Here’s our email to the Journalist, sent at 10am on 26/6/18
“What we heard this morning was an uncritical promotion of the ‘brave new world’. Debby was on for less than a minute, at 7.17. We won’t even put it on the FB page as it is simple propaganda for the CCG ahead of the Court Case.
Why did we get a full Hearing if we’re such silly frightened people? Poor silly little public! Let the brave BBC and BMA put your silly little minds at rest. It’s all going to be fine! No it’s going to be better! As people have texted me all morning ‘What a whitewash!”.
This is not Journalism. It is rubber stamping of money saving cuts. I am imploring you to present a true picture.
Risk: I attach again the detailed information I sent demonstrating risk attendant on closure of Poole A&E and Maternity. Yet I heard Dr Forbes Watson trot out the claim, unchallenged, that 50-60 lives will be saved.
South West Ambulance Trust have a triage tool that tells them to take cardiac emergencies to Bournemouth as the Cardiac Specialist Centre, unless to do so would put their lives at risk, in which case they should be taken to the nearest A&E. This tool is published. See attached SWAST Report page 29.
140 cardiac emergencies alone were taken taken by SWAST to Poole Hospital last year in other words Paramedics decided it would put 140 peoples lives at risk if they had to make the onward journey to Bournemouth. This is 3 times as many lives at risk as Forbes Watson is claiming will be saved, and does not include any other category – for example 500 trauma cases were treated at Poole. What about maternity emergencies, strokes sepsis, meningitis? All time critical emergencies that can not be treated in the ambulance. Where’s the common sense?
Please also find attached FOI request data re emergency cases treated at Poole. We have also attached maternity information showing almost 1,000 of the babies delivered at Poole – which delivers 2/3 of the County’s babies born in Hospital, 4,500 last year – needed care beyond a normal delivery
Did the BBC enquire what these enhanced services at Bournemouth will be? We have asked, but have never had an answer to this question, and it seems we will have the same services on offer that we have across Poole and Bournemouth now but further away and with less beds.
The research the BMA speaker quoted on strokes only found improvements from centralisation of services in London, where on page 2 it says “No Londoner will be more than 30 minutes from a hyperacute stroke unit” clearly that does not apply here and the research itself cautions against using that blueprint in rural areas due to travel times (also attached – p5 “On a different point…”) and they did not count those who died en route (See ‘Strengths and Weaknesses: “Thirdly…”). Of course you get better outcomes if you arrive at a better resourced place – but you have to get there, and why not better resource existing places?
Forbes Watson quoted the Keogh Review – this was NOT about closing A&Es (see ‘what Keogh actually said’) it was about making some A&Es into ‘super’ A&Es, without any reduction in the number of A&Es overall.
Please do something with your influence to report the truth and stop this entirely financially driven decimation of services, resulting from non-mandated cuts for 8 years.
If these improvements were not finance driven, no services would be being cut.
And is it rocket science to sit Health and Social Services staff together? Do they need to change the contracting system across England to one where contracts can be tendered out for 10-15 years in order to achieve this?
BBCR4 Response:
Like the Today programme on Monday morning, and Dorset CCG, it fails to address the fatalities that would ensue from the loss of A&E and Maternity services at Poole, for which there is definitive evidence, including South West Ambulance’s own Report.
Nor does it address the fatalities that are ensuing now from people being discharged from too early Hospital, due to arbitrary targets.
“Dear Debby
I am sorry to hear you are disappointed with the broadcast.
We took no view as to whether the proposed changes were good or bad.
Over the course of the programme the audience heard your clip about travel times, and heard some of your points put to both Tony Spotswood and Dr Watson.
We also took up the broader issue of whether structural changes to services do improve performance with Professor Sir Mike Richards, who was until last year the chief inspector of hospitals.
We remain grateful to you for taking the time to explain your point of view, and will watch with interest the outcome of your judicial review hearing.”
