WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Quintain yesterday announced a new GP ‘super surgery’ to open at the heart of Wembley Park. When operational, it will be the largest NHS GP practice in the borough of Brent, serving up to 25,000 patients.
Quintain said:
The 11,000 sq. ft space will be operated by Wembley Park Medical Centre, relocating from Wembley Park Drive to Humphry Repton Lane close to Olympic Way and Boxpark Wembley, a 10-minute walk from their old premises.
The build will create state-of-the-art general practice medical spaces including two clinical suites, 14 consult exam rooms, four treatment rooms, and an e-consult room. It has been designed with a double height reception and waiting area into the ground floor of the Repton Gardens residential development at the heart of Wembley Park.
The announcement of the NHS super surgery is a significant milestone in the delivery of the Wembley Park neighbourhood, which has been planned from the start to provide all the community facilities everyone needs within easy reach.
The surgery will be delivered by Quintain as part of the Repton Gardens development, designed by architects The Manser Practice, a team with award-winning experience in the healthcare sector. The surgery will provide enough space for 16 GPs and is set to open to the public from March 2024.
Rcent Brent demonstration against takeovers
The take over of GP's surgeries by US company Centene, including three in Brent, has been covered on Wembley Matters. LINK Now a legal challenge has been launched and I hope readers will contribute.
The Appeal
Help us to stop the takeover of GP Surgeries by the giant American corporation Centene!
Centene (through its UK company Operose Health Ltd) has taken over dozens of GP surgeries in London including eight contracts in Camden, Islington and Haringey. Hundreds of patients, councillors and members of the public have written letters, protested outside surgeries and have made their feelings clear. We do not want our GP practices taken over by large profit-seeking American corporations.
The decision to allow the takeover of the GP surgeries with over 375,000 NHS patients on their lists, was taken by the Clinical Commissioning Groups who are responsible for commissioning General Practice services for patients.
Following public outcry, a patient at one of the affected practices has decided to challenge the decision of her local CCG (North Central London) in court. Ms Anjna Khurana is a local councillor, representing Tollington Ward, and is a patient at Hanley Primary Care Centre in Islington.
Anjna said:
“I am so afraid that our NHS is being dismantled bit by bit, with the private sector playing a bigger and bigger part. The NHS belongs to all of us and it is wrong that it should be run to achieve private profit rather than for the good of everyone. I also worry that my personal NHS medical data will be used by Operose for purposes that I have not been informed about or agreed to.
I need to trust my doctor, and how can I do that if they work for a company like Centene? A company that has a record of fraud in the US. I am taking this court action not only for me but for all of us, because we all feel the same about the NHS. Please help me to make this happen.”
Anjna is right to be worried. It's clear that the Centene/Operose Health business model is built around profits not patient care.
This statement, from public accounts of the UK parent company behind Operose Healthcare, makes it very clear :
"Position at 31 December 2019 and future developments ... Rationalisation of our business activities… Has continued into 2020, as the business seeks to divest of activities that have not met profitability targets. As a result, on 31 March 2019, Operose Health Limited exited the Surrey Borders Partnership NHS Trust CAMHS contract, and on 1 July 2019, Operose Health (Group) UK Limited divested its complex care division, including the contracts and related assets."
From this statement it's also clear this is not just about London GP Surgeries. Operose Health Ltd have already taken over twenty other GP surgeries across England. The corporate takeover of NHS services can happen anywhere in the country.
This case affects all of us.
HOW YOU CAN HELP
Please help to raise £25,000 - £30,000 so that Anjna can bring the case to the Court. This target is on the assumption that the judge will award 'capped costs' because this is a case of vital public interest.
£25K is to cover the 'capped costs'. When the lawyers ask the Judge for permission to bring the Judicial Review, they will ask for this limit to the amount Anjna would have to pay to NCL CCG’s lawyers, if she were to lose the Judicial Review.
This is the only way Anjna can afford to bring the case to court.
The additional £5K is towards the costs of court fees, solicitors and barristers who are working hard already in presenting Anjna’s case for consideration.
We're sure you can see the public interest in this Judicial Review. Your support will be invaluable. Please contribute whatever you can and share this page now!
NOTE: Should it transpire that a judge says there are no grounds to proceed to Judicial Review, in accordance with CrowdJustice's Terms and Conditions, we will donate any unused funds to another similar legal challenge, via Crowd Justice or the Access to Justice Foundation.
THE DECISION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE
The hope is that the courts will judge that North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group acted unlawfully in making their decision and that the decision will be quashed. Certainly the process was carried out with little regard for public consultation and certainly no involvement of registered patients.
London GP, Louise Irvine, of Keep Our NHS Public (KONP) said: "The NHS Constitution demands transparency and people rightly expect transparency and accountability in NHS decision-making especially about such important matters as who runs our GP practices, and their suitability to be trusted with our health care and our personal health data."
Like Anjna, the public would hope and expect proper patient and public engagement about what kind of people or organisations should get the contracts to run our GP surgeries in the future. The public don't want to see good NHS GP surgeries taken over by companies who do not share a belief in the ethics of comprehensive healthcare for everyone regardless of wealth or status.
Cat Hobbs, CEO of We Own It agrees: "Our NHS belongs in public hands, working for patients not profit. People don't want health insurance giants like Centene taking over GP surgeries. We fully support Anjna and her incredibly important fight for our NHS."
This legal challenge is an important step in stopping more corporate takeovers of the NHS. It also demands transparency and accountability from Clinical Commissioners in the future.
Steven Carne of 999 Call for the NHS said: “What is most worrying is that the failure of the various CCGs to carry out proper scrutiny means they've allowed a multi-million dollar American corporation to hold a major position within the NHS infrastructure. And the people who will suffer are the patients who, of course, were told nothing."
THE PROCESS AHEAD
We are working with solicitors Leigh Day and barristers Adam Straw QC from Doughty St Chambers and Leon Glenister from Landmark Chambers.
Anjna's claim has to be submitted to the High Court and a judge will decide whether the case can continue to a full Judicial Review. We are asking for capped costs because this is the only way Anjna can bring this case. A case that is of huge public interest.
If the Courts grant approval and agree capped costs, we will then proceed to a full Judicial Review hearing.
The main agenda items tabled for Wednesday's meeting
This blog has reported the huge concerns of local councillors, Barry Gardiner MP, Brent Patient Voice and Patient Participation Groups over the takeover of two GP surgeries in Brent by a US company. The concerns have been echoed across London in a joint letter by London borough chiefs to Matt Hancock.
One of the main issues is the alleged lack of due diligence by Brent CCG in coming to the apparent decision to back that takeover and the fact that the decision (it it wasa decision) being made in a private session.
Surely then it is incomprehensible that the only vehicle that the Council has to holding the Brent CCG to account, the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, does not have this as an item on its Agenda (above).
One can only hope that councillors will put such an item on the Agenda under Any Other Business in accordance with Standing Order 60.
Many questions were left unanswered or unsatisfactorily answered at Wednesday's meeting of the PPPG LINK this is a chance for Scrutiny to really do its job.
Melanie Smith, Brent Director of Public Health, told last night's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee that during the early months of the Covid19 pandemic many in Brent's BAME community felt disempowered and lacking in agency. Lessons had been learnt and Brent had realised the importance of engaging with the many different BAME communities in Brent and their community leaders. They had concentrated on Alperton and Church End which had the highest number of cases. Messages had to be consistent and make sense to the communities concerned, for example over shielding in multi-generational households.
Confirming that access to primary healthcare was a major issue, Cllr Abdi Aden, who is of Somali background, said that many in the community who had been feeling sick had problems making appointments with their GP. They had waited for hours in a queue at the medical centre only to give up and go home without receiving any help.
Cllr Mary Daly backed up the claim. Chair of the Committee, Cllr Ketan Sheth, interjected to say that many in the BAME community still suffered from a poor GP offer.
Dr MC Patel, chair of Brent CCG and NW London NHS lead on inequalities, offered to go with Cllr Aden to the surgery to address the issue of practices not affording access. He said unnecessary denial of access should not be tolerated. He offered to talk to groups of 5 or so from the community to listen to their experiences and take action.
Government guidelines recently issued should mean more face to face appointments with GPs rather than on-line arrangements which discriminated against those without internet access or lacking in English language,
Earlier in the discussion the high rate of BAME Covid deaths initially had been attributed to people not going to their GPs early enough. A speaker from Brent Healthwatch said that many residents had been hesitant about going to Northwick Park Hospital and were wary about getting infected there. Cllr Janice Long asked if late admissions to hospital was the cause of the higher death rate in Brent. She pointed out that there was only one medical centre in hard-hit Church End and asked what was being done to encourage people to go to their GP.
Cllr Ahmad Shahzad pointed out the structural issues affecting the BAME community including lack of opportunity and poor housing and said the death toll must not happen again - the Council had to safeguard the population. He said Public Health England and the BMA had been side-lined by the government.
Dr MC Patel said Brent CCG and NW London NHS were looking at devising an additional shielding list for Brent, that would include more people than the government list, and give them appropriate advice. The initial list did not include ethnicity as a factor and experience of the first wave means more needs to be done to include the BAME community, especially those with underlying conditions. Once offered it would be up to the individuals concerned to decide whether to be included in the vulnerable list.
Recently elected councillor, Gaynor Lloyd, said the elephant in the room was whether people would isolate as a consequence of being included in the list. She expressed doubt about a proposal to educate landlords about Covid19 and the risks stating, 'we all know about some landlords.'
Dr MC Patel said that this was an opportunity for the local authority and health to work together. Joint work and shared commitment were necessary to make things happen and for 'Brent to do it differently.' He cited the response on care homes as being one example of success and said local hospitals had done well. There was now a clear message to GPs to see patients face to face if that is what they wanted and the CCG were also looking at hot hubs for Covid patients. It was a matter of 'making the best of what we've got.'
Simon Crawford of NW London Hospital Trust said that the emergency pathway at Northwick Park Hospital was now 85% of the pre-Covid level. Segregated pathways at A&E meant there were clear pathways for non-Covid patients. Presently there were 12 Covid patients in the hospital, a slight increase compared with 8 or so recently. Patients' temperatures were taken when they first entered the hospital. Patients due for an operation were tested 3 days before the operation was due. He emphasised, 'We are open for business. If you have an appointment, keep to it!'
He said that Northwick Park had been the busiest hospital in London at the peak and had been supported by other hospitals There had been positive coverage recently and they had been innovative in going with oxygen treatment rather than ventilating machines. He said that Northwick Park had never run out of oxygen, contrary to reports.
The Trust has signed private sector contracts with Clementine Hospital and the London Clinic. Cancer referrals that had dropped by 50% were now coming back.
Cllr Neal Nerva, recently appointed to the Cabinet as lead member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, said he was going to introduce a political dimension into the discussion. Testing had become a matter of private competition and local government had been side-lined. Cllr Shahzad had been right about Public Health England being side-lined and there was also the failings of Test, Track and Trace.
Despite this, he said, the Council could not stand back, too many people were at risk in Brent. He expressed confidence in the NHS and said people need to be seeking help for non-Covid conditions. The Alperton and Church End meetings showed the need for a wider Brent policy on social distancing and engaging with BAME communities. Structural issues such as Housing, jobs, co-morbidities, learning for the Covid19 experience, would feed into the Council's new Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
All in all it was a useful discussion, although much more needs to be investigated and acted upon. The trio of councillors, Daly, Long and Lloyd, looked particularly effective as scrutineers.
“This could involve some patients going to neighbouring practices for long-term care, e.g. for diabetes, but they would still have their own GP at their regular practice,” said Dr Patel.
We as BPV and through our Practice Patient Groups are keen to help practices in these difficult times. We look forward to working with the Royal College and Brent CCG to secure the best results for patients in Brent.
On resuming my voluntary work after the holiday, I felt overwhelmed by over 30 emails that needed replying too. My fellow trustees have concentrated their efforts on sorting out our office move.
I have never experienced such demand with most of the requests being from disabled people needing help with claims for PIP (personal independence payments) or help with appealing their failed PIP claims.
Brent council have awarded several contracts for providers to undertake this work but it seems to me that disabled people in Brent are either not aware of them or they cannot access them.
 |
| Grace demonstrates outside Monitor/NHS Improvement |
 |
| Patients make a stand against marketisation |
 |
| From the planning document |
 |
| New developments in white |
A hybrid planning application, for the redevelopment of the site to provide seven mixed use buildings up to 19 storeys in height accommodating: outline planning permission for up to a total of 75,000sqm to 85,000sqm mixed floor space including up to 67,000sqm of C3 residential accommodation (approximately 725 units); 8,000sqm to 14,000sqm for additional C3 residential accommodation,
C1 hotel and/or sui generis student accommodation (an additional approximate 125 residential units; or 200-250 bed hotel; or approximate 500 student units; or approximate 35 residential units and 200 bed hotel); 1,500sqm to 3,000sqm for Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/D2; together with associated open space and landscaping; car parking, cycle storage, pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access; associated highway works; improvements to rear access to Neeld Parade; and associated infrastructure full planning permission for a basement beneath Plots SW03 - SW05 to accommodate 284 car parking spaces and 19 motor cycle spaces; Building 3A within Plot SW03 to accommodate 183 residential units and 368 cycle spaces at ground floor; and associated infrastructure, landscaping and open spaceIn the consultation last year, which got a low number of response, out of the 37 general comments the largest number on a single topic was nine (from Consultation summary):
So are the consultees going to get what they requested? The application gives two scenarios for the amount and type of housing:Nine comments express ed the view that affordable housing/family housing should form part of the development and be delivered quickly.Nine comments related to specific suggestions for provision of infrastructure/amenities as part of the development. These suggestions included schools, GPs and provision for youth, the elderly and disabled people.
Given the amount of housing Quintain's assessment of the number of children in the development seems low. The number of 3 bedroomed properties, a priority for many Brent families is low. Perhaps the developers are assuming most of the residents with be Dinkies (Double Income No Kids).At present, the proportion of the affordable units is not known as this will be subject to negotiations, planning priorities and viability. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, a range of affordable housing provision has been considered to ensure the impacts at both ends of the spectrum are identified and,where necessary, mitigated. The range assessed is between 10% (Scenario 1) and 25% (Scenario 2) by unit. In the event that affordable housing provision falls outside these bounds, a review will be undertaken to identify any new impacts or significant changes to the impacts identified as part of this assessment.
Anticipated infrastructure is expected to include (inter alia):
I recommend that among the hundreds of documents you read the Socio-Economic Chapter of the application which covers some of these issues. LINK· 2 x 2 forms of entry primary school; a new combined primary (2FE) and secondary school (6FE) on the Wembley Park site;
· Extensions to existing local schools; nursery places;
· At least 2.4ha of new public open space comprising of a new park (1.2ha min) and 3 pocket parks/squares (0.4ha each);
·Improvements to the quality and accessibility of existing open spaces;
·A new community swimming pool; indoor and outdoor sports facilities;
·Play areas; new health facilities with space for 14 GPs and 11 new dentists;
and new multi-use community facilities.
We’re a very small group of volunteers who think it should be very easy for people to opt out of the new NHS care.data centralised database of medical records.
Unless you opt out now, care.data will soon store the medical records of everyone in England, yours included, in one giant database.
Our confidential health information will then be shared with companies and other public bodies.
Some people we respect think care.data is, on balance, a good thing.
Some people we respect think care.data is, on balance, a bad thing.
What we know for certain is that the NHS hasn’t made it easy for you to exercise your right to opt out. We think this really isn’t wise.
The NHS leaflet explaining care.data says you should ‘let your GP know’ if you want to opt out.
But GP surgeries are busy. If you ring up wanting to opt out they’ll ask you to write to them instead. That’s fair enough – their priority is treating the sick.
It’s 2014. The NHS really should have made it easy to opt out via the web.
So we thought we’d help out.
First, we found the fax numbers for every GP practice (sadly, very few let you email them). After you’ve entered your details, our clever computers automatically fax your letter asking to opt-out of the care.data database straight to your GP practice.
It’s free. It’s secure. And we don’t store any of your personal data once your opt-out fax has been received by your GP. So we won’t email trying to sign you up for other campaigns.
Sadly we can’t make any 100% watertight promises that this site will always work. Your GP’s fax number might be listed incorrectly on the NHS website, for example.
So if you want total reassurance, it might be best to print out an opt out letter and pop it round to your GP yourself.
However, we have done this sort of thing before, and so know it works well. Back in 1999/2000 some of us built FaxYourMP.com, to make it easy for people to contact their MP, since in those days most MPs didn’t publish their email addresses. A bit like GPs, today, in fact.
We didn’t expect to have to resurrect a similar service nearly 15 years later. Frankly, we shouldn’t have had to, but needs must.
— Stef Magdalinski and friends.
