WATFORD GENERAL PLANS GET THUMBS DOWN AT HEMEL ELECTION MEETING
A pre-election meeting of more than 150 people in Hemel Hempstead earlier this week saw overwhelming rejection of the plans to rebuild Watford General Hospital.
Many people called on the NHS to look at options for a clear new site with better access than the cramped and crumbling Vicarage Road facility.
Four general election candidates taking part in the meeting, organised by Dacorum Health Action Group at Hemel Methodist Church, also expressed concern about the £1.4bn, 7-year Watford project.
The Labour Party did not provide a representative.
There was widespread support from candidates and the audience for much better hospital services in Hemel Hempstead.
Public feedback after the meeting showed the depth of feeling about our hospitals and the undemocratic way the West Herts Hospitals Trust decides on investment.
Photo credit: Gary Norman
NEW GOVERNMENT TO GAMBLE YOUR MONEY ON WASTEFUL WATFORD GENERAL
The new government is now certain to risk at least £1.4bn on rebuilding at Watford General.
Labour yesterday committed itself to the towering infirmary project at Watford General. The Tories have said they would do the same.
BUT A DEVASTATING AND DETAILED NEW ANALYSIS BY DACORUM HEALTH ACTION GROUP AND THE NEW HOSPITAL CAMPAIGN SHOWS THAT THIS WILL BE A BIG FINANCIAL GAMBLE - AS WELL AS A BAD DEAL FOR PATIENTS ACROSS WEST HERTS
The report, 'Unaffordable and Unfair - the Wasteful Watford Hospital Project' reveals that the plans for Watford General:
• Will cause years of disruption that will affect patients and staff
• Are unaffordable and unfair
• Will not meet the needs of people across West Herts
• Are likely to place the West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals Trust in a very difficult financial position, which would have worrying repercussions for patient care.
The link to the report is below:
BED CUTS ON WAY IN WATFORD REBUILD?
Recent changes to the plans for Watford General's new facility will likely mean a slightly lower set of tower blocks.
Instead of the threatened 16 storey, 260 foot monster, a video shows one that features three towers of 12 or maybe 13 storeys each - the hospital equivalent of 18 or 19 residential floors.
That's good news - the New Hospital Campaign has been attacking the plans for the tallest NHS building outside central London, so we won't complain if it's scaled down a bit.
BUT THERE IS A BIG CATCH
Reducing the scale of the buildings may mean lopping several wards off each tower - with the loss of a fair number of beds.
That could well mean that the new Watford Hospital facility will have too few beds for our future needs.
The original plans for the new Watford building would have seen enough room for the 960-plus beds needed for the next few decades in West Hertfordshire.
But a lower building at Watford would not be able to accommodate the beds we should have. It would probably have fewer beds than we have now.
The problem, of course, is the tiny site left for redevelopment at Watford - it's just not big enough.
New thinking is needed about a new site - but don't expect it from our local NHS bosses
VERDICT ON FUTURE OF MOUNT VERNON SEEMS TO BE 'ANYWHERE BUT WATFORD GENERAL'
People commenting on the social media network Nextdoor have given a big thumbs down to the idea of moving the Mount Vernon Cancer Centre (MVCC) to Watford General.
It's unscientific, but the outcome from over 70 comments to a post asking for opinions on Mount Vernon (with over 10,000 views) was that:
- The proposed move of MVCC to Watford General was not supported by a single commenter
- Many people want to keep MVCC where it is, with greenery near at hand
- Few people accept the argument that it would be safer and better to move MVCC next to an acute hospital where patients who need it can easily get life-saving treatment quickly
Hers is the link to the Nextdoor post and comments:
https://nextdoor.co.uk/p/cdFXHTR75nY8?utm_source=share&extras=MTc1OTIyMDU3MzExNjE%3D&utm_campaign=1715790018169
As it happens, there is a fairly strong case for moving cancer treatment centres close to acute hospitals with all the backup, ICUs etc.
But what people seem to be saying is that they want treatment to be in a place where they can enjoy some light and space while going through their often difficult times. Of course Watford General will have even less light and space after the towering infirmary has been built.
ONE OBVIOUS OPTION IS TO BUILD A NEW MVCC TOGETHER WITH A DECENT, WELL-PROPORTIONED, HUMAN-SCALE NEW WEST HERTS ACUTE HOSPITAL ON A NEW SITE AWAY FROM CRAMPED VICARAGE ROAD.
BUT THE NHS WON'T LISTEN TO THAT AND WON'T EVEN TRY TO LOOK FOR SUCH A SITE
MOUNT VERNON CONSULTATION COULD UPEND WATFORD GENERAL PLANS
There was very bad news for the West Herts Trust recently as the NHS decided to ask the public what should happen to the Mount Vernon Cancer Centre (MVCC). A public consultation is being planned for later this year.
MVCC is an excellent facility and serves a big population in the south and east.
But it's falling down and urgently needs replacement next to an acute hospital where patients can be supported if they are very ill during cancer treatment.
The NHS want to build a replacement building squeezed in between Watford General and Watford FC, but that would almost certainly mean one of two very poor outcomes. Either:
- Building at the same time as the towering West Herts infirmary is constructed at Watford General, causing even more chaos, contamination, noise and dust for patients in the existing hospital, or
- Waiting to start building until the tower blocks are finished - 2031 is the target but 2032 is more likely.
The second is much more likely. That will mean a decade more of crumbling at MVCC.
Surely the NHS should urgently consider a potentially quicker and certainly better solution - a clear new site for both West Herts new acute hospital AND MVCC.
The Trust will be upset with the consultation as it opens up the possibility of a solution that does not involve their beloved Vicarage Road site.
The New Hospital Campaign will be putting this case when the MVCC consultation starts.
HEALTH ACTION GROUP CALLS FOR ACTION TO TACKLE DACORUM GP FAILINGS
A call for urgent NHS action to correct serious failings in Dacorum's GP services has come from Dacorum Health Action Group (DHAG).
DHAG Chair Philip Aylett has written to the senior leader of the NHS in the area setting out a plethora of primary care problems reported to DHAG on the social media portal nextdoor. These include:
• Difficulty in making appointments
• Questions about the effectiveness of telephone appointments
• The weakening of the role of the GP as an enabler of access to NHS services and an advocate for the patient
• Doubts about the value of the wider range of health professionals now employed by practices
Dr Aylett has invited Paul Burstow, Chair of the Integrated Care Board (ICB) for Herts and West Essex to meet people who are unhappy with the service they get from their GP. He has also asked the ICB to review the workings of Primary Care Networks, groups of GP practices which were supposed to help improve the service. PCNs seem to have made little impact on raising standards.
Attached to Dr Aylett's letter is a selection of the evidence about GP problems gathered by DHAG.
The letter is here: Letter to P Burstow FINAL
GP PROBLEMS IN DACORUM - PATIENTS TELL THEIR STORIES
Patients in Dacorum have been sharing their stories of problems accessing and using primary care services.
Dacorum Health Action Group asked users of the nextdoor social network for their views of GPs and other primary care services in the area. The results were very concerning.
Among the main difficulties encountered by Dacorum people are:
- It often takes weeks to get appointments, even for urgent and serious conditions
- Booking systems are very difficult to navigate
- Phone appointments sometimes don't allow proper diagnosis
- Online consultation platforms can't replace face-to-face consultations with a real doctor
- There are doubts about the effectiveness of the increasing numbers of practice staff who are not qualified doctors
The acute hospitals seem content to say to people who turn up at urgent care 'make an appointment with your GP'. They don't always realise how hard that can be.
We will be contacting the regional NHS supervisory body, the Integrated Care Board, asking what they can do to make the situation more bearable. It is clear that some practices are much better than others - they need to be able to spread their good practice to the ones in the slow lane.
A selection of the comments made on nextdoor is below:
TRUST AT ODDS WITH HEALTH SECRETARY OVER START DATE FOR WATFORD'S TOWERING INFIRMARY
West Herts Trust caused confusion last week when it disagreed with the Health Secretary over the target start date for building the proposed Watford General towering infirmary.
A Trust release claimed on Friday that building work for the 260-foot triple-towered redeveloped hospital is 'expected to get underway in 2025' This contradicts a recent statement by Health Secretary Victoria Atkins that construction was 'due to start at the end of 2026'.
As well as the muddle over the date, the Trust's Friday release reheated the discredited claim that the hospital would be 'fully funded'. Press reporting recently exposed this as meaningless because
a) there is no final clarity about what the project will provide, and
b) all figures are subject to government spending reviews - at a time when budgets are being tightened
The release also appeared to show little understanding of how health professionals are trained, claiming that:
'As one of the biggest employers in the area, with 5,800 staff, the Trust will continue to develop a pipeline of future doctors, nurses and clinicians from the local area, working in close partnership with West Herts College and other partners.'
This suggests that staff will come entirely from West Herts. It also hints that doctors and nurses are not clinicians.
Most oddly of all, the release gives the impression that West Herts College has a medical school. That College is an excellent institution but it does not train doctors.
People want facts about their hospitals, not muddle and spin.
Patients to suffer as Trust struggles to pay for Watford tower blocks
West Herts Trust will be making big cuts next year as it tries to get ready for the huge financial hit of Watford's new tower block hospital.
The regional NHS body, the ICB, has been told that the Trust will be looking for 'efficiencies' of £21m in 2024-25. But the Trust will still be running a deficit of nearly £25million by the end of that year. The Trust had been hoping to almost break even, so that it could be confident of funding the £1.3bn, 260-foot building with its three closely-packed high-rises.
No such luck. The Trust is deeply in the red and will remain there for the foreseeable future.
Other trusts have money troubles, but West Herts is being especially over-optimistic. It is trying to build the tallest NHS building outside Central London on a (comparatively) modest income of about £500m.
The result - patient services will have to be hit hard to try to get the books straight.
And the money situation will get worse for the Trust if it tries to build at Watford General. 'Elective' income will plummet as patients with a choice stay away from what will become a cramped building site.
Time for a radical rethink before the Trust's cash crisis turns into a care crisis.
MISLEADING MARKHAM SHOULD LOOK AT THE DICTIONARY
Health Minister Lord Markham does not know the meaning of the word 'independent'.
In a letter to a local MP Markham claims that the choice of Watford General for the emergency and specialist hospital was based on 'an independent feasibility study in August 2020,'
This is a misleading statement.
This refers to a Site Feasibility Study (SFS) commissioned by West Herts Trust, which concluded that building a new hospital at Watford General would be much quicker than building on a new clear site. This gave a green light to the Watford project.
But the SFS's conclusions were not supported by the evidence. It was a poor report, which admitted that its conclusions were only 'subjective'.
Yet absurdly the Government still use the SFS as the only substantial bit of technical evidence for Watford General.
And the SFS was not independent.
Collins dictionary contains this definition:
An independent inquiry or opinion is one that involves people who are not connected with a particular situation, and should therefore be fair.
The Site Feasibility Study was done by a 'company' called RFL Property Services Ltd (RFLPS). Sounds independent - but it's not.
According to its LinkedIn profile, RFLPS is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Free London Group (RFLG). Set up in 2018, RFL's main job is to be the estates and property department of that big London hospital system.
So RFLPS.
- Is effectively part of the NHS, like the West Herts Trust. Nine of RFLPS's directors over the years have shared their address with the Royal Free London Group or Trust
- Were already working on the West Herts projects - something that wasn't disclosed in the SFS
But there's more. The two Trusts have been very close to each other. In October 2018, the Royal Free London Trust and West Herts announced that they had “joined forces as part of a new clinical partnership. The partnership follows months of close collaboration between the two trusts.” It wasn't just clinicians - the Trusts worked together over recent years on digital systems, occupational health and bids for ultrasound contracts
There was no way RFL could take an unbiased, fair and balanced view of the arguments for and against locating the new hospital at Watford General. This is known as a conflict of interest. The close corporate relationships between RFL's owners and W Herts should have been made clear, but they weren't.
The judgement of the SFS is not valid because it is not independent. The Trust have no solid evidence for pushing ahead at Watford General.