Fit for the Future

Response by the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to the interim decisions of the West Sussex Primary Care Trust

Dear Chairman,

When we last wrote to you and your Joint Committee (on the 30th April this year) we highlighted our particular concerns relating to the loss of obstetric services at the Princess Royal Hospital in Haywards Heath, and the impact that loss would be likely to have on the safety and well-being of patients at the PRH - particularly mothers and their babies undergoing more complex births, and especially with the removal of the very successful ANNP nurses scheme - and the continuing sustainability of essential ITU services.

Your Committee kindly (and properly) took on board our concerns, and in your Formal Response to the PCT’s FFF proposals you made two key points about the delivery of maternity services.

First, your Committee explained to the PCT that it was “not convinced, on the evidence provided” that the closure of the consultant-led obstetric unit (CLU) at the PRH would ensure that the needs of the population in central and northern parts of the county of West Sussex (and the western parts of East Sussex) would adequately be met. You flagged for the PCT five particular concerns [Response, para 28].

Secondly, your Committee emphasised the importance of ensuring that, in siting a midwife-led unit (MLU) in the north of the county, continuing monitoring should occur “of emerging evidence on clinical safety” [Response, para 29(b)].

At its meeting on the 4th June the PCT Board decided, in accordance with the recommendations before it [agenda item 4, and report containing the “PCT responses” to the Joint Committee’s recommendations], to note - but in effect sidestep - your Committee’s concerns. In the context of the need for a CLU at the PRH, the PCT reported a brief exchange with Duncan Selbie at the BSUH Trust (to the effect that, should demand “materially increase”, the trust would reconsider its position) but it failed to address your firm recommendation that further work be undertaken with the BSUH Trust “to examine alternative ways to sustain the CLU at PRH”.

Likewise, instead of responding to the four salient points your Committee made in the context of the MLUs, the PCT simply indicated that it was minded to “conduct a further engagement process with people in the north of the county” before making a final decision on location.

Neither of these rejoinders by the PCT deal fully and properly with the concerns you raised. Given that situation, we believe - and ask - that the Joint HOSC should now press the PCT for more positive assurances and, failing receipt of such assurances, should then request the Secretary of State to call-in the proposal (so far as it relates to the maternity aspects) for consideration by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP), and for his own determination.

We should be grateful if you would ensure that this request is placed before your Committee’s next meeting on 25 June. It remains an issue of the utmost importance.

We (and, more importantly, the people we seek to speak for) are most grateful for the Joint Committee’s continued engagement on this aspect of the FFF process. It is the right thing to be doing.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Soames

Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex

Jonathan Teasdale

Support the Princess Royal Hospital Campaign

Councillor Peter Griffiths,

C/O Helen Kenny,

West Sussex County Council,

The Grange, Tower Street,

Chichester,

West Sussex. PO19 1RQ