example. But for other services, like A&E and maternity, the evidence is ambiguous and the financial arguments are often stronger than ones about quality. This is a real problem when it comes to justifying reconfiguration.