Morecambe Bay Hospitals Trust under fire: MP Tim Farron ‘swamped’ with complaints (From The Westmorland Gazette)
When news happens, text KENEWS and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Morecambe Bay Hospitals Trust under fire: MP Tim Farron ‘swamped’ with complaints
10:30am Thursday 24th November 2011 in Health
By Helen Perkins, Reporter
TIM FARRON MP
ANGRY hospital staff and patients swamped MP Tim Farron’s weekly surgery following damning revelations featured in last week’s Westmorland Gazette.
The Westmorland and Lonsdale MP said he had to deal with three times the normal number of constituents at his Saturday morning session in Kendal.
“My surgery is usually over by 10.45am,” said Mr Farron.
“But there were dozens of extra people who came to tell me of their experiences and concerns about the way the trust is being run and it went on until one o’clock.
“We said four years ago that closure of the heart unit at Westmorland General would create a knock-on effect at Lancaster and Barrow that would be difficult and dangerous.
“The recent problems have proven us right but it gives me no pleasure to say ‘I told you so’.
“I want health bosses to bring back acute services to Westmorland General as a step towards fixing some of the many problems being highlighted.”
Comments(17)
Vorlon
says...
11:04am Fri 25 Nov 11
Totally agree with NHS Veteran. Tim Farron is part of the probelm - not the solution. The Trust has wasted money hand over fist for the last decade or more keeping unsustainable services going across three sites when anybody with half a brain can see Kendal is nowhere near big enough in population to justify a full District General Hospital. If the money diverted to WGH had been spent properly and services rationalised when the Trust was first formed it's just possible healthcare across all 3 sites would have been improved and the Trust would not now be facing massive cuts and being slated for poor services. Mr Farron is part of a Government that wants £20 billion in cuts from the NHS over the next 4 years - where does he suppose the money for his wish-list is going to come from? The people in Barrow & Lancaster as usual I suspect.
davidearnshaw
says...
9:58pm Fri 25 Nov 11
Vorlon, please do some research ---- Kendal has virtually the same catchment population as Furness General ---- especially when the hundreds of thousands of "visitor days" are taken into the equation --- and believe it or not --- folks do become ill or injured on holiday ( contrary to the ridiculous statement by a member of the management team at a public meeting in 2007 -- "people do not come on holiday to be ill" !!! -- how thoughtless is that ?? ) . Kendal's area is not just Kendal -- it is all of South Lakes --- obviously cutting off the Furness Peninsula bits --- The old "casualty" dept at Kendal in October saw just over 1800 patients in October = 60 / day -- and other months can be significantly higher ( amongst those 60 / day a good number will end up as admissions, which involves a considerable amount of Doctor time input / case ) If it comes to it --- really and truely Kendal is bang in the geographic middle of The Trust's area ---- so ..... draw your own conclusions.
The cuts started well before the present Government was formed -- Kendal very wrongly lost its very well performing Acute Medical Service in 2008 ---- The Management of Acute Heart Attacks, and Cardiac Emergencies at Kendal was most of the time, Top of the League of treatment defining statistics --- out of the 3 Hospitals, in Call to Needle time and Door to Needle time --- standard of care was faultless --- when involved -- I felt privaledged to be a small part of that "winning team"
Kendal may not justify District General Status, but again Vorlon -- please do some research ---- there are other areas with similar Geographical / Population spread to here, and they have very successfully managed, to one way or another, have a thriving and well performing and appreciated locally -- General Hospital, with Acute Medical facilities --- Kendal's Hospital is ripe for expansion, and with determination -- rather than a retreat to Lancaster we could have had and hopefully may well yet see, a thriving derivation of a District General Hospital --- like it or not -- South Cumbrians will always regard Kendal as "their" hospital, and as such, many choose to make it their first port of call for their emergencies.
The cuts started well before the present Government was formed -- Kendal very wrongly lost its very well performing Acute Medical Service in 2008 ---- The Management of Acute Heart Attacks, and Cardiac Emergencies at Kendal was most of the time, Top of the League of treatment defining statistics --- out of the 3 Hospitals, in Call to Needle time and Door to Needle time --- standard of care was faultless --- when involved -- I felt privaledged to be a small part of that "winning team"
Kendal may not justify District General Status, but again Vorlon -- please do some research ---- there are other areas with similar Geographical / Population spread to here, and they have very successfully managed, to one way or another, have a thriving and well performing and appreciated locally -- General Hospital, with Acute Medical facilities --- Kendal's Hospital is ripe for expansion, and with determination -- rather than a retreat to Lancaster we could have had and hopefully may well yet see, a thriving derivation of a District General Hospital --- like it or not -- South Cumbrians will always regard Kendal as "their" hospital, and as such, many choose to make it their first port of call for their emergencies.
lancaster expat
says...
10:59am Sat 26 Nov 11
It would both be very expensive and near enough impossible to staff acute medical units and a minor A&E department. The PCAS staff can see the large majority of patients that present. With improvements in technology and increased specialisation further cuts across the UK is more likely than the reopening of inefficient services. There is a difference between barrow which is very geographically isolated being over an hour away from an other services. West Moreland is only 20-30 minutes away from Lancaster. Yes the planning to cope with the acute services review should have been better. But it was a financial necessity to do something as the status quo could not have gone on.
gadgetgadget
says...
12:45pm Sat 26 Nov 11
Lancaster Expat and some others overlook the REAL source of the lack of funding within the NHS - it's the client/provider model that creates a set of duplicated management positions across multiple NHS trusts. Redirect that funding back into patient care instead of bureaucracy and maybe, just maybe, the services that people need can come back.
As for the Acute Services review - could be better is a VAST understatement. UHMBT didn't want to listen to public opinion, didn't want to consider alternatives and were hell bent on removal. Overwhelming RLI with patients as a result.
Now they are having to think again - I'll ask as I've previously asked elsewhere on this site - is that good use of public money ? Is that responsible management ? Should we TRUST the same management who presided over these failures to put matters right ?
Regular readers will know my answer to all of those questions is NO.
As for the Acute Services review - could be better is a VAST understatement. UHMBT didn't want to listen to public opinion, didn't want to consider alternatives and were hell bent on removal. Overwhelming RLI with patients as a result.
Now they are having to think again - I'll ask as I've previously asked elsewhere on this site - is that good use of public money ? Is that responsible management ? Should we TRUST the same management who presided over these failures to put matters right ?
Regular readers will know my answer to all of those questions is NO.
gadgetgadget
says...
12:50pm Sat 26 Nov 11
Oh and those slagging off Tim Farron need to remember that centralizing services as per an URBAN environment doesn't work in a RURAL one - especially one such as South Lakeland with massively fluctuating seasonal population levels.
Mr Farron also has a track record of speaking up for what his constituents want NOT necessarily what his party or the coalition want. I'd prefer to have an MP that represents his community's wishes not just what his party/coalition want. Otherwise we don't have properly representation.
Mr Farron also has a track record of speaking up for what his constituents want NOT necessarily what his party or the coalition want. I'd prefer to have an MP that represents his community's wishes not just what his party/coalition want. Otherwise we don't have properly representation.
gadgetgadget
says...
12:54pm Sat 26 Nov 11
@Lancaster Expat - WGH might only be 20-30 minutes away from Lancaster but the catchment area for WGH includes a rural environment where even getting to WGH in an ambulance (especially in summer) from some of the more inaccessible areas of the region can take anything up to an hour. Add on those extra 20-30 minutes on top of that and it can make all the difference between life and death in some instances. Looking at where WGH is located is a much bigger issue than just the distance between Kendal and Lancaster.
gadgetgadget
says...
1:25pm Sat 26 Nov 11
As an example of costs ... UHMBT's Executive Board cost the taxpayer at least £515k in the last financial year according to their accounts. That's prior to taking into account things like pension contributions.
If that cost is duplicated across all approx 400 trusts in the NHS in the UK then that amounts to £206m in just Executive Salaries.
Reduce the number of trusts by say half and that figure can be drastically reduced and the money reinvested into patient care.
Just think how much could be achieved with over £100m every year !!
If that cost is duplicated across all approx 400 trusts in the NHS in the UK then that amounts to £206m in just Executive Salaries.
Reduce the number of trusts by say half and that figure can be drastically reduced and the money reinvested into patient care.
Just think how much could be achieved with over £100m every year !!
Vorlon
says...
5:33pm Sat 26 Nov 11
gadgetgadget wrote:All the studies have shown an extra 20 minutes on the road to get to a propeprly equipped 24/7 Trauma Unit with associated Critical Care & Theatre back-up will save more lives overall than having diddly little "A&E" Departments dotted all over the place that will "waste" far more then "20-30" minutes unloading the patient, assessing the patient, working out what is wrong with the patient, and then getting the patient back on the road to somewhere better equipped.
@Lancaster Expat - WGH might only be 20-30 minutes away from Lancaster but the catchment area for WGH includes a rural environment where even getting to WGH in an ambulance (especially in summer) from some of the more inaccessible areas of the region can take anything up to an hour. Add on those extra 20-30 minutes on top of that and it can make all the difference between life and death in some instances. Looking at where WGH is located is a much bigger issue than just the distance between Kendal and Lancaster.
Places like Tiverton & Okehampton don't have "DGHs" and they have travel times and road networks to Exeter much worse than Kendal-Lancaster.
As for Tim Farron speaking up for that his constituents "want" - more like he spoke up for what his constituents wanted to hear and he kept saying it knowing he'd never have to deliver.
But now his party are in Government he can't keep playing the "opposition" card.
Tim Farron is part of the Government which wants £20 billion cuts in the NHS, Tim Farron is a member of the party that is Privatising the NHS and wasting a further £2 Billion on Tory "Reforms" designed to break up the NHS. How many of Tim Farron's Constituents wanted top-down NHS reform, trebling of Tuition Fees, an illegal war in Libya, Massive cuts to Social Services, Massive cuts to rural services like Policing, Cuts to MP numbers - including Rural constituencies?
Tim Farron keeps pretending he is somehow in "opposition" to these things - when in fact he and his party are propping them up and making sure they happen.
At the next election you can be sure we'll remember which MPs talked about serving their constituents and opposing Tory cuts - only to jump into Government and help make those cuts when the chance came.
If Tim Farron is so opposed to things that most of his constituents didn't want at the last election - and certainly weren't in anyone's manifesto - then why is he happy to stay on the Goverment payroll.
Somebody with so much alleged "principle" would have resigned the whip at the very least???
gadgetgadget
says...
6:09pm Sat 26 Nov 11
@Vorlon - Thanks for the party broadcast for the Labour party it's really useful to the issue at hand - not !
As for the transport issue - like Lancaster Expat it appears you don't understand the issues here - it's not just the distance between Kendal-Lancaster that's in question and never was.
It's the EXTRA distance that poses the danger and one in which can put lives in jeopardy.
Less than an hour to get to ANY hospital based medical help is vital especially in the cases of Heart/Stroke patients.
Not everyone in this area is based around Kendal - many patients especially during the summer can be tourists out on the fells or in remote places such as Langdale.
It takes time for an ambulance to get there and then more time to get back - the removal of the acute services at WGH places more lives at risk as a result, it also places more emphasis on getting emergency services at RLI in a better state - the latter hasn't happened.
It's vital that one or the other happens : either return the acute services to WGH (which would provide a service not just to local people in Kendal but allow Ambulances to get to medical support quicker) or get the problems at RLI sorted out (that doesn't take away the additional travel problem though).
Like David Earnshaw has described elsewhere on this site the Acute Services move was badly planned, poorly executed and in CONJUNCTION with other service changes has posed a new set of problems down at RLI - however all of those issues were predicted by members of the public, health professionals and politicians (of all parties) PRIOR to the changes being implemented.
Whether there is enough money to bring back services to WGH is not really the point at the moment, indeed if it is proved that there is a need there is now a precedent with the acquisition of chemotherapy when there is supposedly no money.
The real point at present is the lack of adequate management which has led to numerous service failures, in the case of acute services that was very poor planning that caused the problems in the first place and continues to put lives at risk - that's one simple reason why so many people are angry with UHMBT and are expressing their anger to their MP (which is what this article is actually about).
If people want to turn this into an anti-Farron debate that's up to them but frankly it's doing a MAJOR disservice to the real issues at hand and that's the failures of UHMBT.
As for the transport issue - like Lancaster Expat it appears you don't understand the issues here - it's not just the distance between Kendal-Lancaster that's in question and never was.
It's the EXTRA distance that poses the danger and one in which can put lives in jeopardy.
Less than an hour to get to ANY hospital based medical help is vital especially in the cases of Heart/Stroke patients.
Not everyone in this area is based around Kendal - many patients especially during the summer can be tourists out on the fells or in remote places such as Langdale.
It takes time for an ambulance to get there and then more time to get back - the removal of the acute services at WGH places more lives at risk as a result, it also places more emphasis on getting emergency services at RLI in a better state - the latter hasn't happened.
It's vital that one or the other happens : either return the acute services to WGH (which would provide a service not just to local people in Kendal but allow Ambulances to get to medical support quicker) or get the problems at RLI sorted out (that doesn't take away the additional travel problem though).
Like David Earnshaw has described elsewhere on this site the Acute Services move was badly planned, poorly executed and in CONJUNCTION with other service changes has posed a new set of problems down at RLI - however all of those issues were predicted by members of the public, health professionals and politicians (of all parties) PRIOR to the changes being implemented.
Whether there is enough money to bring back services to WGH is not really the point at the moment, indeed if it is proved that there is a need there is now a precedent with the acquisition of chemotherapy when there is supposedly no money.
The real point at present is the lack of adequate management which has led to numerous service failures, in the case of acute services that was very poor planning that caused the problems in the first place and continues to put lives at risk - that's one simple reason why so many people are angry with UHMBT and are expressing their anger to their MP (which is what this article is actually about).
If people want to turn this into an anti-Farron debate that's up to them but frankly it's doing a MAJOR disservice to the real issues at hand and that's the failures of UHMBT.
Vorlon
says...
6:43pm Sat 26 Nov 11
I can't decide whether you are being naive or wilfully obtuse. By the time somebody from "Langdale" is in the back of an ambulance (possible even the Air Ambulance) the "extra 20 minutes" to a propelry equipped Trauma Centre outweighs the "extra 20 minutes" getting to WGH (possibly when they are already on the M6 by that time). It also ignores that modern Paramedics are trained to start treating many of the things than need dealing with in the "golden hour" long before the ambulance even leaves the scene.
I agree that A&E needs additional resourcing at RLI. But it will be far easier to find the money (and FAR cheaper) for that than trying to create a 24/7 Trauma Service at WGH (which in fact it never had to start with).
Put it this way - even when WGH had it's "A&E" - there is no way once in the ambulance I would have let them take me (or anyone I cared about) to a site that had no Critical Care facility.
Face facts - modern medicine for acute trauma has moved beyond what can reasonably and safely be provided in little "General Hospitals".
With regard to Oncology the new WGH unit is actually being funded by the MacMillan Cancer Charity for the first two years. However if there is money to spend on Health Care then surely it is better spent bringing "elective" and routine services closer to patients homes for things like Chemotherapy than trying to fund clinically unsafe "prestige" white elephants.
The majority of people will hopefully never need a full-blown A&E, but with an ageing population we need to develop more services away from "hospital" sites into community sites and even people's homes with things like domiciliary chemotherapy and midwife-led services.
That is the future for Kendal - maybe if it hadn't been called Westmorland "General" Hospital (which it never was) much confusion and heartache would have been avoided.
As for your "party political" point I would make exactly the same point about a Labour MP doing the same - pretending to be opposed to their own policy for the sake of telling people what they want to hear whilst trooping through the Government Lobby come the vote.
I agree that A&E needs additional resourcing at RLI. But it will be far easier to find the money (and FAR cheaper) for that than trying to create a 24/7 Trauma Service at WGH (which in fact it never had to start with).
Put it this way - even when WGH had it's "A&E" - there is no way once in the ambulance I would have let them take me (or anyone I cared about) to a site that had no Critical Care facility.
Face facts - modern medicine for acute trauma has moved beyond what can reasonably and safely be provided in little "General Hospitals".
With regard to Oncology the new WGH unit is actually being funded by the MacMillan Cancer Charity for the first two years. However if there is money to spend on Health Care then surely it is better spent bringing "elective" and routine services closer to patients homes for things like Chemotherapy than trying to fund clinically unsafe "prestige" white elephants.
The majority of people will hopefully never need a full-blown A&E, but with an ageing population we need to develop more services away from "hospital" sites into community sites and even people's homes with things like domiciliary chemotherapy and midwife-led services.
That is the future for Kendal - maybe if it hadn't been called Westmorland "General" Hospital (which it never was) much confusion and heartache would have been avoided.
As for your "party political" point I would make exactly the same point about a Labour MP doing the same - pretending to be opposed to their own policy for the sake of telling people what they want to hear whilst trooping through the Government Lobby come the vote.
gadgetgadget
says...
7:02pm Sat 26 Nov 11
No I'm not being deliberately obtuse nor naive at all.
The point being UHMBT made a decision to remove it's acute services at WGH and then the downgrade of the older A&E at WGH was thus inevitable.
However instead of the loss of acute services, the Trust completely ignored trying to create a unit that could handle less major heart/stroke incidents. Ambulance staff would then have had the capability to decide to take patients to WGH or RLI (in more major circumstances. That is no longer possible.
BTW here's some personal information : my life was saved in the old A&E unit at WGH after I flatlined in an ambulance - the staff there me, I would not have made the extra 20-30 minutes to Lancaster. I was transferred to RLI's ICU only after resussitation. So your example of time not being important is frankly very disingenuous.
Both units at WGH went hand in hand - I agree you can't have one without the other with regards to critical care but the extra 20-30 minutes CAN and DOES make all the difference - that's from very real personal experience with not just my personal circumstances but also with relatives - indeed not EVERY ambulance is EQUIPPED with the appropriate staff or equipment to deal with every type of incident.
Quoting studies is totally irrelevant because every person is different and has different needs. Each case needs to be judged on merits - it's precisely this reliance on so-called studies and trying to apply them into every environment that leads to the types of problems that UHMBT have got themselves into with regards to Acute Services and A&E.
Ambulance staff were INSTRUCTED not to take patients to WGH at all at one point - that included minor injuries and resulted in another downgrade of services in WGH. Now the trust are having to backtrack on that because they've realized that the warnings that were made about that decision were flawed.
As for facing facts, it's true that a centralized set of facilities in an URBAN environment may be more applicable where services are never more than a small number of minutes away but it's not viable to apply that model into a RURAL environment.
Nor is it a fixation on the use of the word "General" in the title of WGH - that's a ridiculous statement to make.
The funding behind the chemotherapy unit isn't important either - I was using it merely as an example of where there is a need the money can be found.
Sorry I can't agree with you about an increasing number of aged patients in the population : it will increase the likelyhood of more and more heart/stroke patients thus it's much more important to have accessible services in local units not to centralize them in rural areas. This is precisely where the so-called "studies" fall down.
Don't disagree with some domiciliary services that you highlight though - although it should be borne in mind that the numbers of patients that will apply to are probably fairly minimal in the big scheme of things.
Let's try to avoid all the party political stuff can we ? It's really un-necessary in discussing the issues at hand.
The point being UHMBT made a decision to remove it's acute services at WGH and then the downgrade of the older A&E at WGH was thus inevitable.
However instead of the loss of acute services, the Trust completely ignored trying to create a unit that could handle less major heart/stroke incidents. Ambulance staff would then have had the capability to decide to take patients to WGH or RLI (in more major circumstances. That is no longer possible.
BTW here's some personal information : my life was saved in the old A&E unit at WGH after I flatlined in an ambulance - the staff there me, I would not have made the extra 20-30 minutes to Lancaster. I was transferred to RLI's ICU only after resussitation. So your example of time not being important is frankly very disingenuous.
Both units at WGH went hand in hand - I agree you can't have one without the other with regards to critical care but the extra 20-30 minutes CAN and DOES make all the difference - that's from very real personal experience with not just my personal circumstances but also with relatives - indeed not EVERY ambulance is EQUIPPED with the appropriate staff or equipment to deal with every type of incident.
Quoting studies is totally irrelevant because every person is different and has different needs. Each case needs to be judged on merits - it's precisely this reliance on so-called studies and trying to apply them into every environment that leads to the types of problems that UHMBT have got themselves into with regards to Acute Services and A&E.
Ambulance staff were INSTRUCTED not to take patients to WGH at all at one point - that included minor injuries and resulted in another downgrade of services in WGH. Now the trust are having to backtrack on that because they've realized that the warnings that were made about that decision were flawed.
As for facing facts, it's true that a centralized set of facilities in an URBAN environment may be more applicable where services are never more than a small number of minutes away but it's not viable to apply that model into a RURAL environment.
Nor is it a fixation on the use of the word "General" in the title of WGH - that's a ridiculous statement to make.
The funding behind the chemotherapy unit isn't important either - I was using it merely as an example of where there is a need the money can be found.
Sorry I can't agree with you about an increasing number of aged patients in the population : it will increase the likelyhood of more and more heart/stroke patients thus it's much more important to have accessible services in local units not to centralize them in rural areas. This is precisely where the so-called "studies" fall down.
Don't disagree with some domiciliary services that you highlight though - although it should be borne in mind that the numbers of patients that will apply to are probably fairly minimal in the big scheme of things.
Let's try to avoid all the party political stuff can we ? It's really un-necessary in discussing the issues at hand.
gadgetgadget
says...
7:31pm Sat 26 Nov 11
Just to add - in the present arrangements I would have died because of the lack of a properly functioning A&E unit at WGH with access to acute trained medical staff within the building.
Some people might say they'd be better off without my posts on here - but I think it highlights how the magic hour isn't always the important issue but how access to fully trained and localized medical staff is.
Some people might say they'd be better off without my posts on here - but I think it highlights how the magic hour isn't always the important issue but how access to fully trained and localized medical staff is.
Vorlon
says...
9:07am Sun 27 Nov 11
With regard to "party political" - the whole article was about Tim Farron saying "I told you so" - so I think it entirely fair to respond to the political dimension. There are other threads specifically about UHMB and I don't think I have raised any political points in those.
If MPs use local papers to promote themselves and their message I think it is only fair they don't get a free ride over their interpretation of the facts and their behaviour in office.
I understand where you are coming from with your story. Unfortunately we cannot plan Health Policy on the basis of personal anecdote - it does have to be based on "studies" that strip out the personal and look at the numbers.
Don't forget the people who didn't survive second rate facilities don't get to write letters.
They are the people for whom impartial studies have to speak.
If MPs use local papers to promote themselves and their message I think it is only fair they don't get a free ride over their interpretation of the facts and their behaviour in office.
I understand where you are coming from with your story. Unfortunately we cannot plan Health Policy on the basis of personal anecdote - it does have to be based on "studies" that strip out the personal and look at the numbers.
Don't forget the people who didn't survive second rate facilities don't get to write letters.
They are the people for whom impartial studies have to speak.
gadgetgadget
says...
11:24am Sun 27 Nov 11
Yes - he's right to say "I told you so" because he did and the events since have proven him and many others correct, he also justifies that comment as well as not attempting to take any satisfaction from it.
To be fair the article is headed up as being swamped with complaints at his surgery not about policical points scoring - only you and NHS Veteran have turned it into that.
You and NHS Veteran obviously have personal problems with Mr Farron - as I've stated before that's not the real issue at hand but the failures at UHMBT. If you want to carry on turning this into a political points scoring exercise and an Anti-Farron discussion that's up to you but I'm not going to engage you in that anymore.
Back to the issue at hand ..
Your reliance on "studies" to plan health policy is frankly the ridiculous nature of the NHS at present. They try to put square pegs into round holes and rely upon strategies that MAY work in other parts of the country to justify them in others. That's why services fail because the "studies" make generalizations and averages - they thus cannot be relied upon in every instance.
LOCAL Health Policy needs to be done on the experiences of individuals and their families NOT just on national studies - otherwise services cannot be tailored for what a particular part of the country needs. There are MAJOR differences between the needs of an URBAN area and a RURAL one - especially one like ours with a major seasonal population explosion.
If there are victims of so-called second-rate facilities then it's their families/friends who normally speak out about their experiences and where it went wrong. Otherwise how can services be corrected.
The over-reliance on numbers is where the NHS is going and has gone wrong - because it's forgetting that it's the patients that matter, not the spreadsheets, tickboxes or fancy reports. I could make a political points score here but I won't stoop down to that but I do note that you haven't engaged in any discussion about client/service provision.
My story is not a personal ANECDOTE and I resent the use of the word - it's a REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE not a story or a fantasy and I think you need to be very careful in making comments like that.
Without evidence such as that then the numbers don't make sense and wrong decisions are made - the decisions of UHMBT have been proven to be flawed often on the basis of an overemphasis of number crunching and loss of the sight of the reason why they are really there and that is patient care.
To be fair the article is headed up as being swamped with complaints at his surgery not about policical points scoring - only you and NHS Veteran have turned it into that.
You and NHS Veteran obviously have personal problems with Mr Farron - as I've stated before that's not the real issue at hand but the failures at UHMBT. If you want to carry on turning this into a political points scoring exercise and an Anti-Farron discussion that's up to you but I'm not going to engage you in that anymore.
Back to the issue at hand ..
Your reliance on "studies" to plan health policy is frankly the ridiculous nature of the NHS at present. They try to put square pegs into round holes and rely upon strategies that MAY work in other parts of the country to justify them in others. That's why services fail because the "studies" make generalizations and averages - they thus cannot be relied upon in every instance.
LOCAL Health Policy needs to be done on the experiences of individuals and their families NOT just on national studies - otherwise services cannot be tailored for what a particular part of the country needs. There are MAJOR differences between the needs of an URBAN area and a RURAL one - especially one like ours with a major seasonal population explosion.
If there are victims of so-called second-rate facilities then it's their families/friends who normally speak out about their experiences and where it went wrong. Otherwise how can services be corrected.
The over-reliance on numbers is where the NHS is going and has gone wrong - because it's forgetting that it's the patients that matter, not the spreadsheets, tickboxes or fancy reports. I could make a political points score here but I won't stoop down to that but I do note that you haven't engaged in any discussion about client/service provision.
My story is not a personal ANECDOTE and I resent the use of the word - it's a REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE not a story or a fantasy and I think you need to be very careful in making comments like that.
Without evidence such as that then the numbers don't make sense and wrong decisions are made - the decisions of UHMBT have been proven to be flawed often on the basis of an overemphasis of number crunching and loss of the sight of the reason why they are really there and that is patient care.
gadgetgadget
says...
12:42pm Sun 27 Nov 11
Plus I'm sure that the families of the victims at FGH's Maternity Unit will not be comforted by your comments either.
It's pretty obvious to me from your comments here and on the other thread who you work for and in fact probably I can assume your real identity (although I won't name names here). If you are indeed who I think you are then your arguments in defence of the management here do you no favours in the big scheme of things and merely demonstrate the same type of arrogance that the public are complaining about.
I won't be engaging in further discussion with you - there's no point.
It's pretty obvious to me from your comments here and on the other thread who you work for and in fact probably I can assume your real identity (although I won't name names here). If you are indeed who I think you are then your arguments in defence of the management here do you no favours in the big scheme of things and merely demonstrate the same type of arrogance that the public are complaining about.
I won't be engaging in further discussion with you - there's no point.
tictoc1
says...
2:38pm Tue 29 Nov 11
I would like to thank Tim for taking the time to listen. He's not just a MP but a human, passionate about certain issues. I had a biking accident in a remote area of the Lake District. The air ambulance was not available, resulting in Mountain Rescue attending. From reaching the ground anbulance to getting to Lancaster - because WGH was NOT accepting ambulances - was well over an hour! I had a broken pelvis and internal bleeding. Had the WGH accepted the ambulance I was in, I could have got the medical attention I very much needed.....alot quicker!
"gadgetgadget" - I stand by you in this thread and I agree with your comments. And to Tim, please keep fighting because there is a percentage of the people that (although may not like the parites in power at the moment) do like the work you do for the locals.
"gadgetgadget" - I stand by you in this thread and I agree with your comments. And to Tim, please keep fighting because there is a percentage of the people that (although may not like the parites in power at the moment) do like the work you do for the locals.
NHS Veteran says...
10:45pm Thu 24 Nov 11