Thame hospital supporter chief responds to closure fears

SARAH Taylor, the Chair of the League of Friends of Thame Community Hospital, has responded to the latest news about the hospital’s future, as reported on ThameNews.Net yesterday.

Here is what she has said:

CLARIFICATION

Dear Editor, I have now read your article and I have just a couple of comments as to accuracy, to start with – hope you don’t mind! It is not the Hospital which is being taken over by a private concern, it is just the medical provision for the Hospital. The vast majority of care in the Hospital is provided by nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, auxiliaries, etc and they continue to be NHS employees. Also, the extension put on the Hospital in the 70s was actually for a Day Hospital, not a Day Centre. The former is an NHS concern, the latter a Social Services concern which simply rents the room.

DAY CENTRE CRUTIAL

However, we are all of the view that it is crucial that the Day Centre continue to be in the Hospital. Many of their ‘clients’ are also patients of the Day Hospital and it works extremely well that they come to the same place for both and see people who can coordinate easily between themselves by virtue of seeing each other regularly. This appears to be something that the OBMH has lost sight of (maybe they have not been properly briefed?). The rent review may make narrow commercial sense for the OBMH, but makes no sort of sense in the wider view of patient care. Also, just exactly who else are they going to rent the room to on the days that the Day Hospital is not using it?

FOUR HOURS OF MEDICAL CARE A WEEK IS “LUDICROUS”

As far as the GPs are concerned, we are all fair and square behind their campaign. Our GPs have provided excellent care for generations. It makes no sort of sense to get rid of them, particularly if, as one suspects, they lost out because their tender was for more hours. The concept of providing adequate care in just four hours a week is ludicrous, particularly since these new doctors will have to take travelling time into consideration. Although the patients at the Hospital are generally not acutely ill but more generally suffering from chronic illnesses or recovering from operations or falls, they are in the main elderly and so do need regular medical oversight, which can forestall emergencies. Is this going to put yet more pressure on hard pressed casualty units in Stoke Mandeville and Oxford? Also, it makes a great deal of difference to elderly and vulnerable patients to know that they are being looked after by local doctors and that they see the same people all the time. Otherwise, they might just as well be in the impersonal Stoke Mandeville or JR, seeing someone different every day (or in this case every week!).

COULD THE