Leeds Hospital Alert responds to LGI Consultation

New Leeds Hospital

Several members of Leeds Hospital Alert attended the drop-in sessions to see the plans for the new hospital on the LGI site. These are our concerns: –
The cost —- there is still a huge gap between the money promised/secured and the amount needed.

Wonder if there is sufficient expertise available to ensure that LTHT doesn’t suffer the same costs/penalties of PFI.

Will there be sufficient safeguards to ensure that obtaining money from private sources doesn’t mean further privatisation within the Trust? Far too much NHS money is going into private hands instead of patient and staff care.

The size of the buildings and the site itself presents problems for many patients especially those arriving by public transport or have problems walking or are simply not well. Are you negotiating with the transport authority or considering the use of a hopper bus?

There can be serious problems too for wheelchair users especially when they are not allowed to bring their carer with them in the ambulance. Will there be an efficient porter service with wheelchairs at the point of access.

Can we assume that everywhere will have wheelchair and disabled access plus help for those hard of hearing?
Assume you will negotiate with and accept advice from the Department of Disabled Studies at the University

Members with nursing experience question the use of a day ward for children needing blood transfusions or chemo. There can be 7 or 8 at any one time on the ward. To be told they could be transferred to another ward isn’t considered to be satisfactory. Certainly not the best treatment of young people.

We were assured that there would be no reduction in beds but this fails to take into account a rising population, referrals from another hospital and whether these have been taken into account in modelling bed numbers. Rising demand must necessitate more beds not just maintaining the current number.

Bringing together all maternity services on to one site creates a very large unit. Is this best practice? We would recommend a public consultation a.s.a.p.

Very concerned about the proposed use of apps. Have you considered just how many people will not have an app? Not everyone has an i-phone or indeed a computer. Has any assessment been undertaken to discover just how many mistakes already happen with the computer services at LTHT? How many patients are blamed for faults in the system?

We can certainly give you some examples. What would you do in circumstances such as 02 closing down completely for 36 (?) hours? How would you contact all the patients who use that provider? What fall back procedures will you have in place?

Substantial buildings are to be put up for sale. Is there sufficient expertise in the Trust to organise these sales so that a fair price is paid with water tight safeguards? In the past this has been questionable.

What happens next if you don’t succeed in raising sufficient funding?

Will just part of the plan be implemented?

Leeds Hospital Alert minutes

LEEDS Hospital Alert.

Minutes Tuesday November 13

LGI proposed development: there is a video of the new hospital in the LTHT website. Several members attended the first of two drop-in sessions at the Carriageworks. Pertinent questions were asked with at least one puzzling result. J and P were told there would be no PFI money whilst M and J were told there would be PFI for the building but not for the running of the services in the building. M concerned about the plans for transference of children from the day ward when having blood transfusions or chemo. Concern also about the suggested use of a smart phone app for communication with and tracking of a patient. Also, the issue of lack of public transport to the site. We support J absolutely in his concerns and will help where and when we can.

Beckett Wing: Wards 30 & 31 care staff being run by a private company; medical services by the NHS. A similar set up to Brownberrie Ward at Wharfedale. S concerned that whilst M was in the ward there was insufficient caring attention for patients. A letter to the Chief Nurse would be appropriate.

NHS Computer Access: contact made with the CCG. See the attachment for details.
Agreed we should invite Phil Corrigan to join us one evening before she leaves.

Mental Health: S attended the patient consultation meeting. Changes are being made.

Older people – retain the Care Hoes team
Community Health teams – 24 per team
Memory Support team to be strengthened.
Older People’s Service to operate until 8pm, then the crisis team at Becklin.
Intensive Home Treatment – 80 staff
Community Health teams – 3 teams of 45 for working age patients.
Extensive training plans to be put in place
Monthly meetings with the CCG
Jargon busting sheet is now available.

New Children’s Unit at St Mary’s. Sylvia to meet with Rachel Reeves to express her concerns.

Home Care: still no meaningful response from Councillors though they have said that to take services back in house as they have done in Preston would cost too much. So how do they propose to improve Home Care. Current services are inadequate and failing. Councillor Charlewood will not accept our Home Care Report. Maybe need to contact Care Quality Commission?

Diabetes: now costing 10% of NHS Budget. Patients being blamed rather than there being education and help on how to avoid becoming diabetic.

J will be attending the Health Campaign Together Conference in Birmingham.

Next meetings: Thursday December 6; Tuesday January 15

LGI Consultation notes from Dr John Puntis

Please see this updated document:

BtLW_Project_Up-date_(02.08.18)-XpiawFbxQM7Z1NJst8yDnUPslLdiy_Ib-9aG6GdLybErh1xNJG9a06nr2ymXmdyGFac_tH6Z0Fhc_3tdRPBeBg==

Despite paediatric colleagues being certain there would be fewer beds, at the consultation today I was told by two corporate people from Trust that bed numbers overall were increasing. There may be an issue about how many in patient and how many day case?

They have not yet finished the outline business case to take first to NHSE then the DH, but probably will have done so early next year.

I wonder how they will ensure NHS gets good value for money when they sell off land/buildings when there is little expertise in this area. Interestingly, Brotherton, Old Med School and Gilbert Scott are all in the Naylor inventory of “surplus assets”, although the trust has previously said they had an estates strategy pre-Naylor and have not modified it post Naylor.

Given all the emphasis on community care, should any surplus estate on LGI site be transferred to community?

Does council have any views/leverage here?

999 NHS Judicial Review in London next week 20-21st November

999 now have confirmation that their judicial review will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London on 20-21st November.

Please support 2 rallies, one from 8-9.30 am on Tuesday 20th Nov and one around 4.30 on Wed 21st when they expect the Appeal to have finished.

Leeds rally at initial hearing https://bit.ly/2JKoauQ

More: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/justice4nhs-stage5-courtofappeal/

Hopefully London activists will turn out in good numbers but if you have any reason or excuse to be in London or fancy a trip, they will be delighted to see you.

Good luck, thank you and loads of solidarity to all the feisty 999 crew!

Hospitals of the future Consultation – take part now!

The drop in events are Friday 9th November 10.00 – 15.00 in the Carriage works (Electric Press, Millenium Square). and Monday 19th November 16.00 – 20.00

The outline proposals can be found at http://www.leedsth.nhs.uk/new-hospital and also:

At the AGM Linda Pollard said they were still making the outline business case. There is very little detail on funding apart from this statement:

“Meeting these costs will be challenging. Nationally in the NHS, there are many requests for capital funding to fund developments and improvements like these. But, at Leeds Teaching Hospitals, our recent strong financial performance and improvements mean we’re in a good position to discuss funding options with the Department of Health.”

This is clearly a cautious statement! Last time we actually got to discuss all the powerful argument for a Children’s Hospital it was knocked back by the DH as too expensive, particularly given the investment in cancer facilities that had just lead to the centralisation of this service in Leeds and opening of the Beckett Wing.

Clearly we would not want a PFI deal, and would want this publicly funded by government.

Dr John Puntis in YEP – stop NHSE and management consultants withdrawing funding for NHS treatment

Dear Sir,

On Wednesday 22nd August, NHS England (NHSE) held a public discussion in Leeds Town Hall on restricting access to 17 different medical interventions, including surgery for common hand problems, varicose veins, tonsillectomy and other conditions.

Although an important national consultation on major changes in NHS provision, poor advertising and summer holidays meant it was attended by only a handful of people. The supposition behind the proposals is that doctors thoughtlessly recommend surgical interventions that are neither effective nor safe to hundreds of thousands of patients each year.

While there are excellent evidence based guidelines already available for who should have these treatments, clinicians must be compelled to make special funding requests for individual patients, and hospitals told they will not be paid for activity, in order to bring them into line with NHSE designated ‘best practice’.

The Royal College of Surgeons objects to interventions that improve quality of life and reduce pain being designated as ‘low value’, pointing out that not treating some conditions may lead to much more costly complications later on.

Revealingly, the current limited list of ‘low value interventions’ echoes that drawn up by management consultants McKinsey when asked after the 2008 banking crisis how the NHS could save money. NHSE plans to expand rapidly beyond the current list of 17 restricted treatments.

The public need to be aware that this process fundamentally changes the way the NHS works and strikes at the heart of the doctor patient relationship, where clinicians assess a patient’s needs and wants, recommending treatment based on sharing evidence of risks and benefit.

The current projected savings are minute (0.16% of NHS budget), but a key objective of NHSE is to establish that the NHS will no longer provide some treatments, and you wont be able to have these unless you pay to go privately. I would encourage your readers to visit the NHSE website (https://bit.ly/2uNYQOg) and feedback their views through the ‘consultation on evidence based interventions’.

Yours faithfully,

Dr John Puntis
Leeds Keep Our NHS Public

Restrictions on elective procedures in Leeds, please read and help

999_Call_restrictions_to_elective_care_consultation

o NHS ENGLAND’S PLAN TO cut 17 ELECTIVE PROCEDURES
And slash £200m SPENDING IN 2018/19
What you need to do:
1. Get hold of the Consultation Document online at https://bit.ly/ 2LNAWJo
2. Respond to the Consultation online at https://bit.ly/2uNYQOg and reject the plans to restrict 17 elective treatments (such as Grommets for glue ear in children, Tonsillectomy for recurrent tonsillitis, Carpal tunnel and Dupuytren’s contracture release etc), by saying
No to Questions 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 AND:
6: Don’t select Yes OR No, Put “All treatments should be agreed between the patient and their doctor, based on clinical need and authoritative evidence”.
8: Put: “The impact would be that patients who can afford it, would go private for operations that the NHS no longer funds. People who can’t would be left to suffer.”
9: Don’t select any option. Put same answer as to question 6.
10: Don’t select Yes OR No
11: Put “The e-referral system is already being aligned with the new programme. So why are you pretending to consult on it?”
12: Don’t select Yes OR No. Put, “Most practitioners already utilise evidence based guidelines such as NICE in order to make decisions and guide practice.”
13: No, Put “I do not agree with your proposals. The current referral process is much better than what you are proposing. It lets GPs refer patients to specialists when they feel they need help in making a diagnosis, or delivering effective treatment. And it allows specialists and patients to discuss the best options for that individual.”
15: No, put “ Punitive financial measures compromise the relationship between clinicians and patients.”
19: No, put “You are turning established guidelines for referral and treatment into mandatory protocols and interfering with the referral process in order to enforce non- payment of elective treatments.”