Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[mythoughts]

I'm not in the least bit surprised about this:
 

NHS plans drawn up by Lord Darzi to shift huge numbers of patients from hospital A&E departments to polyclinics and urgent care centres are fundamentally flawed, according to a report commissioned by the Department of Health.

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=35&storycode=4125278&c=2
 
http://www.primarycarefoundation.co.uk/page22/page28/files/Primary%20Care%20and%20ED.pdf
 
 
So, in light of the evidence that many of us suspected it really would be absolute madness to close the A&E dept at the QEII. And as for the often quoted argument that UCCs would see 60 per cent of people that would normally be treated at A&E: well that's clearly rubbish too. Despite our Trust using a figure of 85 per cent in the consultation document (which it later said was a typo) and putting 65 per cent on its website. They then went into a panic and changed the figure to 60 per cent on their website but recently changed it back to 65 per cent. However,  this report shows that a mere 10 to 30 per cent of people currently treated at A&E could be treated by GPs at the likes of UCCs and polyclinics.

The evidence clearly does not support the "pulling numbers out of a hat" thinking that is driving A&E closures in preference for polyclinics and Urgent Care Centres. Indeed, the evidence shows that key drivers for such changes are reducing costs and helping to meet the four-hour waiting time targets.

In my opinion, and in a nutshell, the evidence produced in this report indicates that if the QEII A&E closes then far more people than the Trust has ever planned and budgeted for would actually be whizzing up to The Lister for emergency treatment. Far more ambulances would be needed. Far more qualified ambulance staff would be required to staff them. The privately backed UCCs would be underused....need I go on?    
 
Will the Trust fund this? Will the privately run UCCs tolerate reduced income? Will the evidence laid out in this Report finally make them see sense or will it be ignored?
 
Now the cat's well and truly out of the bag, can we end this all now and spend the available funds equally across improving and developing both the QEII and Lister?
 

[mythoughts]

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=35&storycode=4125320&c=2