Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Good Hope, No Hope?
- James E Craggs (23 August 2003)
-
Good Hope Hospital
- Anton M Light (28 August 2003)
-
Franchising: The facts
- David Churchill, Sir Bernard Zissman (10 September 2003)
|
|
|||
|
James E Craggs, Consultant Anaesthetist Lincoln County Hospital, Ln2 5QY
Send response to journal:
|
Does whoever wrote the piece in BMJ News section ‘NHS hospital gets privatised management’ really believe the implication that Good Hope Hospital is No Hope? Such smutty reporting is not worthy of the journal. Many hospitals have local ‘joke’ names and there are many amusing examples but that does not mean that the hospitals are the caricature that is implied. I have worked at 16 different hospitals in 20 years including Good Hope and I did not find a great difference between any of them. All are locked in struggles to achieve targets set by outside agencies who seem able to provide Machiavellian ways to prevent them. It is 10 years since I worked at Good Hope and yes it was known as No Hope then (and for years before no doubt) but only because it is such an obvious statement. I saw as much indifferent practice there as anywhere I have worked and at least as much devotion and care as anywhere before or since. I think an apology is owed. Competing interests: I was an Anaesthetic Registrar at Good Hope 10 years ago |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Anton M Light, Consultant Pathologist Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust B75 7RR
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, The reference to this hospital in your "In brief" column of 23rd August is inaccurate in saying that we have "got a privatised management" from Secta and the reference to the hospital being "popularly known as No Hope" is an insult to the hard working and committed staff who work here, and is likely to demoralise staff and damage recruitment and retention. We lost our Star Rating because of errors in the recording of some thirty patients, despite meeting other targets and as a punitive measure. These same patients were counted a second time in the last round of Star Ratings apparently because they were "declared" in the year following the discovery of the error, thereby subjecting us to a double penalty. This may have something to do with the fact that after our initial "failure" we were required to enter a franchising process to replace our Chief Executive and this did not happen quickly. Others who should, arguably, have been subjected to the same action have quietly slipped from view and it became apparent that the Department of Health had not worked out what franchising meant. We have entered into a management contract with Secta and a new Chief Executive has been appointed in conjunction with the Trust Board. The Board will continue to run the hospital. Despite chronic underfunding the hospital has expanded and developed and was recognised for the early development of multidisciplinary working for cancer patients. We perform well in peer review of clinical services including being given the highest rating in the Birmingham Network for our cancer services. Government targets may be important but they are not the only way to measure quality of services. Some "clever" person may have re-christened the hospital in the past but there are many patients who would take a different view and for the BMJ to publicise a cheap jibe such as this, especially if it is for journalistic impact, does not reflect any credit upon the journal. These are personal views resulting from my own anger. Dr Mike Light
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David Churchill, Medical Director & Consultant Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust, B75 7RR, Sir Bernard Zissman
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir We are writing to correct the short piece which appeared in your News in Brief section on 23 August because it simply does not reflect what is happening at Good Hope Hospital. We must share our disappointment that the BMJ should depart from its normal standards and mirror the kind of language used by the tabloid press where the story is more important than the facts and we believe on reflection you will agree that this is inappropriate in a professional journal. First Good Hope Hospital has not been taken over by Secta. The franchising process has involved us signing a partnership contract with Secta, a consultancy with considerable health experience and part of the Tribal Group PLC. This contract will run for three years and includes the provision of a Chief Executive and a number of specific actions which the Trust Board has deemed necessary to improve the performance of the Trust. The contract will be monitored by a sub-committee of the Trust Board and the Board will remain in control of the direction of the Trust. Given the many changes currently occurring within the National Health Service, the Trust is looking forward to a fruitful and productive partnership with Secta. Many NHS Trusts employ consultants from time to time to help them improve the performance of their various hospitals. This particular contract is a more long term strategic relationship and may very well form a model for the future. Only time will tell if this is to be the case, but one thing is undoubtedly certain the future success of Good Hope and the wider NHS depends upon the dedication and professionalism of its staff. This brings us to our second point. By referring to the Hospital as “No Hope” you only serve to perpetuate an untruth and demoralise a professional, dedicated and hard working group of staff. It is all the more distressing that a respected medical Journal saw fit to insult a group of NHS staff who have laboured under very difficult conditions for many years. Clearly, as you have demonstrated, there is a great deal of ignorance regarding the franchise process and our hospital. I ask you therefore to use your Journal to correct the false impression you have given that Good Hope has been taken over by a private firm and apologise to the staff for the jibe that you perpetuated through your unnecessary comment. Yours sincerely Sir Bernard Zissman
David Churchill
Competing interests: None declared |
|||