Consultation over, but many questions remain

WITH the £450 million hospital reorganisation consultation now closed, many people in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are still none the wiser about the plans.

Even for those who have read the plans, many will still be in the dark about their full implications.

It’s not explained, for instance, that the proposals aim to shrink the local NHS estate considerably, with the General Hospital being closed as an acute hospital and the majority of land sold for other use, and that this shrinkage is a precondition for receiving the money.

It’s not mentioned that the government is effectively blackmailing our NHS, starving it of funding unless it agrees to sell off large portions of publicly owned land.

It’s also not explained that the proposals to provide fewer services in hospitals and more in the community is based on the acceptance of an ever-shrinking pot of money, potentially locking us into poorer services for the foreseeable future.

It’s not explained that community care is in a deep crisis right now after years of austerity cuts, but that the plans to reorganise our hospitals are, paradoxically, completely dependent on a huge improvement of community services.

But the lack of genuine public engagement by NHS bosses goes deeper than just misleading information and lack of access.

It also has to do with changes in social relations due to lockdown.

Normally, consultations would involve meeting publicly, providing an opportunity for the public to question NHS bosses and discuss with each other proposed changes, including with those who may disagree strongly with the narrative being sold by the NHS, whereas in the case of the current consultation meetings they have shifted entirely online where interaction between attendees is almost impossible, except for times when chat boxes were permitted.

As we know from recent and ongoing experience, for many people online is, at best, a pale substitute for the real world.

For the inexperienced it can be alienating. There are serious questions to be asked about the number of people who may have been digitally excluded because of this.

NHS bosses claim their webpage advertising the plans has had thousands of visits, but we question whether this is an indicator of genuine engagement with the plans or of expensive online advertising.

One way the NHS could have reached out to a wider section of people in the region is through the post.

Indeed, originally, NHS bosses planned to send a consultation questionnaire to every home in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

Unfortunately, however, this document was never received by an apparently huge number of people. An attempt to rectify this through another delivery worked just as badly.

The local NHS has subsequently attempted to play down the importance of this element of engaging the public. We ask why, if it was so unimportant, was it so central to their original plans and why did they spend so much money in sending questionnaires, twice, to more than 400,000 homes?

Logically as well, sending questionnaires to every home in the region seems like a very good way of mitigating digital exclusion.

Nevertheless, local NHS bosses soon gave up on this strategy. Whenever we have asked people in a meeting or on Facebook if they had received the leaflet, the vast majority said ‘no’.

The consultation may have ended, but this is far from the final word on the subject. Contact 07896 841 902 if you would like to get involved or visit: saveournhsleicestershire.org Tom Barker, secretary, Save Our NHS Leicestershire Hospitals bosses thank the public for their input, Page 16