I have attended recent board meetings at the Royal Surrey County Hospital and was shocked at the misrepresentations the PCT seems to be adopting in its attempt to bully the Royal Surrey into closing its Accident and Emergency facility.
The Department of Health has recently published a handful of documents that inform the process and that need responses:
1. Consultation called "Commissioning framework for health and well-being"
This is a document that has the hallmark of management consultants. They seem to have arrived at a utopian state where all treatment is available to the patient in the community 'at the point of need' - quite how all of this will be managed is difficult to envision but one particularly fatuous remark is:
"Local Authorities, by virtue of their elected leadership, tend to have strong links to local people and community needs." - what planet are they on; the strength of local authority delivery is in the competences of the officers and not the political motivations of the councillors!
We do not have the networks established and it is hopelessly and completely wrong - if not negligent - to be discussing closing parts or all of the hospitals on the presumption that this community-led strategy will catch everyone. The A and E departments are the safety net of last resort when this community plan goes horribly wrong. No A and E department should close.
2. Matrix clinical options workshop (March 2007) "West Surrey Community: Squaring the Triangle"
The 'Emerging Principles' include various that were NOT agreed by the RSCH clinicians - such as:
"a full A&E department in the future would need to be supported by a catchment population of between 450,000 and 500,000 people."
This takes no account of transient populations such as those travelling through the area on trains, buses, in cars or even passing through Heathrow and Gatwick!
The overriding assumption arising from the seminar was that the clinicians agreed there should be two rather than the current three A and E departments. They did not.
What seems to have happened is that partial answers to carefully couched questions provided an inaccurate overall impression of the advice from the clinicians.
IT IS ESSENTIAL EVERYONE GETS THEIR WEIGHT BEHIND THE RSCH AND THE ROYAL SURREY ACTION GROUP - see the weblink on this page.
Showing posts with label royal surrey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label royal surrey. Show all posts
Sunday, 1 April 2007
Thursday, 15 February 2007
Royal Surrey needs better public accountability
I recently attended the monthly Royal Surrey Hospital Trust board meeting as an observer – the public is welcome to attend and details of the next meeting are on the Royal Surrey website. Although there were very few observers present, I’m pleased to say, the Surrey Ad was very much in evidence.
The meeting was in two parts. The first open to the public, the second (quite rightly if it is to discuss confidential issues relating to specific staffing matters) took place behind closed doors.
It was very reassuring to be given an excellent overview of the workings of the cancer department and to hear how highly its performance ranks relative to the Country’s other oncology centres.
There were, however, three major surprises for me:
1. The board did not seem to be required to actually decide anything (at least in the first part). The meeting seemed to be more of a report from the Executive Board;
2. At a time when the hospital is fighting for its very survival, the Chief Executive, Nick Moberley, missed (by quite some significant margin) his own target for introducing a balanced scorecard system which would show at a glance how well the hospital is performing against key targets – in the absence of a balanced scorecard, there was not even some dashboard of, say, top ten measures that could be used to demonstrate formally to the PCT, via the hospital board minutes, just how well managed and indispensable the RSCH is; and thirdly,
3. When there was any semblance of dissent among board members that might have hinted at criticism of the PCT (constructive or otherwise) it was very quickly suppressed by the Chief Executive (at one stage by passing a note which appeared to remind a dissenter of the presence of the Surrey Ad!).
I have attended many board meetings (as observer, presenter, participant or chairman) and I can only say that I expected more than just an AGM-style report. It may well be that the ‘meat’ of the meeting took place behind closed doors.
I am reminded of recent events at Guildford Borough Council whose leader, Councillor Hodges, has recently been called to account for taking important decisions behind the closed door of the Executive rather than in the open democratic debating chamber of the full council.
Just as I sincerely hope that the good work and reputation of the officers and many councillors of Guildford Borough Council (who have an ‘excellent’ rating from the Audit Commission), is not damaged by questions surrounding the accountability of its leader, I have to trust that Nick Moberley, at the helm of our excellent hospital at this important time, does not, through overzealous secrecy, harm the case for saving the RSCH.
Our public institutions are just that; PUBLIC. Those who take it upon themselves to lead them must remember their obligation to be accountable as well as responsible. We, for our part, must turn up to public meetings and show both our interest and our concern.
The meeting was in two parts. The first open to the public, the second (quite rightly if it is to discuss confidential issues relating to specific staffing matters) took place behind closed doors.
It was very reassuring to be given an excellent overview of the workings of the cancer department and to hear how highly its performance ranks relative to the Country’s other oncology centres.
There were, however, three major surprises for me:
1. The board did not seem to be required to actually decide anything (at least in the first part). The meeting seemed to be more of a report from the Executive Board;
2. At a time when the hospital is fighting for its very survival, the Chief Executive, Nick Moberley, missed (by quite some significant margin) his own target for introducing a balanced scorecard system which would show at a glance how well the hospital is performing against key targets – in the absence of a balanced scorecard, there was not even some dashboard of, say, top ten measures that could be used to demonstrate formally to the PCT, via the hospital board minutes, just how well managed and indispensable the RSCH is; and thirdly,
3. When there was any semblance of dissent among board members that might have hinted at criticism of the PCT (constructive or otherwise) it was very quickly suppressed by the Chief Executive (at one stage by passing a note which appeared to remind a dissenter of the presence of the Surrey Ad!).
I have attended many board meetings (as observer, presenter, participant or chairman) and I can only say that I expected more than just an AGM-style report. It may well be that the ‘meat’ of the meeting took place behind closed doors.
I am reminded of recent events at Guildford Borough Council whose leader, Councillor Hodges, has recently been called to account for taking important decisions behind the closed door of the Executive rather than in the open democratic debating chamber of the full council.
Just as I sincerely hope that the good work and reputation of the officers and many councillors of Guildford Borough Council (who have an ‘excellent’ rating from the Audit Commission), is not damaged by questions surrounding the accountability of its leader, I have to trust that Nick Moberley, at the helm of our excellent hospital at this important time, does not, through overzealous secrecy, harm the case for saving the RSCH.
Our public institutions are just that; PUBLIC. Those who take it upon themselves to lead them must remember their obligation to be accountable as well as responsible. We, for our part, must turn up to public meetings and show both our interest and our concern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
