Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
In Kidderminster we also have an unsatisfactory experience of rubbing
shoulders with the PFI issue. The new Worcester Royal Infirmary is being
built 18 miles away. It appears to be financed, at least in part, by the
downgrading of Kidderminster General Hospital and a reduction of some 23-
28% in acute beds across the county. In 1998 Worcestershire Health
Authority approved plans for the reconfiguration of acute services which
disregarded the real needs of Kidderminster patients, especially those
living in the large rural hinterland of South Shropshire. The
consultation document, "Investing in Excellence", presented the changes as
improvemnts in healthcare. The argument lacks credibility. The public
has been treated with contempt for trying to obtain answers to the issues
raised. Responses are at best inadequate and at worst non- existent.
Politicians and NHS officials seem intent on forcing through their scheme
by fair means or foul.
In March 1999 Frank Dobson, then Secretary of State for Health, cut
the first sod on the new Worcester hospital site. During the ceremony he
commented that in future there would be "more local services for the
people of Kidderminster." Members of Save Kiddermisnter Hospital Campaign
were so insensed that they fielded candidates in the local elcetions with
great success. Twelve months later Health Concern went to the electorate
again and now forms the largest group on the District Council. Never
could the government be presented with a clearer message - the downgrading
of Kidderminster General Hospital is totally unacceptable to the public.
It may be that the consequence of standing up for our democratic
rights is the transfer of all inpatient and A&E services from
Kidderminster long before the new hosptial is ready in 2002. In September
they will move form relatively new buildings on the Kidderminster site to
less satisfactory accommodation elsewhere in the county. This has been
justified on the grounds of "fragile clinical coverage." There may be
staff shortages at KGH, but these are the direct result of uncertainty
created by rumour and lack of information. Nurses cannot be blamed for
seeking work elsewhere when they have financial commitments to meet.
Those who remain still do not know whether they will have jobs after the
end of August.
Plans are moving ahead at such a pace that the supporting
infrastructure may not be ready in time for the changes. The model for
the proposed Ambulatory Care Cenntre at Kidderminster may not yet be
complete. Serious safety issues remain unresolved. The elderly fear for
the future. Local consultants have begun to speak out about unsafe
practice and accountablity. Is this the true cost of PFI?
The effects of PFI on Kidderminster patients
In Kidderminster we also have an unsatisfactory experience of rubbing
shoulders with the PFI issue. The new Worcester Royal Infirmary is being
built 18 miles away. It appears to be financed, at least in part, by the
downgrading of Kidderminster General Hospital and a reduction of some 23-
28% in acute beds across the county. In 1998 Worcestershire Health
Authority approved plans for the reconfiguration of acute services which
disregarded the real needs of Kidderminster patients, especially those
living in the large rural hinterland of South Shropshire. The
consultation document, "Investing in Excellence", presented the changes as
improvemnts in healthcare. The argument lacks credibility. The public
has been treated with contempt for trying to obtain answers to the issues
raised. Responses are at best inadequate and at worst non- existent.
Politicians and NHS officials seem intent on forcing through their scheme
by fair means or foul.
In March 1999 Frank Dobson, then Secretary of State for Health, cut
the first sod on the new Worcester hospital site. During the ceremony he
commented that in future there would be "more local services for the
people of Kidderminster." Members of Save Kiddermisnter Hospital Campaign
were so insensed that they fielded candidates in the local elcetions with
great success. Twelve months later Health Concern went to the electorate
again and now forms the largest group on the District Council. Never
could the government be presented with a clearer message - the downgrading
of Kidderminster General Hospital is totally unacceptable to the public.
It may be that the consequence of standing up for our democratic
rights is the transfer of all inpatient and A&E services from
Kidderminster long before the new hosptial is ready in 2002. In September
they will move form relatively new buildings on the Kidderminster site to
less satisfactory accommodation elsewhere in the county. This has been
justified on the grounds of "fragile clinical coverage." There may be
staff shortages at KGH, but these are the direct result of uncertainty
created by rumour and lack of information. Nurses cannot be blamed for
seeking work elsewhere when they have financial commitments to meet.
Those who remain still do not know whether they will have jobs after the
end of August.
Plans are moving ahead at such a pace that the supporting
infrastructure may not be ready in time for the changes. The model for
the proposed Ambulatory Care Cenntre at Kidderminster may not yet be
complete. Serious safety issues remain unresolved. The elderly fear for
the future. Local consultants have begun to speak out about unsafe
practice and accountablity. Is this the true cost of PFI?
Competing interests: No competing interests