We gave local people an opportunity to share their views on the new opening hours through online and in-person public events and an online questionnaire. These did not result in any substantial or widespread objections.
Therefore, to optimise the service the opening times have now changed from 8am to midnight, to 8am to 9pm
The highlighted claim without any detail interested me, after all 570 Brent residents has signed a petition calling for Brent Scrutiny Committee to examine the proposal - a scrutiny that had never taken place except for an item tagged onto the end of a meeting without any public notice on the agenda or any papers attached - just a chat by the Trust CEO. When the petition was presented Cllr Ketan Sheth, Chair of the Committee, merely said the hours reduction was 'on their radar'.
The reduction in hours was then implemented.
Give the claim above. I submitted an FOI asking for more details of the result of the consultation. Such consultations are normally published with tables of results, publication of comments received and an anaylsis.
The FOI revealed the following:
1. Only 42 responses were received
2. 70% of responses came from Brent (other boroughs were Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow)
3. 41% of respondents said the reduction in hours would have a significant impact on them
4. Only two people turned up to the in-person events.
5. The Chair of Scrutiny had been informed of the proposal.
I am sure it will be claimed that the low response rate meant that people were not bothered by the proposal, but that is challenged by the number of people (570 against 42) who signed the online petition on the Brent Council website. Unlike a paper petition there is a several stage process to sign on-line - you HAVE to be concerned to bother to sign.
Such a low response rate on a proposal that will affect hundreds of people, now and in the future, must mean that the consultation itself was inadequate. The petition was advertised on Wembley Matters, Next Door and social media and appears to have reached more than 10 times the number that the Trust engaged.
You will notice below that the response does not fully answer the request. Were there really no comments from NW London ICB or Brent Healthwatch?
THE TRUST'S FOI RESPONSE
1. Please supply full results from the consultation on the reduction in hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre at Central Middlesex Hospital. This to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted) - https://www.lnwh.nhs.uk/news/new-opening-hours-at-urgent-treatment-centre-12430
A structured public engagement exercise was carried out to gather views on the proposed change to the opening hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) at Central Middlesex Hospital. As part of this process, a questionnaire was utilised to obtain public opinion, alongside opportunities for involvement through online events and stakeholder communications.
Questionnaire responses
The questionnaire received 42 responses
Respondents’ borough
Brent
Ealing
Harrow
Hillingdon
Hounslow
Percentage
70%
20%
3%
2%
3%
Understanding the impact of proposed change: If the UTC were to close earlier at 9pm, how would this affect you or those you care for?
No impact
Minor impact
Significant impact
Unsure
Percentage
15%
21%
41%
23%
For those who felt it would have a significant impact on them, the reason given in most cases was the perceived lack of nearby alternative provision or the time it would take to travel to another site. However, most of these respondents had attended the UTC in the previous six months for a minor illness or infection that would have been more appropriately seen by a pharmacist or GP. This aligns with a recent review of the Trust’s urgent care services that found that many patients who visit our urgent treatment centres out of hours would be more appropriately seen in a primary care or pharmacy setting.
Several respondents noted that the lack of radiology services after 8pm meant that they had not been able to access care at the UTC after this time. This reflects the case for change and optimising the service to match the provision of X-ray services at Central Middlesex Hospital.
Nearly all respondents said clear information and direction to alternative services, such as pharmacies and out-of-hours services, would help them access the right care.
Public involvement events
Despite extensive promotion* our involvement events only attracted two people, who asked several questions but did not express any particular views on the proposal.
* Promotional activity
- Trust website and social media channels
- Trust’s stakeholder bulletin (350 recipients)
- Posters at the UTC.
- Press release generated coverage in My London, EALING.NEWS and Wembley Matters blog
- The North West London ICB and Brent Healthwatch also promoted opportunities to be involved.
- Letters to key stakeholders (MPs, scrutiny leads, Healthwatches)
Amandine Alexandre, a Green Party candidate for the Harlesden and Kensal ward whose resident are likely to be impacted by the earlier closure, said:
The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust probably knew right from the start that closing the Urgent Treatment Centre at 9pm rather than midnight every day was unlikely to be a decision approved by patients and deliberately failed to engage a large number of them in the consultation. However, trying to bypass patients is not an acceptable way to treat people.
The fact that Brent Scrutiny Committee appeared intensely relaxed about residents getting reduced access to the Urgent Care Treatment is also a serious cause of concern for anyone living in Brent. I would like to reassure fellow residents : the Green Party will never cease speaking up in defence of NHS patients in the face of austerity and disdain from the current authorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment