Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You could also read this which suggests opposing the closures is ill advised if we want to get the best out of the NHS. Rather better point of view than Polly T's instinctive opposition.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/24/urgent-access-accident-and-emergency

Lewisham essentially saved my youngest child and my partners lives.


I can't thank them enough, they treated us with admirable professionalism and genuine care.


To close a hospital like this would be a massive loss.


Please attend the march if you can



Netts

I don't think that's reasonable Nette.


Here's that notorious right wing hate rag : http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/24/nhs-politics-closures


Your youngest child and partner would have been treated somewhere else with equal professionalism and genuine care.


The NHS should not be run by tub thumpers.

Top Banana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> South London Healthcare's problems have been

> complex and longstanding but can be entirely

> nailed down to PFI. PFI was an utterly insane idea

> by both Conservative and Labour.


Not quite - how can something be complex longstanding AND entirely the fault of PFI?


For most of the life of the NHS - managers / administrators spent their budgets unwisely - and the fabric of the hospitals suffered because only the minimum was ever spent on upkeep and maintenance. Hospitals relied on large dollops of capital injected every 20 / 25 years to make up for this failing and build a new hospital. One of the effects of PFI was to build into the running costs the proper and sensible cost of routine maintenance - which had a twofold effect.


1. PFI hospitals will still be safe, effective buildings in 25 years time - not crumbling and leaking edifices requiring major injections of capital.


2. NHS management had to fund this cost of proper maintenance - which reduced the amount of P&L expenditure available for the clinical side of the business. Most found this very difficult to do - but it was every sensible operator of services & buildings would do elsewhere.


As a city London has too many hospitals too close to each other. Rationalisation and co-location of critical services will allow for improved services and more effective use of a, necessarily, curtailed budget.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rather better because it matches your's MM?

> I'm sure there are some very good business reasons

> why the proposals may be a good idea, but

> everything just can not come down to finances.


Rather better yes because it reflects my views. However, my views are shaped by over 20 years working in the healthcare sector - in the NHS, contracting with the NHS, in independent hospitals and in delivering large projects for the NHS. I consider therefore that I bring real knowledge and objective understanding to this topic, rather than Polly T's instinctive opposition to coalition policies and other's more sentimental / emotional arguments.

I've read the report, but I get a bit fed up with the patronizing tone of people saying "here are all the good reason, if you disagree it must just be because you're an emotional weakling". Sometimes emotive arguments are valid, particularly when a community is trying to save a valuable resourse.


I have a pretty good understanding of budgets within local authorities and PCTs, and as I said before, I wouldn't say that none of the arguments for these changes are valid. However, I believe that there are valid arguments on both sides, and I personally think the services at Lewisham Hospital need saving.

I hasten to add the the idea is not to close Lewisham Hospital. Lewisham's A&E will be turned into a 24/7 Urgent Care facility with the ability to deal with the vast majority (70%) of the cases that currently come through its A&E. The hospital will also be expanded to create a new specialist non-complex surgery unit (which is missing from SE London) to deal with non-emergency surgeries. Currently, wait times for these are unacceptable because when these types of surgeries (hip-replacement / knee surgery etc) are done at hospitals with A&E units, they often have to be cancelled or postponed as the surgeons are called to deal with major traumas.


The decision to create this new surgery unit and urgent care centre at Lewisham was based on the specialist emergency care units (and their geographical spread) available at other SE London hospitals-- major trauma, stroke, heart attack etc. Lewisham has a specialist emergency paediatric unit but there are 2 others at other South London hospitals (totally 3). When deciding which A&E to transform into an Urgent Care Centre, the travel times by car and blue light ambulance, the specialist units the hospitals have within their A&Es, as well as the types of cases the A&E is currently dealing with were all considered.

Yes, but less critical cases should be directed to the UCC from other hospitals. Waiting times are better for those with non-critical injuries at urgent care centres than attending A+E (since critical cases are not constantly being prioritized over non-critical injuries).


The only real arguments against the propsals I can see are if there is an argument that 5 full blown A+Es are objectively needed vs 4 + a UCC (in terms of health outcomes / travel times and waiting times). Or if the emergency travel times in the report based on the proposed reconfiguration are wrong- while travel times for Lewisham residents to an A+E would be longer, the report analyis says they will still be within national guidelines.

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you actually read the report (how many

> intending to march have actually bothered?) you'll

> understand the issues at hand much better. Make

> up your own minds but the decision has sensible,

> well reasoned arguments behind it.


I'm aware, and I do understand that, BUT...


There are also sensible and well-reasoned arguments not to impose these cuts to services at Lewisham.


Personally, I don't like the precedent it sets if Lewisham hospital services get deconstructed over these current issues. So, then, anytime a couple of hospitals aren't doing great, instead of actually doing what's morally and financially necessary to improve them, we'll just look to the nearest well-functioning hospital and carve it up instead? These aren't good long term solutions, IMHO.

Reasons schmeasons


I don't hold any truck with most class based waffle on here but I would stake my life on the following


If this hospital was in well heeled Tory heartland it would not be closed


Even if all same logic and reasons applied


It just wouldn't be


I can hear some people splutter already. Save it. THAT hospital wouldn't be closed


No


It


Wouldn't


But you know... What's the worst that can happen to the people closing this hospital

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Reasons schmeasons

>

> I don't hold any truck with most class based

> waffle on here but I would stake my life on the

> following

>

> If this hospital was in well heeled Tory heartland

> it would not be closed

>

> Even if all same logic and reasons applied

>

> It just wouldn't be

>

> I can hear some people splutter already. Save it.

> THAT hospital wouldn't be closed

>

> No

>

> It

>

> Wouldn't

>

> But you know... What's the worst that can happen

> to the people closing this hospital



What he said! x 10

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If you actually read the report (how many

> > intending to march have actually bothered?)

> you'll

> > understand the issues at hand much better.

> Make

> > up your own minds but the decision has

> sensible,

> > well reasoned arguments behind it.

>

> I'm aware, and I do understand that, BUT...

>

> There are also sensible and well-reasoned

> arguments not to impose these cuts to services at

> Lewisham.

>

> Personally, I don't like the precedent it sets if

> Lewisham hospital services get deconstructed over

> these current issues. So, then, anytime a couple

> of hospitals aren't doing great, instead of

> actually doing what's morally and financially

> necessary to improve them, we'll just look to the

> nearest well-functioning hospital and carve it up

> instead? These aren't good long term solutions,

> IMHO.



"instead of actually doing what's morally and financially necessary" - when there are constraints on what is financially possible this absolutist position cannot be sustained. The report proposes a sensible and rational compromise. Sir Bruce Keogh has deplored politicians that oppose sensible rationalisation, as did Lord Darzi on the Today programme his morning, as actually damaging the NHS and affecting its ability to deliver optimum healthcare to the greatest number of people. Selfish might be another description.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...