Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the OS-Chichester Observer site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

HOSPITAL: Comment by the Chichester Observer



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 June 2008
There were never going to be any winners, only losers in the enforced battle between Chichester and Worthing.
But there was genuine surprise and shock in both camps, and in Hampshire, that St Richard's Hospital was not chosen as the major general hospital.

It has the better clinical reputation, better management record, specialised services including a sp
ecial baby care unit, has no recruitment problems, has the room to expand and would mean the lowest individual travel times for West Sussex patients.

The fact Chichester would be the more financially-attractive option is also another plus to keep the money men happy.

But the choice to downgrade St Richard's Hospital and make Worthing the major general hospital has seen shock turn to anger as the detail of the decision comes clear.

Just five points separated the two hospitals when health bosses scored the two sites, with Worthing's 118 beating Chichester's 113.

And the deciding factor which swung it Worthing's way? Deprivation – an issue barely raised by the PCT during the consultation.

While giving the western side of the county just three points for deprivation, officials have given Worthing a score of nine.

Bosses at the PCT are doing a fantastic job of making Worthing sound like inner-city London, or Liverpool, or Calcutta.

And what about rural deprivation? The PCT's definition seems to stop at the simple view that those living in rural areas are obviously more well off.

The PCT has chosen to prioritise catchment population over catchment area – again in Worthing's favour – and choose the total number of people having further to travel over the longest travel times for individuals. Guess which site benefits again?

The fact an increasing number of Hampshire mums are shunning Portsmouth and choosing to have their babies in Chichester was set aside.

And all those pesky issues raised by residents in Chichester, Midhurst and Bognor Regis over poor ambulance response times, impact of tourists, congestion, and overall journey times for the elderly were not even used by the PCT in its final scoring.

It's no wonder St Richard's supporters feel angry.

The only hope now is for the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to be brave enough to come to the conclusion the scoring is unfair and to ask for the decision to be reviewed.

Once St Richard's is downgraded we can't go back. It's vital the right decision is made.



What do you think? Click here to send a letter or leave a comment below.

Click here to go back to Chichester news
Click here to go back to Bognor Regis news
Click here to go back to Midhurst and Petworth news

To tell us where in the world you are reading this story click on the link below to add yourself to our readers' map.

MAP





The full article contains 471 words and appears in OS-Chichester Observer newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 June 2008 2:43 PM
  • Source: OS-Chichester Observer
  • Location: Chichester
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.