Half of councillor members of Scrutiny Committee absent for consideration of the Urgent Treatment Centre hours reduction.

 

   

After three attempts and a 570 signature petition, Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny at last considered, albeit in a limited way because the proposal has been implemented, the reduction in hours at Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre. Hours were reduced by 3 hours daily from February 1st, 2026.

 

The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust was represented by Pippa Nightingale. As on the other occasions, no papers were tabled from the Trust. Councillors and public were denied any evidence on which to base their questions.

 

Furthermore, attendance at the meeting was low, the place for Brent Healthwatch remained empty, and to cap it all the livestream was not working for the presentation by Amandine Alexandre and Ms Nightingale's initial response. The public were denied their right via the livestream or watching the recording, to see and hear democracy in action and hold it to account.

 

Fortunately, I had my mobile phone with me, and the wobbly recording above must suffice.

 

There may well be case for the reduction in hours, but our grievance was twofold: 1. The consultation was inadequate, rushed, reached too few people, the result not full reported and implemented without notice and 2. Scrutiny Committee had not done its job of fully examining the proposal and had to be forced by public pressure to put it on the Committee's Agenda. The latter appeared to have been done reluctantly by Committee Chair Cllr Ketan Sheth who before and after Ms Nightingale's appearance emphasised what a busy person she was, regretted the short notice she had been given (this has been going on for weeks) and seemed to be suggest we were all privileged to be in her presence and that by calling for accountability we were an inconvenience. 

 

Neither Chair, Cllr Ketan Sheth nor the Vice Chair of the Committee, Cllr Ihetsham Afzal, asked any questions of the Trust representative. Cllr Abdi Aden, Cllr Bhagwani Chohan, Cllr Arshad Mahmood, Cllr Tazi Smith, and Cllr Diane Collymore were all absent. 

 

So, no livestream and half of councillors absent - accountability?

 

Those councillors who did attend did their best and notably Co-optees Rachelle Goldberg (Jewish Faith Schools) and Archdeacon Catherine Pickford (Church of England Faith Schools) asked extremely pertinent questions that sometimes made Pippa Nightingale appear complacent and not in touch with the lived experience of local patients.

 

There were several areas where Ms Nightingale's account was at odds with the facts. She claimed the petition had not been received until after the reduction in hours was implemented. In fact it was tabled at Scrutiny Committee on January 19th LINK and was implemented on February 1st (but not announced until February 2nd).

 

She claimed that the 'Have Your Say' process undertaken by the Trust was an 'engagement’ exercise and not a not a formal consultation that befitted a minor local change rather than anything significant.

 

On the engagement/consultation Pippa Nightingale claimed the majority of patients said that the change in hours would make 'minimum impact'.   This is the Trust's own FoI response LINK.

 

  

So only if you add the ‘Unsures ‘to ‘No Impact’ and ‘Minor Impact’ can you make that claim. Faced with the fact that the engagement/consultation had only 42 responses, compared with the 570 petition signatories, Ms Nightingale said lots of people on Patient Panels had responded. Unfortunately, though my FoI asked for information, ’...to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted)' no reports from Patient Panels were included in the Trust's FOI response.

 

The in-person events only attracted 2 people.

 

Another 'insignificant change' came up at the end of the meeting - another change that was implemented despite local opposition from patients. This was the closure of the Hydrotherapy Pool at Northwick Park Hospital. Implemented last August, Pippa Nightingale said closure had been a success with patients treated by NHS staff at several council sports centres and some referrals to 'Stanmore' (National Orthopaedic Hospital). Surely another issue calling for evidence and a proper report to Scrutiny Committee rather than just verbal assurances? 

 

The post-election administration, whatever the political balance, must strengthen the scrutiny process so that it properly reflects the council's duty to stand up for local concerns. 

NOTE: Throughout Pippa Nightingale referred to the Urgent Care Centre, rather than the Urgent Treatment Centre. I understand that Urgent Care Centre is old terminology and referred to a less comprehensive offer than what are now called Urgent Treatment Centres. I am left not sure what the provision is at Central Middlesex Hospital.

 

Published and promoted by James Paton on behalf of Brent Green Party, c/o 23 Saltcroft Close, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9JJ.

Central Middlesex Hospital UTC reduction in hours at Scrutiny on Wednesday but without any written submission - accountability still lacking

 

 

 No information for the 'briefing'

 

Brent Green Party's campaign, supported by a petition signed by 570 residents, has succeeded in getting the reduction in hours at Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre on the Agenda of Wednesday's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.

BUT, and it is a very big 'but', there are no accompanying papers, so committee members and the public have no evidence from the NHS on which to base any questions or comments. This repeats the pattern established when a similar 'briefing' was slipped into a Scrutiny meeting as an urgent item (not on the agenda on that occasion) just before the NHS consultation - absolutely nothing in writing then either. 

Along with the failure to publish details of the results of the consultation (I had to submit an FoI to get them, see this LINK ) and the implementation of the reduction in hours without notice LINK, indicates an apparent contempt for the Committee and its role, as well as for concerned residents.

The Committee must show it will stand up for residents on Wednesday, despite (or because of?) of the fact that the reduction of 21 hours a week has already been implemented by London North West University NHS Healthcare Trust without the detailed scrutiny that was needed.

You would not get away with similar conduct and lack of accountability on a major issue at a primary school governing board!

Was a 'consultation' reaching only 42 people an adequate basis on which to reduce the hours of Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre by 3 hours a day?

 When London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust issued a press release the day AFTER they reduced the hours of the Central Middlesex Hospital  Urgent Treatment Centre they said:

We gave local people an opportunity to share their views on the new opening hours through online and in-person public events and an online questionnaire. These did not result in any substantial or widespread objections. 

Therefore, to optimise the service the opening times have now changed from 8am to midnight, to 8am to 9pm

The highlighted claim without any detail interested me, after all 570 Brent residents has signed a petition calling for Brent Scrutiny Committee to examine the proposal - a scrutiny that had never taken place except for an item tagged onto the end of a meeting without any public notice on the agenda or any papers attached - just a chat by the Trust CEO. When the petition was presented Cllr Ketan Sheth, Chair of the Committee, merely said the hours reduction was 'on their radar'. 

The reduction in hours was then implemented.

Give the claim above. I submitted an FOI asking for more details of the result of the consultation. Such consultations are normally published with tables of results, publication of comments received and an anaylsis.

The FOI revealed the following:

1. Only 42 responses were received

2.  70% of responses came from Brent (other boroughs were Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow)

3.  41%  of respondents said the reduction in hours would have a significant impact on them

4.  Only two people turned up to the in-person events. 

5. The Chair of Scrutiny had been informed of the proposal. 

I am sure it will be claimed that the low response rate meant that people were not bothered by the proposal, but that is challenged by the number of people (570 against 42) who signed the online petition on the Brent Council website. Unlike a paper petition there is a several stage process to sign on-line - you HAVE to be concerned to bother to sign.

Such a low response rate on a proposal that will affect hundreds of people, now and in the future, must mean that the consultation itself was inadequate. The petition was advertised on Wembley Matters, Next Door and social media and appears to have reached more than 10 times the number that the Trust engaged.

You will notice below that the response does not fully answer the request. Were there really no comments from NW London ICB or Brent Healthwatch?

 

THE TRUST'S FOI RESPONSE 

1. Please supply full results from the consultation on the reduction in hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre at Central Middlesex Hospital. This to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted) - https://www.lnwh.nhs.uk/news/new-opening-hours-at-urgent-treatment-centre-12430 

A structured public engagement exercise was carried out to gather views on the proposed change to the opening hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) at Central Middlesex Hospital. As part of this process, a questionnaire was utilised to obtain public opinion, alongside opportunities for involvement through online events and stakeholder communications. 

 

Questionnaire responses

 

The questionnaire received 42 responses

 

Respondents’ borough	Brent	Ealing	Harrow	Hillingdon	Hounslow
Percentage	70%	20%	3%	2%	3%

 

Understanding the impact of proposed change: If the UTC  were to close earlier at 9pm, how would this affect you or those you care for?
	No impact	Minor impact	Significant impact	Unsure
Percentage	15%	21%	41%	23%

 

For those who felt it would have a significant impact on them, the reason given in most cases was the perceived lack of nearby alternative provision or the time it would take to travel to another site. However, most of these respondents had attended the UTC in the previous six months for a minor illness or infection that would have been more appropriately seen by a pharmacist or GP. This aligns with a recent review of the Trust’s urgent care services that found that many patients who visit our urgent treatment centres out of hours would be more appropriately seen in a primary care or pharmacy setting.

Several respondents noted that the lack of radiology services after 8pm meant that they had not been able to access care at the UTC after this time. This reflects the case for change and optimising the service to match the provision of X-ray services at Central Middlesex Hospital.

Nearly all respondents said clear information and direction to alternative services, such as pharmacies and out-of-hours services, would help them access the right care.

Public involvement events

Despite extensive promotion* our involvement events only attracted two people, who asked several questions but did not express any particular views on the proposal.

* Promotional activity

• Trust website and social media channels
• Trust’s stakeholder bulletin (350 recipients)
• Posters at the UTC.
• Press release generated coverage in My London, EALING.NEWS and Wembley Matters blog
• The North West London ICB and Brent Healthwatch also promoted opportunities to be involved.
• Letters to key stakeholders (MPs, scrutiny leads, Healthwatches)

Amandine Alexandre, a Green Party candidate for the Harlesden and Kensal ward whose resident are likely to be impacted by the earlier  closure, said:

 

The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust probably knew right from the start that closing the Urgent Treatment Centre at 9pm rather than midnight every day was unlikely to be a decision approved by patients and deliberately failed to engage a large number of them in the consultation. However, trying to bypass patients is not an acceptable way to treat people. 

 

The fact that Brent Scrutiny Committee appeared intensely relaxed about residents getting reduced access to the Urgent Care Treatment is also a serious cause of concern for anyone living in Brent. I would like to reassure fellow residents : the Green Party will never cease speaking up in defence of NHS patients in the face of austerity and disdain from the current authorities.

NHS reduces Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre without notice

 

 

The above notice shared on Facebook is the first most of the public will have learned that the NHS NWLondon University Healthcare had implemented their plan to reduce the hours of Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre by 21 hours a week. The notice reverts to the old name of 'Urgent Care' and calls it a Department - whether that is actually a change of name or just another example of their  carelessness is unclear.

 

The website for the UTC (they still called it that) just accessed, has the old opening hours with a footnote that they have been confirmed today! LINK

 

Today, a day after its implementation yesterday, the LNWH NHS website carried a news story about the earlier closing time:

 

 

The Urgent treatment centre at Central Middlesex Hospital has new opening hours. It is now open from 8am to 9pm, with the last patient registered at 8pm.

A recent review of our urgent care services found that the centre saw an average of only four patients per hour between 9pm and midnight. We found that many of these patients could have received appropriate treatment or advice from their GP or a high street pharmacist.

Also, radiology services (X-ray, ultrasound, etc) at Central Middlesex Hospital are not available after 8pm. This is because low patient numbers and a limited workforce make allocating staff to radiology services after 8pm an inefficient use of resources. However, this did mean that some of the patients who attended the Urgent Treatment Centre after 9pm had to attend another centre or to return for care the following day.

We gave local people an opportunity to share their views on the new opening hours through online and in-person public events and an online questionnaire. These did not result in any substantial or widespread objections. 

Therefore, to optimise the service the opening times have now changed from 8am to midnight, to 8am to 9pm. The centre remains open seven days a week and there is no change to our process if someone visits the site while seriously unwell. Our 24/7 critical outreach team will still look after them until they can be transferred to an appropriate setting.

Our Urgent treatment centres provide medical care when it is not critical or life threatening for people of all ages. It's important to get the right care in the right place. If you're feeling unwell and not sure where to go call NHS 111 or visit 111.nhs.uk when you need medical help fast. Our website also has information and advice if you're not sure where to go.

I highlight the above quote as it contains no verifiable information, no link to results, and no figures. It is of the same ilk as the non-consultation on the Northwick Park Hydrotherapy Pool. It of course pretends not to have heard about the 570 signature petition presented to Brent Council Scrutiny Committee calling for an urgent meeting of the Committee to investigate the Trust's plans. A call adroitly and complacently kicked into the long grass by Committee Chair Cllr Ketan Sheth as being on his 'radar'. If radar worked like that many ships would have been sunk and aircraft blown up by the enemy.

 

Meanwhile, many would be patients will be turning up at the UTC to find its doors closed.

 

It really seems that without democratic oversight the local NHS treats the people of Brent  with contempt - aided by Brent Scrutiny Committee. 

 

Standby for more slicing away of services at Central Middlesex Hospital. Is it earmarked for future housing development?