Half of all A&E units marked for closure
Up to half of all hospital accident and emergency (A&E) departments face cuts or closure under plans to improve patient care, presenting Gordon "Stalin" Brown with a massive dilemma as he takes over as Prime Minister. Ninety-two out of 204 A&E departments are under threat if guidance attributed to the Department of Health by NHS trusts is followed, the Conservatives claimed.
Some NHS organisations are already using the guidance, which calls for A&E departments to serve a minimum population of 450,000 patients, to justify closures in smaller catchment areas. The average A&E unit currently serves just under 250,000 people.
But the plans are proving hugely unpopular, even though they have been promoted as in the interests of patients and NHS staff.
Mr Brown, aware that the closures would come into force around the time of the next election, said last Friday that he would meet front-line NHS staff and patients to discuss health policy.
It was clear last night that the Chancellor will not now face a leadership challenge as he prepares to succeed Tony Blair, having gathered a decisive 308th supporter among Labour’s 353 MPs.
Last Sunday Mr Brown accepted that people were worried about the potential closure of A&E facilities and maternity services close to their homes, raising speculation that he was pondering a rethink.
If so it is increasingly likely that he will move Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, from her post to pave the way for changes. Which will mean the third Health Secretary since teh Health Direct blog has been running.
The Conservative estimate of 92 nationwide cuts was based on figures in a report circulated to NHS trusts in Surrey.
It states: “Current Department of Health and strategic health authority guidance suggests that, to be viable in terms of patient need, patient safety, staffing numbers and clinical training requirements, a full A&E department in the future would need to be supported by a catchment population of between 450,000 and 500,000 people.”
A staff briefing by Surrey Primary Care Trust in March repeated the figures, suggesting that such a catchment population was “national guidance”.
Closures could mean seriously ill patients, such as those with heart problems or head injuries, having to travel longer distances to receive care in specialist treatment centres. Patients with minor injuries are expected to be treated in walk-in clinics or smaller A&E units.
Such a scenario was supported by two reports published by the Government last year. These suggested that specialist high-tech centres could save 500 lives of people suffering heart attacks and result in 1,000 more stroke victims avoiding death and disability each year.
The changes are broadly supported by doctors’ leaders but are fiercely opposed by patients’ groups and MPs. Cuts to local NHS services have also been opposed by several senior Labour politicians in their own constituencies.
The move to close A&Es comes just as demands on their facilities are rising. The number of attendances at A&E has risen by more than a million in the past three years and the average number of attendances at each is now 67,000.
A report published last year by the Royal College of Surgeons recommended that the minimum catchment population of a fully resourced A&E department should be at least 300,000. But there is debate about whether catchment areas alone should be used to allocate NHS services. Local geography, healthcare needs and staffing levels may have to be taken into account.
A Department of Health spokesman said there was no such official guidance from his department. “Any decisions about the shape of A&E services are taken locally so that services reflect the needs of the local population. Where local health authorities believe that patients can be better served by changing the way services should be delivered, it is right that they make those changes, and they will consult locally on any proposals.”
But he admitted that the recommendations were taken from a report by the Royal College of Surgeons supported by Sir George Alberti, the former director of emergency care. He recently recommended the closure of an A&E department in North London. The remaining two A&Es serving the area will be left with catchment populations of 450,000 each.
The Tories claimed that this was evidence of central targets to close units based on the number of patients they served.
Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, said: “Access to accident and emergency services is a vital component of the quality of NHS services. The public know that not every A&E department can provide every emergency service. But there is no clinical evidence which would justify shutting down A&E departments simply because they don’t serve a catchment population in excess of 450,000. Yet that is the basis on which the Department of Health is seeking now to justify closures.”
From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1801190.ece
The "idea" of cutting A and E units when demand for them continues to grow is just barking, posts Health Direct.
On Oct 03, 06 Health Direct posted: Record numbers of patients visit A & E as GPs services are cut when the number of people seeking treatment at accident and emergency units is at a record level. Statistics from the Department of Health (DoH) reveal that there were 18,759,104 A&E visits in 2005-06, up five per cent from 17,837,180 the -previous year.
The rise comes as up to 60 National Health Service trusts face having to downgrade their A&E units due to Labour's funding cuts.
Dr Martin Shalley, the president of the British Association of Accident and Emergency Medicine, said: "These figures are extremely high. The main reason is that the GP system has changed considerably. The general public do not see the GP as the place to get emergency care out of hours any more."
And whose fault is the growning A and E demand? Step forward Labour's Dept of Health: On March 15, 07 in GPs' out-of-hours service 'shambolic' claim MPs the labour Government's handling of out-of-hours services for GP patients was condemned as "shambolic" by an all-party committee of MPs.
The best interests of patients had not been served by the new system, the public purse had suffered and Saturday morning surgeries had been abandoned, the MPs said.
The report from the public accounts committee criticised GPs and primary care trusts as well as the Government for the flawed "hand-over" of out-of-hours services.
It says: "We found that preparations for the new service were shambolic, both at the national and local level."
How had labour's shambolic service come to this? It's wonderful new GPs contract: On 31 Jan 07 Health Direct posted BMA team 'stunned by out of hours GP contract' as a bit of a laugh. GPs were so stunned by the terms offered to them when negotiating their new contract in 2004 that they thought it was a "bit of a laugh", a doctor has said.
Dr Simon Fradd, who was one of British Medical Association's GP negotiators, said they were shocked by the approach taken by the labour government.
They could not believe that the labour govt was stupid enough to offer GPs the chance not to do evening and weekend work for only a 6% pay cut, he said.
Some NHS organisations are already using the guidance, which calls for A&E departments to serve a minimum population of 450,000 patients, to justify closures in smaller catchment areas. The average A&E unit currently serves just under 250,000 people.
But the plans are proving hugely unpopular, even though they have been promoted as in the interests of patients and NHS staff.
Mr Brown, aware that the closures would come into force around the time of the next election, said last Friday that he would meet front-line NHS staff and patients to discuss health policy.
It was clear last night that the Chancellor will not now face a leadership challenge as he prepares to succeed Tony Blair, having gathered a decisive 308th supporter among Labour’s 353 MPs.
Last Sunday Mr Brown accepted that people were worried about the potential closure of A&E facilities and maternity services close to their homes, raising speculation that he was pondering a rethink.
If so it is increasingly likely that he will move Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, from her post to pave the way for changes. Which will mean the third Health Secretary since teh Health Direct blog has been running.
The Conservative estimate of 92 nationwide cuts was based on figures in a report circulated to NHS trusts in Surrey.
It states: “Current Department of Health and strategic health authority guidance suggests that, to be viable in terms of patient need, patient safety, staffing numbers and clinical training requirements, a full A&E department in the future would need to be supported by a catchment population of between 450,000 and 500,000 people.”
A staff briefing by Surrey Primary Care Trust in March repeated the figures, suggesting that such a catchment population was “national guidance”.
Closures could mean seriously ill patients, such as those with heart problems or head injuries, having to travel longer distances to receive care in specialist treatment centres. Patients with minor injuries are expected to be treated in walk-in clinics or smaller A&E units.
Such a scenario was supported by two reports published by the Government last year. These suggested that specialist high-tech centres could save 500 lives of people suffering heart attacks and result in 1,000 more stroke victims avoiding death and disability each year.
The changes are broadly supported by doctors’ leaders but are fiercely opposed by patients’ groups and MPs. Cuts to local NHS services have also been opposed by several senior Labour politicians in their own constituencies.
The move to close A&Es comes just as demands on their facilities are rising. The number of attendances at A&E has risen by more than a million in the past three years and the average number of attendances at each is now 67,000.
A report published last year by the Royal College of Surgeons recommended that the minimum catchment population of a fully resourced A&E department should be at least 300,000. But there is debate about whether catchment areas alone should be used to allocate NHS services. Local geography, healthcare needs and staffing levels may have to be taken into account.
A Department of Health spokesman said there was no such official guidance from his department. “Any decisions about the shape of A&E services are taken locally so that services reflect the needs of the local population. Where local health authorities believe that patients can be better served by changing the way services should be delivered, it is right that they make those changes, and they will consult locally on any proposals.”
But he admitted that the recommendations were taken from a report by the Royal College of Surgeons supported by Sir George Alberti, the former director of emergency care. He recently recommended the closure of an A&E department in North London. The remaining two A&Es serving the area will be left with catchment populations of 450,000 each.
The Tories claimed that this was evidence of central targets to close units based on the number of patients they served.
Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, said: “Access to accident and emergency services is a vital component of the quality of NHS services. The public know that not every A&E department can provide every emergency service. But there is no clinical evidence which would justify shutting down A&E departments simply because they don’t serve a catchment population in excess of 450,000. Yet that is the basis on which the Department of Health is seeking now to justify closures.”
From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1801190.ece
The "idea" of cutting A and E units when demand for them continues to grow is just barking, posts Health Direct.
On Oct 03, 06 Health Direct posted: Record numbers of patients visit A & E as GPs services are cut when the number of people seeking treatment at accident and emergency units is at a record level. Statistics from the Department of Health (DoH) reveal that there were 18,759,104 A&E visits in 2005-06, up five per cent from 17,837,180 the -previous year.
The rise comes as up to 60 National Health Service trusts face having to downgrade their A&E units due to Labour's funding cuts.
Dr Martin Shalley, the president of the British Association of Accident and Emergency Medicine, said: "These figures are extremely high. The main reason is that the GP system has changed considerably. The general public do not see the GP as the place to get emergency care out of hours any more."
And whose fault is the growning A and E demand? Step forward Labour's Dept of Health: On March 15, 07 in GPs' out-of-hours service 'shambolic' claim MPs the labour Government's handling of out-of-hours services for GP patients was condemned as "shambolic" by an all-party committee of MPs.
The best interests of patients had not been served by the new system, the public purse had suffered and Saturday morning surgeries had been abandoned, the MPs said.
The report from the public accounts committee criticised GPs and primary care trusts as well as the Government for the flawed "hand-over" of out-of-hours services.
It says: "We found that preparations for the new service were shambolic, both at the national and local level."
How had labour's shambolic service come to this? It's wonderful new GPs contract: On 31 Jan 07 Health Direct posted BMA team 'stunned by out of hours GP contract' as a bit of a laugh. GPs were so stunned by the terms offered to them when negotiating their new contract in 2004 that they thought it was a "bit of a laugh", a doctor has said.
Dr Simon Fradd, who was one of British Medical Association's GP negotiators, said they were shocked by the approach taken by the labour government.
They could not believe that the labour govt was stupid enough to offer GPs the chance not to do evening and weekend work for only a 6% pay cut, he said.
Labels: Accident-and_emergency, BMA, GPs, hospital-closures, Labour-shambles
posted by Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic at
2:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home