Dear Surrey Downs Board Members,
It was very disappointing for the public, given the halt in BSBV, which would have given you time to look properly at the needs of the people of Epsom and the surrounding area, to find that you passed on plans, at a meeting with clinicians last week, suggesting that at present you do not want to have paediatric in patient beds at Epsom and that you plan to have an urgent care centre led by GPs only.
It is also gives rise to concern that the meeting, which was supposed to be a clinical paediatric meeting was attended by only one paediatrician from the CCG, two BSBV employees, the operating officer, and a GP, whose interests are not paediatrics related and who is from outside the area concerned.
It is very clear that rather than looking at what needs to be commissioned for the local population, you are continuing to be led by BSBV interests which will, it is true, achieve better outcomes for London residents, but considerably worse outcomes for our area- because of the dangers which will results from the increased travel times and the lack of access to stabilisation by secondary care physicians where needed.
I copy below an extract from the recent research on urgent care, issued by NHS England for consultation and you will see evidence of exactly the scenarios we have outlined when putting the case to you for retaining paediatrics and maternity and stabilisation facilities at Epsom.
We would also point to the expenditure implications of losing the paediatric service which serves the acute and community needs at present.Consultants have provided both services in an integrated way and you will have to pay for community replacements and for acutely ill children elsewhere under your plans.
It is of great concern also that so many of our CCG members do not seem interested in providing services for the whole area and that some seem content as long as their own area is provided for. This is not what a commissioning board is supposed to do and we will challenge this!!
For those of you who have not had time to look at the ambulance blue light figures we sent recently, the journey times to both London and Surrey alternative centres are far too long for women in trouble in labour or sick children.
Please look at the latest evidence re urgent care centres below.
It would be good to hear that you decide to reverse your plans and will keep paediatrics and maternity and an urgent care centre with secondary care facilities when required, but until then we are determined to put these issues into both the local and national public domain
Rosemary Najim and Jane Race.
Epsom Hospital Campaign.
Extracted from NHS England Review of Urgent Care Evidence. June 2013
National reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data illustrates there are significant patient safety issues for children who attends minor injury units where the medical cover is run by out of hours GP. The incidents suggest that staff at minor injury units were sometimes unable to direct or transfer patients to the care service most appropriate to their need. Examples of incidents reported can be summarized under themes including; lack of equipment, inability to deal with child’s presenting condition, delay in ambulance transfer out of the minor injury unit for children, children presenting although the minor injury unit is closed, failure to recognize safeguarding issues and critically ill children.
Extracts from NRLS data
A poorly child arrived at a minor injury with unidentified rash on both legs and body- emergency ambulance still hadn’t arrived after 30 minutes and child was deteriorating
Asthmatic teenager presents – difficulty breathing,- nurse unable to assess seriousness- happens a lot at night
NHS England document advises children needing specialist paeds. Bypass local hospital.
Very sick children from our area already are taken straight to St Thomas’ or St Georges’ so Epsom is fully compliant-