New Community Diagnostic Centres for Brent and NW London should be up and running soon

 The minimum offer

Community Diagnostic Centres are a national initiative that will offer checks, scans and tests at one site separate from urgent and emergency facilities. The aim is to tackle the backlog of  such tests, simplify and speed the process and have one  centre accessible to the public 45 minutes or less travel time from their home. Overall it is hoped that this will improve health outcomes in the targeted population:

The Community Diagnostic Centres programme aims to achieve a range of benefits as outlined above:

 Improve population health outcomes

Increase diagnostic capacity

 Improve productivity and efficiency

Contribute to reducing health inequalities

 Deliver better and more personalised experience

Support integration of care

The focus is on serving the most disadvantaged areas. There will be a centre at Ealing, Willesden Centre for Health and Care amd Wembley Centre for Health and Care.

The Committee Report states:

The Community Diagnostic Centres at Willesden Centre for Health and Care and Wembley Centre for Health and Care will work together to serve the deprived and disadvantaged communities of Neasden, Stonebridge, Harlesden, North Hammersmith and Fulham, North Kensington, Queen’s Park and Church Street.

Completing a journey to a Centre within 45 minutes by public transport may be a challenge from some of those areas.

The Process:

 Timeline

The timeline for the three new Community Diagnostic Centres to be established and
operational is based on the programme of works necessary at each of the three existing NHS sites, with anticipated opening dates as follows:

 
· Willesden – June/July 2023
· Wembley – November/December 2023 (subject to planning approval)
· Ealing – December 2023/January 2024

 

 Details of the offer at the Centres

 

An officer clarified the roles of the various sites to Wembley Maters:

The plan is for the new Wembley Community Diagnostic Centre to provide imaging services and includes the provision of two MRI and two CT scanners.

 

We are developing three new Community Diagnostic Centres on existing NHS sites in north west London:

 

·         a larger facility – located at Ealing Hospital

·         and two facilities – one at The Wembley Centre for Heath and Care and another at The Willesden Centre for Health and Care – working together to provide the same suite of diagnostic tests as the Ealing Community Diagnostic Centre

 

The Community Diagnostic Centres at Willesden Centre for Health and Care and Wembley Centre for Health and Care will work together to serve the deprived and disadvantaged communities of Neasden, Stonebridge, Harlesden, North Hammersmith and Fulham, North Kensington, Queen’s Park and Church Street. The two sites also complement each other – the Wembley site provides the greatest catchment area to the overall population of north west London both by car and public transport – and the Willesden site serves the highest proportion (22 per cent) of deprived residents within its catchment area.

 

Also to note that there is a requirement for planning permission to build a new unit on the Wembley Centre site taking space on what is currently part of the car parking area to the rear of Barham House.

 

Key questions asked over Network Homes suitability as a development partner in Northwick Park scheme

 

Network Homes, with its head office located in Wembley, is one of the partners in the massive development at Northwick Park as well as an adviser to Brent Council on the building of council houses in the borough LINK.  Network's other partners at Northwick Park are Brent Council,London NW University Healthcare NHS Trust and the University of Westminster. It comes under the auspices of the government's One Public Estate policy which aims to maximise the return on public property.

Network Homes have been embroiled in the cladding scandal and warned in January 2020 that it would need to pass on most of the £200,000,000 that needed to  spent on remediation of its estate would have to be passed on to leaseholders. With its properties requiring so much work doubts have been raised over the quality of its housing.

 Although the Planning Committee has a quasi-statutory role and is supposed to be non-political Brent Council is a developer itself in this case.

Cllr Daniel Kennelly, a member of the Planning Committee, took up concerns over  Network Homes  at last night's meeting.

He wanted reassurances of the long-term viability of the project with Network Homes as a partner given its financial difficulties  and wanted to be assured that they properties they built would be safe. He noted that Network was facing long-term difficulties regarding its cladding responsibilities 'down the road' - what they had done had been 'criminal'. 

Officers responded that they did not look at the financial viability of the developer itself but of the financial viability of its project - did it give sufficient return to the developer on the basis of what they would build and the income it would derive. Network would have to adhere to fire regulations and the plans were for brick build with no cladding. The fire strategy would be considered under reserved matters and rigorously checked.

Kennelly continued to press on the impact of the overall scheme if one partner collapsed financially:  would other partners be liable to its costs? A lead officer responded that different entities in the partnership would be responsible for their own section of the development and would not be responsible for the other parts. He pointed to the  financial collapse of a building company which, after it crashed, its development had been bought by another company and completed.

The councillor sought assurances that although there was an undertaking that there would be no ground rent on the scheme would there be other costs on top of the rent. An officer replied that planning did not control service charges. Cllr Johnson was concerned that the existing NHS residents on the Network Homes estate that was to be demolished would get first refusal on new 'intermediate' (MF not genuinely affordable) properties. He was concerned that they would not be able to afford them. Officers replied, rather obviously, that this would depend on their salary. Network Homes had been engaging with them about their options. NHS staff would not be eligible for London Affordable Rent properties as these were allocated to people on the Council's housing list.

Cllr Kennelly also asked about the large number of trees that would be removed in the development and asked how long it would take for the present level of carbon capture  by existing trees to be reached by the new planning. An officer commented that this issue was not captured by planning guidance at the moment while another said it would depend on the rate of growth of the different tree species planted and what was done with the felled trees - if they were burned and released carbon this would add to the carbon capture requirement. Replacement trees would not  all be saplings and there woduld be a substantial increase in the overall number of trees.

Representations by Brent and Harrow Cyclists over  safe routes around and  through the development were largely dismissed as referring to the new through road that had already been approved. Officers said there was not enough space on the road for segregated cycling and that a single crossing at the junction with Watford Road would make life easier for cyclists and pedestrians, but as there was heavy traffic flow on Watford Road, maintaining the flow was the priority. John Fletcher (Highways) said they would take the representations into consideration as the scheme got underway and offered to meet with the cyclists to walk through the site.

Given some of the less than convincing  answers by officers (I have never heard so many 'sort ofs' in such an important meeting), it is surprising that the application was unanimously approved.

 

 

Northwick Park development juggernaut at Planning Committee Monday afternoon

 

Masterplan for the site

Current View

The massive scheme for the Northwick Park partnership scheme comes back to Brent Planning Committee on Monday. for outline permission.  The partners are Brent Council, University of Westminster, NW London NHS and Network Housing:

 20/0700 | Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved apart from the means of access) for demolition of existing buildings on site and provision of up to 1,600 homes and up to 51,749 sqm (GIA) of new land use floorspace within a series of buildings, with the maximum quantum as follows: -(Use Class C3) Residential: up to 1,600 homes; -up to 50,150m2 floor space (GIA) of new student facilities including Student Accommodation, Teaching facilities, Sports facilities, and ancillary retail and commercial (Use Class A1, A2, A3) -up to 412sqm floorspace (GIA) of a replacement nursery (Use Class D1) -up to 1187sqm (GIA) of flexible new retail space (Use Class A1, A2, A3) Together with energy centre, hard and soft landscaping, open space and associated highways improvements and infrastructure works This application is subject to an Environmental Statement | Land adjacent to Northwick Park Hospital, Nightingale Avenue, London, HA1 

 Readers will be familiar with the university buildings on the right as you leave Northwick Park station with a Costa cafe at the entrance and the wildflower meadow on the right as you walk down the alley to the hospital.  The university gave up maintaining the meadow on the basis that it was 'too expensive' to maintain a few years ago - from the illustration above it appears it will be built on.

 

 

The ecological impact of the whole scheme has been raised by Sudbury Court Residents Association. Officers respond in a Supplementary Report:

 

Ecological impact: loss of 387 trees with no details for replacement tree planting. Officer response: It is not always possible to avoid the loss of some trees in bringing new developments forward, however Brent's policies allow for these to be compensated for by replacement tree planting of an appropriate scale and nature. The loss of 130 trees on the Hospital ring road has been accepted in the extant consent to construct the new spine road (reference 20/0677) whilst the loss of 44 trees has been accepted in Planning Committee's resolution to grant permission for the detailed application (reference20/0701), however this is subject to the planting of 208 replacement trees secured by condition, resulting in a net uplift in the number of trees. The remaining 213 trees that would be lost as a result of the later phases of the outline development would also be replaced. Further details of tree planting would be submitted and approved as part of the landscaping scheme required under Condition 33, which requires at least 387replacement trees to be planted across the outline site. The impact on trees is discussed in paragraphs 184to 193 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: removal of trees during bird nesting season and period of bat movement out of hibernation Officer response: The applicant's Ecology Report recommends a number of precautionary measures to avoid or minimise impacts on protected species and other wildlife in the construction period. These include bat inspections prior to felling of any mature trees, measures to be taken if bats or other protected species are observed, vegetation and building removal to take place outside the bird nesting season or in the presence of an ecologist, and protection of active bird nests. These measures would be secured through a Construction Environmental Management Plan required under Condition 28, and the developer would also be subject to the requirements of protected species legislation. See paragraph 206.

 

 Ecological impact: loss of bird and bat populations and other ecological benefits of trees (shelter, food and breeding opportunities for wildlife, clean air) due to loss of trees. Officer response: Although birds were observed on or close to the site, the site overall is very low in suitability for protected and rare bird species or other protected and priority species. No evidence of bat activity or bat roosts was found, and very low numbers of foraging and commuting bats were observed and detected in the area. The tree line along the boundary with Northwick Park would be retained and reinforced by new tree planting, however it is acknowledged that construction work and the removal of some trees near the boundary could result in a temporary loss of and disturbance to habitats, and a financial contribution to ecological enhancements in Northwick Park would be secured as compensation. The proposal would create new habitats of potential ecological value, including rain gardens, and further ecological appraisals would be required post-completion. Ecological impacts are discussed in paragraph 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: Tree saplings will not compensate for loss of mature tree stock or well established wildlife foraging lines. Officer response: The proposals for replacement tree planting are expected to include a mixture of semi-mature and younger trees.

 Further measures requested to reduce increase in pollution and congestion. Officer response: Traffic generation is covered in paragraphs 296 to 303 and 323 of the main report. Travel Plans would be required, to encourage and reinforce sustainable travel choices by occupiers of the development (see paragraphs 322 and 323). These measures are considered sufficient to minimise additional traffic caused by the development.

 

 Details of plans to reduce congestion and pollution in surrounding roads requested, including Watford Road and Sudbury Court Estate. Officer response: As set out in paragraph 303 of the main report, the proposals are expected to reduce congestion, and consequently pollution, on Watford Road. The proposal is unlikely to directly impact on Sudbury Court Estate, as there is no direct vehicular access. An Active Travel Zone Assessment was carried out by the applicants, identifying barriers to sustainable travel choices in the wider area, and this is summarised in paragraphs 324 to 326 of the main report.

 

Further details requested of how bat survey was carried out in line with current best practice. Officer response: These details are set out in the Environmental Statement Volume 3: Appendix: Ecology, which is available on the Council's website. A bat assessment was carried out by an experienced and licensed ecologist, following English Nature Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004) and Bat Conservation Trust Best Practice Guidelines (2016). The document sets out equipment used, inspection methods, and an assessment of the bat roosting potential of all buildings, trees and habitats on site. Some trees were identified as having moderate and above bat roosting potential, and the Social Club building as having low bat potential. Further surveys were carried out, comprising four dusk emergence / activity surveys and two dawn re-entry / activity surveys in various locations around the site with potential for roosting, foraging or commuting. No evidence of bat activity was observed, and no bat roosts were discovered. Ecological impacts are covered in paragraphs 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Further details of replacement tree planting as soon as available. Officer response: Further details of replacement tree planting would be secured under Condition 33.

In October last year a councillor for Northwick Park ward expressed concern over ecological issues in a 'neutral' submission and concluded:

Mitigation and protection will not be an easy task here, but is achievable I'm sure. May I remind everyone that this is predominantly a rural site will many SSI areas and not a urban brownfield site, yes there are substantial concrete building, but they are home to Bats, Kestrels and now Peregrine Falcons (recently witnesses from the upper floor of the hospital block), on ground levels there are without doubt Hedgehogs, Badgers, Weasels and many more species just wondering around the secluded areas around the concrete buildings.

I am all for improvements to the site's housing and facilities, but we must protect as well ? Brent Council did declare a Climate Emergency and wildlife obviously is part of this, take our Bee Corridors for instance.

The officers' report includes many of the now  familiar  reasons why they recommend approval despite  the application not meeting some policy guidelines of which the amount of affordable housing,  as well as the number of Shared Ownership  properties are likely to be of concern to councillors

The proposal would provide 40% (by habitable room) affordable homes (including 13% for London Affordable Rent). While the overall proportion of London Affordable Rented homes is not in line with the percentage specified in DMP15, it has been demonstrated that the scheme would deliver the maximum reasonable number of Affordable homes on a policy compliant basis(70:30 ratio of London Affordable Homes to Intermediate), but with additional Affordable Homes delivered, lowering the levels of profit associated with the scheme. These would be delivered as intermediate rented homes, London Living Rent homes and shared ownership homes, and would including housing for NHS keyworkers. Appropriate nominations agreements will be secured within the Section 106 Agreement. The Financial Viability Appraisal submitted with the application has been robustly reviewed on behalf of the Council and is considered to demonstrate that the proposal delivers beyond the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that the scheme can support. Early, mid- and late stage review mechanisms would be secured. The overall proportion of family-sized homes (16.6%) is below the levels set out in Brent's adopted and emerging policies. However, a higher proportion would further undermine the viability of the scheme and the provision of Affordable Housing, and the benefits associated with the provision of Affordable Housing are considered to outweigh the impacts associated with the lower proportion of family housing. Affordable student accommodation would be secured as part of the development of the University Campus.

The application refers to 'Northwick Village' - 1,600 is a pretty big village, and blocks are not particularly village-like. Here are some of the 'impressions' in the plans.

 

 

The Planning Committee is on Monday March 29th at 4pm. You can watch it live HERE

Scrutiny ask for Urgent Care Centre reduction in hours to be reviewed and put out to public consultation

Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee tonight asked Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to use its statutory right to ask North West London NHS to reconsider the abolition of overnight hours at Central Middlesex Hospital Urgent Care Centre and to put the issue out to public consultation.

The decision was one of several made after an exhaustive discussion of the North West London NHS Recovery Plan and the proposal to merge the various CCGs in North West London into one 'Super CCG'.

Dawn Butler MP was unable to attend the Committee due to pressing duties in the House of Commons but her speech was read out for her by Cllr Colacicco. Butler said that the Recovery Plan was coded language for cuts in NHS services.  She said that the cuts fell disproportionately on the south of Brent affecting the poorest areas  in Stonebridge and Harlesden where life expectancy was 13 years lower than in the north of the borough.

When the A& E at Central Middlesex was closed it was on the basis that the Urgent Care Centre at the hospital would be provided on a 24 hour basis. It had now been shut at night with no public consultation. She said that a whistle blower had informed her that this was a 'closure by design' and was part of a plan that could lead to eventual closure of the hospital.

I understand that Dawn Butler and Barry Gardiner MP will meet the CCG tomorrow to discuss their concerns.

Addressing the Committee Cllr Mary Daly refuted claims that the Recovery Plan did not relate to patient care. It aimed to cut referrals to consultants by GPs - 'there was not enough money to treat Brent patients' - by scaring them.  GPs would not be allowed to refer patients more than once and if a consultant decided a patient needed to be referred to a consultant in a different discipline the request would first have to go back to the GP. Emergency A&E patients would not be admitted to hospital and patients would have to pay for over the counter medicines themselves.

Cllr Nerva introduced himself as a former non-Executive Director in the NHS and said that as things had developed there was now a lack of democratic accountability in the NHS. The proposal that patients should choose hospitals within The NW London NHS Trust, in order for it to enjoy the 30% in-house cost reduction, would provide an incentive to limit choice. These were toxic cuts and there should have been officer input to the Committee for members to consider.

Cllr Colacicco and Cllr Ann Clarke (Labour, Barnet, Childs Hill ward) both concentrated on the proposed closure of the walk-in Cricklewood Health Centre. Colacicco criticised the consultation for not enabling people to state that they wanted the Centre kept open. Clarke said the Centre had been under threat before, in 2014, and had been saved then. New developments, including that at Brent Cross, meant there would be many new homes in the area in the future and the Centre would be needed. She was also concerned with the suggestion that extended GP hours would increase local capacity when the Centre closed.

Cllr Thomas Stephens proved to be the most incisive and persistent member of the Committee when cross examining NHS and CCG officers. Most questions were fielded by Mark Easton, Accountable Officer for the NHS North West London Collaboration of Clinical Commissioning Groups (the shadow Super CCG),  He attributed the financial crisis to population increase, an ageing population, cost increases caused by new treatments with costs going up 18% and population 5%.  Units costs were increasing faster than numbers treated.  Regulators recognised that the planned deficit could not be wiped out in one year so a three year programme had been introduced.

He said patients would be allowed to go into hospital but that some GPs were not aware of community services that would keep patients out of hospital. The CCG were visiting GPs who may have referred more than 3 times as many patients as other GPs to make them aware of community services.

He said that hospitals inside the NW London NHS area were as good as those outside and had the advantage of being 30% cheaper, although patients could still choose to go outside.

Patients paying for over the counter medicines rather than through prescriptions was already policy and it was just a matter of ensuring compliance by GPs.  Eligibility criteria were based on evidence from NICE.

Adherence to the NHS Constitution would ensure that the changes would not affect the quality and safety of health services.

Scrutiny adopted a number of recommendations including that the NHS should ensure that local services were sufficient for the needs of local residents, there should be a full Equality  Impact Assessment of proposed changes in referral behaviour, review the impact on Primary Care which is already low quality in comparison with the rest of London, review the impact of changes after the Winter.

Regarding the merger of local CCGs into one NW London body Scrutiny recommended that the CCG guarantee that the new structure will include local government representatives and lay people, before a final decision is made on the super CCG that they should come back to Scrutiny with the full financial implications and assessment of the shadow structure currently in operation, if a single CCG is formed it should more adequately integrate medical and social care.

Imperial CEO Ian Dalton resigns to go to NHS Improvment with NW London NHS in turmoil

Sir Richard Sykes, Chairman of Imperial College Healthcare Trust, shocked those attending the Imperial Board meeting yesterday when he announced that CEO, Ian Dalton, was leaving his post after less than 5 months in the job. Imperial, which runs west London hospitals, will now have to begin the long and costly process of finding yet another CEO.

Ian Dalton has now moved to NHS Improvement as their new CEO. NHSI is the body that, only last month, knocked back capital investment plans to reconfigure health delivery in outer NW London on the grounds that there was not sufficient evidence that these plans would work. This was the initial bid for capital funds to develop services which, local health bosses claim, would enable the safe closure of Ealing Hospital.

Dalton’s resignation followed almost immediately the well-attended and highly successful open event organised by Imperial management at Charing Cross Hospital. At that event Dalton outlined the excellent work being carried out at the hospital and gave an assurance that Charing Cross could not be closed in the foreseeable future without damaging public health. However, long-term closure plans have not been withdrawn by the CCGs in NW London: what we have is a ‘pause’, not a guarantee of the long-term future of Charing Cross as a major acute hospital.

The resignation occurs at a time of particular turbulence in upper management levels of the NW London NHS. Several key managers have left in recent months and other posts remain unfilled. Managers are caught between a government demand to cut costs even further and, among health professionals, a recognition of the growing need for better funded health services for a fast expanding population.

Merril Hammer, Chair of SOH, said she was stunned by the sudden departure of Ian Dalton. At the Imperial AGM held at St Pauls Church Hammersmith in September, he had outlined ambitious plans for engaging with the local health community.

Ms Hammer said:

I am, of course, pleased that Imperial has now declared a ‘pause’ on the closure but given the unprecedented pressure on the facilities at Charing Cross and the highly skilled committed staff there, health bosses need to stop long-term closure plans and not just ‘pause’ them.

NW London NHS: If it's not an accident or an emergency, where should I go?

Guest blog by a Brent (would be) NHS user

Recently I have begun to feel that I might resemble a cod fish which has evolved to become smaller than its ancestors, so that it could slip through the holes in trawlers’ nets in order to avoid being made into fish fingers. Inadvertently I seem to have evolved into a life form that slips through the mesh of the NHS in North West London in 2013, albeit with less positive consequences that is the case for the above mentioned fish.

One of the several ailments that afflict my legs causes them to swell, then, if the skin breaks, fluid can seep out. About a year ago I had an outbreak but this problem which was effectively treated by the nurse at my local GP practice. For a while this entailed wrapping the leg in several layers of bandages which had to be changed about every two days since the leakage soon soaked through the dressings. Gradually the leg healed up and the leaking ceased, I was then able to treat myself at home with creams and a stocking bandage.

This self-medication worked well until about a month ago, when the leaking started up again. I tried to apply layers of more absorbent bandage myself, but my efforts weren’t very effective and the leg seemed to leak more and more. 

I rang my GP surgery but they couldn’t make an appointment for me for a week, but my bandages were soon both falling off and soaking wet, so I sought treatment elsewhere. I went to an NHS “Walk-in” Centre, about five miles from my home. The nurses there did what they could, but said that the “Walk-in” Centre did not keep a sufficient stock of bandages to treat cases such as mine and advised that I should be seeing my GP.

The temporary bandaging just about held out for four days until I was able to see the GP nurse again. The sopping bandages were removed and replaced with more extensive bandaging, but this too was wet through within a day, to the extent that one of my shoes was filling up with fluid whilst the bandaging was slipping down my legs, but the next GP appointment that I could now get was in six days’ time, so I decided that fresh bandaging was needed.

I looked at a full page advert from the NHS in free magazine posted to me by my local council. It was headlined “If You Are Unwell, Choose The Right Place to Go” (NHS Brent Clinical Commissioning Group  p.8 Brent Magazine, June 2013).  This ad detailed the various NHS services provided locally, but also emphasised the message: “Choose Well: Only Use A&E in an Emergency”.

I had already been to the GP and the Walk-in Centre, so I tried ringing up the Urgent Care Centre at a local hospital, (Central Middlesex), which was mentioned in the NHS advert. When I described my problem, I was told that the Urgent Care Centre was not the appropriate place for me and that I should go to the A&E in another hospital (Northwick Park in Harrow) as the local A&E in Central Middlesex was now “appointments only”.

This contradictory arrangement which might seem to imply that a patient should be clairvoyant enough to know of an emergency before it happened to them, placed me in a quandary. Harrow A&E is a fairly difficult journey, I could, I suppose, have phoned for an ambulance, but I did not consider my condition, no matter how unpleasant it was, to be an emergency and I did not want to waste the time of ambulance crews and A&E staff in dealing with it. So I was effectively house bound for about three days until my GP appointment came up. Luckily, I had enough food at my home to last out, otherwise I might have gone to the A&E for lack of groceries, rather than for any medical reason.

The GP treatment, when I got it was adequate and I have l also now been referred for specialist treatment, so I make no blanket criticism of the NHS, but there do, locally, at least seem to be some gaping holes in its net.

Recently I have seen and heard, media coverage that suggests that A&E’s can no longer meet the demand placed on them by many people presenting with non-urgent conditions, and it could be that such pleading might cover for pressure caused by A&E closures, when no adequate service for non-emergency cases, such as mine, seems to be in place.

I know that there a places in the world where there have never been ANY health services and I know that currently, in other parts of the world (like Greece and parts of Spain), previously adequate health services are being systematically destroyed by mad neo-liberal austerity policies. So my whinges, as a relatively affluent, educated British urbanite, are minor; but someone more disabled, and/or less articulate, and/or with less access to transport, might find things far, far worse than I did. Public adverts advising people to use services that don’t really exist are annoying at the best and potentially dangerous at worst.

Health and housing on the agenda tonight

Brent's Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be asked by local campaigners to refer the proposal to close Central Middlesex A&E to the Secretary of State at this evening's meeting. Ealing Council has already taken this step which has drawn an irritated response from NW London NHS:

Ealing Council has asked the Secretary of State for  Health to consider the programme. This is a shame, as  this process normally takes a few months and will d elay implementation of much needed improvements to local services which the majority of clinicians, local GP s and other local councils want to see go ahead.

Of course many residents think it is a 'shame' that we may lose out local A&E, especially when the alternative facility, Northwick Park, is already over-loaded.  A local resident has written to Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt putting her views:

Dear Cllr. Butt,

I am a resident of Brent and Brent should be fighting on behalf of their residents to keep all four Hospitals A&E departments open.  Urgent care centres are not acceptable they are not manned by many doctors or nurses, and are no alternative to an A&E unit.   How far will Brent residents have to go to the nearest A&E dept? will they be seen? How long will they have to wait?  This will put their lives at risk.  

 

St Marys Hospital Paddington, Northwick Park Middlesex A&E depts. are already full with the present numbers they deal with, how will closing four A&E's in North West London help the people of Brent?.

I have had two operations this year in Charring Cross Hospital, this hospital is to be sold off for real estate. Charring Cross Hospital services the people of Brent, I was sent there as St Marys Paddington do not have the facilities or the beds to cope.

The NHS was founded by the labour government in 1948, I expect a labour council to look after all its residents North and South of the borough and back Ealing borough council in fighting to keep all four A&E departments open. Emergency's, Maternity and the Ageing population are all at risk

Yours sincerely

Margaret von Stoll

Apart from the important issues of the future of Accident and Emergency services in the area and the Shaping the Healthier Future proposals, the Committee will also discuss and question NHS officers on failures in local pathology services:

A serious incident was logged in December 2012 after a concern was raised by a GP about the new system. It became clear that this was not an isolated case, and another GP complained of spurious results, missing results and samples not  processed. It was further identified that training for GPs had not taken place and that  alleged meetings with GPs had not in reality occurred. A number of issues have now been identified with different test results and these are listed in the report.

 As as health campaigners are attending the Committee, housing campaigners will be at Mencap in Willesden High Road for a meeting starting at 6.30pm to discuss strategies for dealing with the deepening housing crisis in the borough. Details were published earlier on this blog and can be found HERE

Action needed to save Central Middlesex A&E

It is sometimes thought that only the residents in the south of Brent and neighbouring areas of Ealing are concerned about the closure of Central Middlesex Hospital. However residents in the north of the borough, served by Northwick Park Hospital A&E are also affected as this Guest Blog shows:

I hear that Ealing Council's scrutiny panel has voted unanimously to refer a decision to downgrade A&E departments in north-west London to an independent panel and wonder what you think about the decision to close the A & E departments?

If Central Middlesex, Ealing, Charing Cross and Hammersmith A & E departments are to close what impact is this going to have on the whole of densely populated and hugely congested West London????

Ealing Council are campaigning hard against this decision and so far I can only see Navin Shah, London Assembly member for Brent and Harrow (see this LINK) campaigning against the closures I can’t understand why the local councillors and our MP Barry Gardiner* are not campaigning against the closures too?

Navin Shah's press release LINK said:

A&Es will be forced to cater for an extra 120,000 residents on average each. In 2010 there were 32 A&E departments in London, but only 24 would remain under these plans."

"The 32 A&E’s served a population of 8.17million Londoners, an average of 255,000 people each. Reducing to 24 A&Es will mean they have to cover 340,000 each, with London’s population due to rise to 9million by 2020. This will increase the number of people each A&E is due to cover to 375,000 residents - an increase of 120,000 for each A&E. This assumes that no further closures take place.

As you know in recent years every single bit of space in Wembley has had flats built on it, bringing more and more residents to Wembley and more and more traffic congestion.  Add to this the new designer outlet and French school coming to Wembley Park - these will both bring more people and more traffic to the area.

What about Wembley Stadium with 90,000 capacity plus staff and Wembley Arena with 12,500 capacity plus staff, these bring another 102,500 plus people to the area when both venues are holding events - should there be a major incident when both venues are full to capacity how would Northwick Park A & E cope???  How would emergency vehicles cope with getting people through Wembley to Northwick Park or through to the other remaining A & E departments???  When the stadium was opened traffic schemes were put in place to get people away from the stadium to the North Circular to try and stop the congestion in Wembley so would it not make sense to keep Central Middlesex A & E open???? 

Also we hear that Central Middlesex A & E will close this June well before the new larger A & E is supposed to open at Northwick Park – how can this be allowed to happen when it clearly says that the A & E departments will close in the next 2-3 years after the new larger A & E departments are open???

My friend recently broke his toe and went to Northwick Park A & E at 10.00pm on a Monday night and was told he would have to wait 5-6 hours before he was seen – he decided not to wait and went back the next day and had to wait 4 hours to be seen.  How will Northwick Park A & E cope when everyone has to go there?  Will the hospitals be reducing parking charges for people that have to wait for hours and hours in the A & E departments to be seen??? Will there be improved public transport - if you have to go there in the middle of the night there will be no public transport available.

What impact will all the extra traffic have on the area with people having to travel further for treatment - not very good for the environment!

*Barry Gardiner says Central Middlesex A & E is not in his constituency but a lot of the people who will be affected by its closure are his constituents!!!

 Since this guess posting was sent to me Cllr Lincoln Beswick  (Labour, Harlesden) has written in the Brent and Kilburn Times regarding the closure of Central Middlesex A&E and other Coalition policies::

All these areas that this affects must stand up, be more forceful, challenge nationally elected members and jointly have a march for freedom from this atrocious, blatant, obvious and odious decision. Those elected and in opposition should not stay silent on these issues.

This requires joint action by all those who are affected - elected politicians, health service, trade unionists, general community and media services

A first practical action will be if Brent Council decides to refer back the decision to close Central Middlesex A&E at the meeting of the Health Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on Tuesday March 19th 7pm Brent Town Hall. LINK

The public can request to speak at the meeting. The contact is: 

Lisa Weaver, Democratic Services Officer  (020) 8937 1358 Email: lisa.weaver@brent.gov.uk