|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Campaign
unveils its formal response to PCT consultation on future of Princess Royal
Hospital
The response comes at the close of a 20 weeks public consultation, which proposed the downgrading of Accident & Emergency and consultant-led maternity services at the Princess Royal Hospital in Haywards Heath. The proposals have sparked mass public opposition, with a petition of over 71,000 signatures and a 14,000-strong march through Haywards Heath in October. Campaigners presented their response to PCT Chief Executive John Wilderspin, and called upon him to think again about his published plans, and support the alternative options which would see services retained at the PRH. Just last week, the NHS Trust which runs the PRH signalled its unhappiness with the PCT’s plans in their response which called for the retention of A&E services and the expansion of other services, although concerns still remain about maternity services. The campaign’s formal response highlights: The missed opportunity of the consultation – “the Fit for the Future exercise could have been used to better effect. It misses an opportunity to build on the strengths of the PRH and to see how those strengths could be used to benefit the wider health community (and, in turn, the public that community serves)” The strategic importance of the PRH – “the consultation fails to recognise that the positioning of the PRH is central to the catchment area it is designed to serve. The people of Brighton & Hove and, northwards through central Sussex, up to Crawley and Gatwick, need its acute services and need the hospitals trust to find imaginative ways in which its menu of services can be extended and made complementary to services provided elsewhere” The clinical case against the proposals – “reduction in the level or availability of locally-delivered services is unacceptable because such reduction will impact on the safety of the healthcare which is delivered to the population of central Sussex. The campaign also believes that increasing pressures on the Royal Sussex County Hospital will detrimentally affect the wellbeing of patients living in Brighton & Hove” The financial hurdle – “the campaign accepts that the delivery of acute health services must be configured in such a way that best value for money is achieved. It does not accept, however, that finance should be either an overriding factor or a principal determinant. At the end of the day, clinical safety and accessibility of services are the only criteria which count” Failings in the consultation process – “the consultation process for Fit for the Future has given rise to a number of concerns, some of which have arisen from the outset. The concerns fall into two main categories – those relating to procedure and presentation, and those relating to substance. The campaign does not wish to over-emphasise these concerns but, by the same token, the point has to be made that they do go to the fairness and adequacy of the consultation process” A viable alternative option for the PRH’s future – “the campaign strong believes that the PRH should remain as a fully functioning District General Hospital. We believe that there is a major window of opportunity now to consolidate and to build upon the PRH’s many strengths. The campaign sees the fourth option model as DGH-plus” The alternative option the campaign has submitted to the Primary Care Trust will offer the same range of services as are delivered on site today, but will do things in a slightly different way which will acknowledge its partnership with the Royal Sussex County Hospital and with other bodies (such as the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead). The DGH-plus model would deliver the following services:
|
|||
|
|
||||
