|
|
WMAS Trust Board continually try to convince us that ‘under the proposals’ a far better level of service will be achieved. They dismiss the threatened centres as ‘unfit for purpose’ whilst avoiding the shortcomings of the centres not under threat. They try to mislead us into believing all is well at Brierly Hill. They habitually fail to compare like with like, ‘apples with apples’; repeatedly try to mislead the public that, what Brierly Hill aspires to be already exists and threatened centres are beyond redemption.
WMAS Trust Board has no interest in achieving best practise, only in meeting targets by cutting corners. Mr Macgregor’s mantra of ‘calls answered within 5 seconds’ has no substance, what possible use can that be if you cannot deliver the goods? What benefit is there in achieving call connect times if you cannot get the patient the Ambulance he/she so badly needs?
Quite obviously the Board intend to apply the Law of Diminishing Returns, where every effort is put into securing 80% of the available market, whilst the remaining 20% is ignored. Whilst this is acceptable business practise, it hardly constitutes best patient care. All too clearly we can see where the 20% will be found, in the rural counties of Hereford and Worcester and Shropshire.
Better business practise would be ‘Unique Selling Point’, serve the community in the community you serve.
Mr Macgregor on behalf of the Board glibly tells us that the loss of local knowledge will not be an issue, that technology will conquer all. Technology is only as good as the information it’s given. People can be confused when stressed, can be strangers to a place; when calling for help they may not be able to give the information, the postcode that satellite navigation needs. They are more likely to resort to what they know or can see; I’m behind the chip shop in the High Street, I can see a statute of a bloke holding a bike. That’s where local knowledge pays off, and in smaller, intimate surrounding, that’s where knowledge can be shared.
Staff at every centre possess this knowledge, creating high capacity centres by simply increasing seats and introducing new staff, whether they be re-located or raw recruits, will result not only in loss of local knowledge in the rural counties, but will significantly dilute the pool of local knowledge in the urban areas. This is simple common sense.
Left unchecked this folly could cost the taxpayer millions, firstly in the closure of local centres and relocation of staff, then, when the plan goes spectacularly wrong, in the re-instatement of those same centres. No doubt Mr Macgregor will put his own particular brand of spin on this development and tell us how lucky we are to be witnessing such progress. As a mere taxpayer I’d rather give that experience a miss.
How many times have we seen the same happen? Large organisations centralise for economy and efficiency, only to backtrack and provide local, point of use facilities.
What is needed is investment in all existing centres, each one capable of operating networked or autonomously as needs and conditions dictate, that the WMAS Trust Board fails to recognise this is unprofessional and inexcusable.
Mr Macgregor’s comments cannot stand up to scrutiny; the Trust Board is incapable of delivering any information other than that which satisfies their own dubious requirements. They are alarmed at the thought that the public may learn the truth behind the deception, and react with unreasonable actions when the truth is told. They panic. Only the weak, the unsure, the incapable panic.
In conclusion, I question whether the WMAS Trust Board is fit for purpose. I have no confidence in the ability of the Board, their methods and motives are, at the very least suspect, at worst, immoral.
If the WMAS Trust Board cannot or will not provide sensible, workable proposals then the task must immediately be given to those who can. R.N.Prosser.
This proposal is reminiscent of the Emperor's 'New Clothes.' How can Bransford be described as 'not fit-for-purpose when it clearly coped well with the recent emergencies caused by flooding? In all situations local knowledge by local staff is vital and more reliable that 'techno' tools. If it works, why change it and spend £1m (how reliable is this figure when the majority of estimates for new IT systems have been seriously understated.
This proposal will remove local representation for future decision making and, with the centre of decision making being out of the area, there will be no local accountability.
There can be no reasonable evidence that the proposals will, as claimed, improve effectiveness and efficiency. Every change has benefits and costs. But are these proposals based on principles of care for community? I'm convinced that they are based on cutting costs and that if carried will result in responses to emergencies that are less effective to predominantly rural communities.
I'd be grateful if MPs would argue against these proposals.
Regards
Ken Allcock
WR14 2AR 9
3 Members Shropshire staff have been suspended following allegations of passing information to the press. These three dedicated valuable members of staff have stood up and tried to educate the people of shropshire on the day to day occurances of the WMAS trust. The closure of any of these local control centres will loose valuable local knowledge and loose the local control of ambulances in that area, ambulances will get sucked into the greater area of the WMAS region and the smaller rural areas will suffer. These staff feel so strongly about this they have put their jobs on the line,they now need your support , please please place your views on the following site, whether you are WMAS staff or members of the public regardless of whereyou live , which county etc, they need your support, also write to the local press , local MP's and most of all Anthony.Marsh@wmas.nhs.uk LINK TO THE FOLLOWING SITE http://saveourambulancecontrol.blog.co.uk/
DO NOT LET THIS INCIDENT DETRACT FROM THE FIGHT TO KEEP THESE CONTROL ROOMS OPEN, THE TRUST IS TRYING TO DISTANCE THE TWO AS NOT BEING LINKED.... BUT THEY ARE VERY VERY MUCH TIED TOGETHER HAND IN HAND. THANK YOU MEMBER OF SHROPSHIRE AMBULANCE
Employees in the Shropshire, and Hereford and Worcester localities feel intimidated at expressing their views since the suspension of 3 Shropshire staff. The onus now falls heavily upon other people to ask searching, probing questions of the Board at consultation@wmas.nhs.uk . These other people are the Primary Care Trusts, the Health Overview and Scrutiny committees, the PPI forum, the Strategic Health Authorities, local councillors, MPs and health ministers as well as members of the public. Freedom of speech appears to have become as extinct as freedom of information. Questions Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Control put to the Board over one month ago via a non-executive director have remained unanswered, as have specific questions outlined in our opposition to the proposed reconfiguration document. Members of the public - please ensure the above mentioned bodies of people, many of them funded from taxes deducted from your pay packet, are earning theirs. As one member of the public noted 1st August in a reply to a comment in Worcester News article "Ambulance Staff Plea to health Chiefs" "most modern, forward thinking organisations would consider the action by Shropshire staff as ‘whistle blowing on bad practise’ . A Draconian organisation would do exactly as WMAS management did." In the same comment Beepey states, "Personally, as a fully paid up member of the general public, I have no confidence in the ability of the WMAS Trust Board to serve my needs."
How do these 3 suspensions sit within the Harassment/Dignity at work policies currently under review to reflect respecting individuals' human rights?
Week 9 beginning 30th July
Copied from the Worcester News 27th July
THE PRINCE of Wales has heard first hand about the reasons behind our campaign against the proposed closure of the Worcester ambulance call centre.
While on a walkabout of Upton-upon-Severn, Prince Charles met Karen Ashcroft, who works at ambulance control and was taking calls on the night of the most severe flooding.
She told the Worcester News: "He said, thank you for your fantastic efforts. You must have been extremely busy'.
"I said how local knowledge helped save lives."
Ms Ashcroft told the Prince that local operators like her had been able to direct emergency services to back routes so they could reach flood victims quickly even though many roads were closed or impassable.
She added: "If it hadn't been for us people would have lost their lives."
The Worcester News launched the Keep it Local campaign after it was announced that West Midlands Ambulance Services NHS Trust wants to close the Bransford Emergency Operations Centre.
The plan would also see another centre in Shrewsbury closed, in favour of two larger regional call centres at Brierley Hill and Stafford, with a support centre at Leamington Spa.
Our campaign has pulled in huge support with 1,670 people signing our petition to save the centre within the last month.
Many people have said they fear the plan would lead to a deterioration in the service and a downturn in response times.
However, the trust argues the plans would almost double the number of call centre staff in the West Midlands from 62 to 110, allowing 95 per cent of calls to be answered within five seconds.
Getting the call answered within 5 seconds only equates to getting an emergency response to a patient's side more quickly if that vehicle is still in the vicinity. If it's been drafted up to Birmingham Black Country, getting the 999 call answered in 5 seconds will still leave any patients not in the BBC area, waiting longer for medical help.
Is WMAS intending recruiting an extra 48 EOC staff? Are they fulltime staff ? Or is WMAS thinking it will provide "extra seats" and if a major incident occurrs, draft off-duty staff in to man the phones and dispatch? Under normal circumstances, will there be approximately the same numbers of EOC staff working if these proposals go ahead, as at present?
An answer please from consultation@wmas.nhs.uk
The fate of the centre will be decided on Tuesday October 9 when the trust board is expected to make a decision.
This update is taking place so late in the week due to EOC staff responding to more pressing circumstances - the floods. Please see new posting on home page relating to the flood situation.. Hereford and Worcester EOC proved itself supremely "fit for purpose". All Hereford and Worcester EOC systems functioned as normal. Brierley Hill CAD system failed on the first day of the floods. More on home page.
Anyone at all uncertain as to what goes on in an ambulance control emergergency operations centre need remain so no longer. BBC Radio 4's afternoon play Thursday 2nd August at 2.15 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/schedule/2007/08/02/day/ "is a drama-documentary by Howard Belgard, co-written with Nick Drake, exploring the world of the ambulance call centre. Sunita loves her job, the camaraderie, the humour and the satisfaction of helping people when they need it most. So why is she leaving?" Listen, and it'll make you smile, might even make you cry. It's a very good representation of what ambulance control's all about. And so it should be - a control manager from Hereford and Worcester EOC collaborated with script writers in getting under the skin of the control room and helping present something that felt like the genuine article. The phone ringing throughout the play is Hereford and Worcester EOC's 999 line. The voices in the play are of actors, actresses and Hereford and Worcester EOC staff with snippets of real calls.
Worcester News has 1670 names on its petition. Thank you everyone who's signed up, and to Worcester News staff and editor. Please keep spreading the word. A huge chunk of the population is still unaware their Emergency Operation Centre Ambulance Control is under threat of closure.
Week 10 beginning 23rd July
Worcester News now has 1413 people petioning to keep Hereford and Worcester EOC on site in Bransford.
THE NHS ARE CURRENTLY ON A DRIVE TO 'RETAIN AND RECRUIT' STAFF - FOR EXAMPLE NURSES, MIDWIVES ETC. I AGREE WITH THE RESIDENT FROM WELLAND - HOW ON EARTH DOES WEST MIDLANDS AMBULANCE SERVICE EXPECT IT CAN RETAIN HEREFORD AND WORCESTER STAFF TO MAINTAIN THE INVALUABLE LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ? HOW DO THEY ALSO EXPECT TO REPLACE/RECRUIT STAFF FROM HEREFORD AND WORCESTER SHOULD THE CURRENT STAFF DECIDE NOT TO TRAVEL?
RESIDENTS OF THE 2 COUNTIES WILL BE AT A SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE IF BRANSFORD CLOSES. IF I EVER HAVE THE MISFORTUNE TO DIAL 999 FOR AN AMBULANCE, I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THERE IS A PERSON AT THE OTHER END WITH LOCAL KNOWLEDGE. I LIVE IN A REMOTE AREA THAT WOULD BE HARD TO LOCATE- ESPECIALLY IF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS WERE FAILING! ACTION NOT APATHY!
CASTLEMORETON RESIDENT
At present Hereford and Worcester EOC have staff from all over the 2 counties. This ensures that the public will always have staff on that know the area. Although WMAS state that there will be no redunancies, staff will find it extremely difficult to travel for an hour and a half to Dudley, and then do a 12 hour shift and drive back again. For many staff this will not be an option. How then may I ask does WMAS propose to retain and recruit staff from the Hereford and Worcester area? Local knowledge will ceratinly not be maintained if they do not do this.
Concerned resident from Welland
Hello,
I’ll be making my comments in support of your campaign and I’ll copy them to you for posting. I note that you’ve got an email address to contact Harriett Baldwin under the list to contact MPs.
Harriett is a parliamentary candidate for the Conservatives in West Worcestershire. Could you post my email address in case people want the contact the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for WW instead! The address is Richard@richardburt.org
PS I’ve signed the Worcester News petition. Good luck with the campaign and thanks for setting up this excellent site.
Best wishes,
Richard Burt
Week 11 beginning 16 July
Response from WMAS Press Office to this website and replies to points raised - please see WMAS Press Office letter page.
Dear Sir/Madam, I am emailing you with regards the closing and relocating of the Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service Control centre at Bransford nr Worcester, why o why do we need to do this as we have one of the most up to date and modern control rooms in the country, all the expertise and technology will be lost along with all the knowledge local controller have, we have one of the most financial sound service in the u.k. meeting all the government targets asked of us, is this because all any one cares about is numbers and figures what about patients and staff this in my opinion is not a good idea, has any one herd of the saying all your eggs in one basket !
Team Leader
Follow this link to view the current WMAS EOC Presentation and EOC Consultation Document.
NB modified 11th July 2007. Presentation date 25th July 2007. These documents contain significant changes, the most notable can be found in the 1st paragraph on page 11 - costs to provide suitable technology at Bransford and Shrewsbury have leapt from "at least £1/2 million" in original proposal, to to "almost £1 million in modified proposal of 11th June. Were the costs not realistic in the first place or is this a flippant attempt to bolster a proposal? Should we be ousted from Bransford and Shrewsbury Controls, it's essential to know that the decision was based upon sound figures and not figures merely plucked out of the air. Are WMAS expecting these proposals to be taken seriously when they can change at the whim of the author(s)?
From the Unison Regional Organiser
11 July 2007
Head of HR for BBC&S Locality
West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Millennium Point
Waterfront Business Park
Waterfront Way
Brierley Hill
Dudley DY5 1LX
Thank you for your letter dated 3 July 2007 in respect of the consultation on the proposed reconfiguration of Emergency Operation Centres in the West Midlands.
As we have already made clear UNISON have a number of concerns in relation to the proposals on the future of EOC configuration in the region, but before we are able to formally respond to the consultation document we would request further and better particulars in respect of the information that you have already provided. I would therefore be grateful if you could answer, at your earliest available opportunity, the questions which I pose below. If you are not the appropriate person to answer these questions I would be grateful if you could forward it on to whoever is.
In order to assist you in answering the questions I pose, I will relate them directly to the appropriate paragraphs in the consultation document.
I would be grateful if you could confirm who are the authors of the document headed Consultation on the Proposed Reconfiguration of Emergency Operations Centres in the West Midlands. I would also be grateful if you could confirm whether any of these authors will be involved in making the final decision at the end of the period of public consultation. If, as we suspect, that the authors of this document are indeed the decision makers in respect of this process, I would be grateful if you could confirm how the service intends to ensure that the publics views are taken into consideration and not merely sidelined to give the impression that the public have been listened to.
In paragraph 1.3 of the document reference is made to “a huge amount of work has been undertaken to review what can be done to improve the service provided to patients etc”. Can you provide us with evidence of the work that has been undertaken to review EOC provision and in particular give us examples of the staff and trade union input into this work. Could you also provide us with copies with all feasibility studies that have been carried out that have led to the proposals outlined in this document.
In section 2 of the document, reference is made to the number of staff employed to work within the current EOC’s and percentage of calls that are received across the region. Can you please provide us with evidence of the minimum staffing levels that are currently required to operate each of the existing EOC’s. Can you demonstrate to us what steps are taken to transfer the work to other EOC’s, should the staffing levels drop below these minimum standards. Can you also provide us with sickness absence rates for each individual EOC over the past 5 years and also examples of the staff turnover rates for each individual EOC over the past 5 years.
Can you also provide specific evidence as to where, in the past 12 months, either due to capacity, staffing levels or technical problems, calls have been diverted to other EOC’s outside of the existing localities, to enable them to deal with the 999 calls.
In section 4 of the document, reference is made to independent data that shows the Trust answers phones more quickly now than it has ever done before. Can you provide clear evidence of this data to demonstrate the improvement in performance.
Reference is also made in this section to the fact that there will be no compulsory redundancies. Can you provide clear evidence to demonstrate what will happen if staff do not transfer from Shrewsbury or Bransford and are unable, for whatever reason, to transfer to front line duties. Can you also demonstrate how you intend to maintain local knowledge within the EOC’s if, as we suspect, a large number of staff do not transfer to the new EOC provision.
In section 5 of the document reference is made to the well rehearsed questioning procedures, which will be used to enable staff to identify patient locations. Can you please provide us with evidence of these procedures and demonstrate how they will be implemented into the new EOC provision, for those members of staff who do not have sufficient local knowledge, such as is currently utilised in the existing EOC configuration.
Can you also confirm whether all addresses are currently logged onto the existing IT systems. Can you also demonstrate how addresses that are not logged onto the existing IT system are identified, particularly if the calls are referred to an alternative EOC outside of the locality.
Reference is also made in section 5 to cross border working and the fact that the service will now operate in a regional capacity. Can you provide us with examples of how and where vehicles are currently being dispatched outside of their locality and the effect that this has on the resourcing and responding to 999 calls within that locality.
Can you please demonstrate how you intend to ensure that local knowledge is maintained if a call is dispatched from an EOC that is not in the locality and local crews are dispatched outside of the area.
In paragraph 6.2, reference is made to the assessment of all information from national and local work. Can you provide us with evidence of the information that was used and the assessment processes that were undertaken.
In paragraph 6.3, reference is made to the fact that the Trust has agreed on the following proposal. Can you confirm at what level within the Trust this decision was made. Can you also confirm whether the people who made this decision will be responsible or have input into the final formal decision following the period of public consultation.
In paragraph 6.6 onwards, reference is made to the capacity that would be provided by the two regional EOC’s, with a back up at Leamington. Can you demonstrate to us how you intend to deploy this capacity once the decision is made. For example, would it be your intention to utilise all capacity from day one of the new provision or is it your intention to deploy a lesser number from the full capacity from day one. If it is your intention to deploy a lesser capacity, can you please demonstrate to us what that capacity will be and provide evidence to justify that decision.
Can you also provide evidence as to how you intend to run the EOC provision within Staffordshire. Currently a large number of paramedics work within the existing EOC and we will require evidence as to how these will be deployed under the new configuration. If it is your intention to employ a large number of new staff to answer the calls in the Stafford EOC, can you please provide us with evidence of the work that you have undertaken to assess the training needs and support that will be required in the initial stages to ensure that lives are not put at risk by employing a large number of new inexperienced staff.
Could you also confirm as to what implications, if any, there are for those paramedics who currently work within the EOC in Stafford and whether there will be any impact on their Agenda for Change bandings.
In paragraph 6.8 of the document, reference is made to the advantages and disadvantages of Bransford, Leamington Spa and Shrewsbury EOC’s. Can you please provide full details of all the evidence that you have used to justify the comments that you make within this paragraph. Can you particularly provide evidence of the costings that you have used and the feasibility studies you have undertaken to justify your position in respect of these EOC’s.
Can you also provide evidence of feasibility studies that have been undertaken to assess the merits of maintaining EOC provision that would enable the West Mercia locality to retain their own EOC that could potentially work in conjunction with two or more EOC’s elsewhere within the region.
Within section 8 of the document, reference is made to the financial planning and a series of figures are given to justify your current position. Can you please provide us with full details of all the costings that you have to arrive at this position.
Can you also provide us with any assessments that you have done on the potential redundancy costs for members of staff who do not move to EOC or front line duties.
Can you also provide us with examples of the costs involved in transferring staff from Bransford and Shrewsbury to either Brierley Hill or Stafford. Can you please demonstrate how these costings will affect the proposals as laid out within your document.
In view of the timescales that are left in respect of the public consultation, I would be grateful if you could provide this information to us by
Monday, 6 August 2007 at the latest. Following receipt of this information we will be consulting with our members and also members of other stakeholders involved in this process across the West Midlands region.
Can I say how disappointed I am that I have had to request this information in this way, as historically we have always enjoyed a working relationship, which has enabled us to obtain this information prior to consultation documents being made public.
I look forward to your response by Monday, 6 August 2007.
Yours sincerely
Unison Regional Organiser
Thank you for your email of 13th July and attachment. I agree with you that everything should be done to keep the Emergency Operations Centre for the Hereford and Worcester area open. I have registered my objection with the West Midlands Ambulance Service consultation body.
Yours sincerely
Sir Michael Spicer
you have given this a lot of thought. However is it right to campaign for saving 1 call centre when what will occur is another will close. Would you do the same for them?
We're campaigning for our contol room to stay open, not to close another one down. In an ideal world none of us would be fighting this particular campaign. No EOC should be closing down at all. If these proposals go ahead the population of Herefordshire and Worcestershire will be part of a two tier service whereby the population of Birmingham and the Black Country has preferential treatment over that of our two counties. It would be despicable to accept that without fighting it tooth and nail.
Running down other call centres is childish. Some of your comments are not supporting your cause
If you're referring to the delays answering the 999 line in Birmingham Black Country, mentioned in the opposition to the proposals page, there was no intention to run down the work of staff there. They're doing their very best with a massive volume of calls. But the fact remains, Hereford and Worcester EOC is exceptionally quick in answering the 999 line. We want to keep that quick response for the population of H + W.
Can I suggest you think very carefully about what you are doing as it could in effect place all your current positions at risk eg. job lossess You need to fight for the best deal for your staff and this also means you need to look at what will happen if/ when your centre closes. Remeber no firm deal is in place as yet. So fight for your staff ( all 28 ) as well as your centre.
EOC staff are 100% committed to this campaign. It's to be hoped that honest beliefs, expressed rationally, shouldn't constitute a threat to anyone's job. It would be a matter for Unison if such a thing should ever arise.
Like you anon!
1,162 people have added their name to Worcester News' campaign to save Hereford and Worcester EOC from closure. Thank you to all those people, who, to coin a phrase put up on the website recently, decided on "ACTION NOT APATHY!" It' still early days, those numbers will go up and up. Please also lobby your MP and email consultation@wmas.nhs.uk with why you believe the EOC should remain open serving you and your community and why you think the Board should reach the same decision.
To: LUFFPJ@parliament.uk ;
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:22 PM
Subject: HEREFORD AND WORCESTER EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTRE AT BRANSFORD
Dear RT Hon P Luff
This is a copy of a letter that has been brought to my attention to
which is of some concern! (Duplicate to 2nd item at bottom of feedback page, so not replicated again).
I trust this has already been brought to your attention? I appreciate
business's have to evaluate resources against performance and quality
of service. Iam concerned of the impact of such against closure and its
affect on life saving logistical performance.
Yours Faithfully
A Paramedic
Unison has raised its concern that the Union was not given prior knowledge of the proposals before they were made public. Unison say historically, it’s always been included in discussions with the employer. In this case it would have expected to have been included in discussions before the proposals were put into the public domain. Unison says in its letter to the Chief Executive WMAS Trust, it will be “formally requesting further information in respect of the costings that you have provided in the public consultation document and will be seeking a rationale and explanation of other statements that are contained with the consultation document“. cc letter sent to the Board and Sir Michael Spicer MP
I have followed with interest the press coverage surrounding the planned closure of Hereford and Worcester Emergency Operations Centre. I have read both the NHS Trust Board’s proposal and the opposition raised.
It is commendable of the Trust Board to offer their proposals for public consultation. It is noteworthy however that the best sources of information regarding the Trust’s proposals are available from, or at the behest of the opposition.
I read with interest Mr. MacGregor’s comments in the Worcester News on Wednesday 11th July 2007. He says that funding was not the main reason behind the proposals.
Mr. MacGregor tells us the system was based on new digital radio systems called ICCS, there is one at the Brierley Hill centre and another is being installed at the new Stafford centre. He continues, and I quote;
"The over-riding issue is that we want to make it more resilient. The technology is available to upgrade all five call centres but every time you have an extra control centre you increase the risk." "You can run as many control rooms as you like from these," he said. "However, each one increases the risks. The more you have, the bigger the risk of failure." We are duty bound, in light on 9/11 and 7/7 to provide a service that is resilient." We would prefer people to read the consultation and then make their minds up. We are willing to listen to any comments and take on board suggestions."
Is Mr MacGregor telling us the technology selected not future proof? Cannot be expanded because it’s reliability is questionable if the more demands are made of it? Or is he asking us to believe that providing additional fall back facilities somehow increases risk? In the light of 9/11 and 7/7 you are duty bound to plan for worst case scenario. This does not mean closing a fully functioning control centre and pinning your hopes on two main centres and one inadequate centre. Worst case scenario means you invest by installing reliable technology in all centres, each one able to operate autonomously should the worst case scenario be realised.
I’ve read that some staff would be required to travel some distance to one or other of these centres. In the event of a disaster of the magnitude of 9/11 or 7/7 the transport infrastructure suffers. Whilst emergency vehicles have the advantage of their status to negotiate holdups, the public do not. Support staff traveling to these centres would have none of the advantages emergency vehicles do. Given where these favoured centres are based, you'd be lucky to see support staff arriving at all.
If, as Mr. Macgregor states, funding is not the main issue (I recall it was never an issue, so immediately a mid-term change of policy) then invest in Bransford EOC, install sufficient and reliable technology to make it fit for purpose. If indeed the board is willing to listen to public opinion and take on board suggestions, I urge them to do just that and cancel this ill conceived plan before irreparable damage is done.
R. Prosser.
Worcester News advises it has over 1,000 names petitioning against the proposal to close Hereford and Worcester EOC. Thank you everyone who is signing up and also making their views known at consultation@wmas.nhs.uk
I find it appalling to even think of closing a local life saving department in favour of moving it to an alien region with possible call takers not at all familiar with the counties, which could result in elapsed time to patients aid prolonged pain and even worse death!
As the saying goes there is NO subsitute for experience and local knowlege!!! And this is clearly the case
We have a super efficient control with a great team and even greater moral which makes an efficient working team (those with good man management skills would know) to move this would destroy moral and trust and face to face commeraderie that Bransford has given us over the years.
There is not one ounce of sense moving control as it being the most technical and efficient control room in the country!
This now is time to come together and support our control and put it on the podium they deserve
Roadstaff
Sir Michael Spicer, MP South Worcestershire
The Editor, Worcester News
Proposed closure of Bransford Ambulance Call Centre
May I add my voice to the concerns already expressed regarding the above. I find the comments reported by the Chief Executive, Anthony Marsh, unconvincing. After reading the arguments put forward for closure, the word “spin” immediately springs to mind. It is one thing for a minister to accuse the Home Office of “not being fit for purpose” but rather overstating the case to level the same charge against what appears to be a very efficient and well-run centre.
As I see it, the closure of Bransford would be detrimental to the people of South Worcestershire and Herefordshire and would, in fact, lessen the overall efficiency of the Trust. If I may comment on the charge of being unable to cope during a major incident. My concern would be rather, could a call centre at Brierly Hill or Stafford deal adequately with emergencies in our area especially if the system crashed as systems do, on occasions. When that happens, things would revert back to the old “steam” methods where local knowledge is paramount, quite likely to happen during a major incident come to that (Sod’s Law). Dare I say, Bransford would cope better than the larger centres. At this point, I really must ask which incompetent devised a system that is unable to communicate with its component parts? In any case, it would be a relatively simple matter for Bransford to be hooked up to whatever computer-aided dispatch system was finally agreed upon. The other point raised: Lack of staff. I am reliably informed this has never been a problem.
Yours faithfully,
Chris Taylor.
cc letter sent to the Board
Sir or Madam
I have recently read in the local press of a proposed shake up of EOCs in the area. I was immediately concerned (I have many relatives and friends in the area, including family with heart conditions and diabetes and a 96 year old grandfather) and looked into the proposed changes to see if it might affect me and my loved ones.
I read the EOC consultation document, to see if their changes would be to the detriment of my loved ones, and found nothing but hazy assumptions and empty rhetoric, there were no facts in the document at all - those that were there looked like they could have been created from any source and proved nothing. I have heard many fears expressed about the Birmingham EOCs performing worse than those of Shropshire and Hereford, and that by combining them all, it would cause an overall depletion in the quality of services.
I am also concerned about the loss of local knowledge the closures would cause. The consultation document attempted to reduce my fears by saying that ambulance crews would still be locally stationed and that modern technology was better (although it did seem to contradict itself by also stating that there would be no loss to local knowledge - even though it then went on to defend the position by saying a loss of local knowledge would not be a detriment). I have heard ambulance drivers say that they rely on control to help them when their instruments are wrong or fail and that local knowledge has saved lives. I am deeply concerned about the lack of respect given to this serious issue, and the lack of consideration for the lives that could be lost as a result.
I am horrified that the best performing EOCs will be bulldozed for the sake of centralization and I am insulted by the contempt that has been shown by publishing an official looking document, that is devoid of fact in an attempt to cover up faults and sex up a bad, ill thought out decision, based on nothing but streamlining.
Furthermore I am amazed at the contempt for reader's intelligence that has been shown in the document. You mention various reports, (the Varney report and others) and take key quotes from them to support your cause. Upon further inspection, the reports have nothing to do with streamlining EOCs. One of them is to do with streamlining points of contact for public service, such as tax issues and student loans, not the critical and life saving operations of an EOC. It is embarrassing and dangerous to base a report, that is meant to benefit the public, on various reports that have nothing to do with the issue, which you are quoting just for kudos, to gloss over problems and give your proposals credance, despite the reports you are using being professionally criticised on many grounds and your quotes being taken out of context.
How you could have built your proposals on such loose ground is beyond me; I would guess that your proposals were made way before any research was done, and the research was put in place to plump it up. Finding there were no articles that supported your position you took ones that had nothing to do with them, and shoved them in anyway, in the hope that nobody would notice.
This leads me to wonder if the financial statistics are accurate too, or whether they have been tampered with or gained from obscure and innaccurate sources. I also wonder how this proposal would hold up to legal scrutiny. If the Freedom of Information Act were used to verify how the figures were obtained or find what professional sources were used to come to decisions, or find what studies were done to ensure that lives would not be lost as a result of the move, would there be anything to support them, If an ombudsman were to look at this report, would they find it had been based on strong facts? If it went to Judicial Review, would the decisions hold up to scrutiny? I think not. I am therefore concerned that these proposals, if they went ahead, will be another embarrassment for the health service and cost the service, and the tax payer more money.
The article glosses over improving existing sites, and ploughs straight into removing them. I deeply hope that you keep the existing sites and make improvements to them instead of removing them. I hope that you will reconsider the proposals, base them on real research and facts and also release the research on which the proposals were based. I hope you will consider the embarrassment and public backlash to the service that would result from the proposed changes if they came in without being professionally researched. I finally hope that you will not endanger the lives of my friends and family.
Yours faithfully
Leo Hughes
Edited letter from Conservative Parliamentary Candidate Harriet Baldwin: Thank you for contacting me about the closure of the Bransford Ambulance Emergency Operations Centre. I am very grateful for the extra information on your website. I will forward your e-mail to Sir Michael Spicer MP, and he and I will talk and see how we can help the campaign, and which ministers and shadow ministers we can lobby on your behalf. Kindest regards, Harriett Baldwin www.harriettbaldwin.com
Even though Hereford and Worcester have now merged with the west midlands, everything should be kept to localities, not regions. Closing Bransford and Shropshire Control is not a good idea. Local knowledge will be lost. It would hit response times even further if millennium point doesn’t know our area and distance it takes to get to some calls.
Keep the control room open.
Roadstaff
I would like to bring your attention to "Taking Healthcare to the Patient", the Bradley Report into the future of Ambulance Services.
If you look at pages 35 and 36, you will see that HEREFORD AND WORCESTER AMBULANCE SERVICE is quoted as a shining example of a user of technology in the Control Room and on vehicles. You had a fantastic, integrated system that led to unbelievable advances in patient care. Thrombolysis was introduced on the back of this and you became one of the leaders in the field.
EPRF, despite initial teething problems, was becoming accepted and gaining favour.
Now you have been taken over by the "Ambulance Service of the year" (which year, 1934?), your Chief Executive is about to abandon all you have achieved and re-invent the wheel. You will be going BACKWARDS. Things to be ditched include MDT, Mobimed, Smartlead, and the electrodes that go with it.
If Mobimed is withdrawn, bear in mind that the funding came mainly from a grant made by the National Lottery, and therefore, is from a charitable donation. So if the Units are eventually removed and sold on, will proceeds from the sale be returned to charitable uses, and not into the WMAS coffers?
Copy and Paste the www. Below to your browser and take a look.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4114269
Perhaps a demerger might be the best way forward
Contribution from road staff
Extract from Union website:
7/7 "Good Luck, by God, you'll need it. I could have sworn I heard the fat lady singing months ago!"
6/7 "Please can ALL staff contact the board at consultation@wmas.co.uk and voice their support to keep open the control rooms..and if they have the courage contact the press too. MOP are being quoted as though they are the oracle and as thought it is a final decision - - - it aint over til the fat lady sings and as yet I don't hear any singing!! Action not Apathy!!"
http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/2007/06/lives-at-risk-in-999-switch/
visitors to this site may like to browse the article itself and particularly, read the feedback comments
What a disgrace that one day the service is wasting money entertaining the Chief Executive with over the top extravagant foods and paying overtime for extra selected crews to meet him. Paying contractors to clean windows and paint Hereford station. Then he decides to close our control rooms to save money.
IS THE KETTLE BLACK YET??
Keep up the fight, we need you.
Roadstaff
Another week and another chance for us to keep the momentum up to support H&W EOC. Doctors surgeries are now displaying posters/flyers to encourage members of the public to view this website and make an informed opinion as to why our EOC should stay open. This is only the beginning of the campaign. Patient safety is still the driving force behind this fight.
Another concerned resident of Worcestershire
To whom it may concern.
These decisions to make areas regional and massive are never a good idea and people should look back at recent history to see this.
My opinion is to keep the local control just that LOCAL. Once it has gone it has gone and all that expertise is lost.
I send all the staff who are experiencing this stressful time my full support.
As a Team Leader we have still to have our job situation rectified so we know what you are going through!
Week 12 beginning 9th July
Worcester News have advised that they have in excess of 850 names on their own petition to save Hereford and Worcester EOC. The Fire Brigade Union have also, in the words of the Worcester News, slammed the proposals.
More and more people are pledging their support to save Bransford EOC and are stating local knowledge as their motivation. Whilst this is a driving force for many the bigger picture needs to be looked at. There truly is no reason to close Bransford - only monetary ones. WMAS can see the capital that selling the site would bring in. WMAS could easily raise money by leasing the many rooms that are now vacant in the building, due to staff ALREADY being moved over to millenium point. Mr Marsh is rightly concerned about the recent terrorist attacks but yet another reason to keep H&W EOC open. It is ideally set in a low risk area as opposed to the prime risk area of MP. If, unlikely as it would be, Bransford was targetted then there is the Major Incident vehicle -re-kitted and fully functional. Therefore, please can readers of this site think about the bigger picture in addition to the local knowledge argument and let the board know that there is truly no viable reason to close H&W EOC!
Employee
Many thanks for directing users of your excellent website to our 'Keep It Local' petition. As of today, almost 700 people have signed our petition and we are currently receiving around 100 responses a day. We intend to print the petition, containing the names of all those who have shown their support, in the paper and online within the next few weeks.Our opposition to the proposal is based largely on our belief that closing Bransford will see the loss of vital local knowledge. We believe this to be potentially dangerous for patients. Rest assured that Worcester News readers are doing all they can to keep Bransford. If the Worcester News can help in other ways please let me know.
Please see message below confirming how right you are in this belief.
In response to claims that local knowledge is no longer important due to advances in technology, I list extracts from an article from the National Journal of Emergency Dispatch reminding dispatchers of the importance of getting correct locations from callers. I quote: "Unfortunately Automatic Line Information (ALI) is not always reliable - nor is it available on every call. In fact, ALI has become increasingly problematic with the advent of recent technologies. And, even when ALI accurately relays location information, it may not be for the site of the actual emergency." "Today, most emergency calls in the UK, United States, and other developed nations pass through an intricate ALI network that automatically transmits to the dispatcher's computer terminal both the calling number and the address from which the call was made. Even so, past methods of phone and address verification remain vital to emergency dispatching. Although the days of buzzers and blinking beacons are long gone, most dispatchers with ALI experience know that, wonderful as the technology is, the system is sometimes inaccurate and, therefore, cannot be relied upon exclusively for determining location and phone number. Further, recent advances in telecommunication technologies have not decreased the need for Emergency Telecommunicators (ETCs) to verify ALI - they've increased it." "Despite technological advances that seem to make ETC work increasingly complex, it has always been tricky to get accurate location information. Infact, ETCs without access to ALI or Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems are generally the least affected by technological change because they often already use the best verification methods possible. This suggests that even the most advanced Public Service Access Points (PSAPs) would do well to adopt such tried-and-true techniques." "ALI systems utilise databases that may contain oudated information, despite efforts to update them regularly." "You'd think it would be apparent almost immediately when a call is misdirected to your centre. However, often the receiving PSAP's area of jurisdiction may have an address similar to the misrouted caller's (for instance, Main Street is common in many communities). In such cases, dispatcher knowledge of local geography may prove highly beneficial. If a caller reports a fire at 'the grocery store at 1st and Main,' an ETC familiar with the town may recognise the store and its location, or, conversely, that such a store doesn't even exist at the stated location." "Amidst all these technological advances, the basic methodology for address verification has not changed significantly. And because the technology that supports emergency calls has never been 100 percent reliable, the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch (NAED) recommends that dispatchers obtain and verify both the location of the emergency and the caller's telephone number - regardless of ALI data. It remains the ETC's responsibility to ensure that information provided to responders is irreproachable." "Emergency calls in PSAPs around the world are both aided and hindered by the technology supporting them. In the midst of the mind-boggling complexities associated with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and wireless technologies, it is imperative that ETCs maintain focus on verification processes. Though the simple steps of confirming address and phone number can seem trivial or nitpicky, they provide the foundation for averting further disaster when various technologies inevitably come up short."
As you can see, the rest of the world agrees that we can't rely on this technology as we ourselves are already seeing. To say that local knowledge will not be important beggars belief.
Bransford Employee
Edited letter to the Board:
Mr. Marsh is clearly concerned that it’s only a matter of time before Birmingham becomes a terrorist target.
As you are undoubtedly aware, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) has raised the national threat level from international terrorism, from severe to critical meaning an attack in the UK is regarded as being imminent.
Do these developments not further endorse a point raised at the meeting of 25th June, that the value of H + W EOC's intrinsically low risk location is too great to consider its closure?
It’s abundantly clear that change is necessary: I believe investing in technology in Bransford is the best way to ensure patients, not just in Herefordshire and Worcestershire but in the whole West Midlands region, will ultimately benefit. New resilient technology in Bransford would ensure that more specialist clinical resources such as the FCP desks located in Brierley Hill would remain no more than a communications link away, whilst retaining all the benefits of Bransford EOC‘s strategic location. Mr. Marsh, the Board and staff at Bransford EOC all genuinely have the same aim - that of delivering best patient care. WMAS management clearly desire to raise the capital locked up in Bransford. Can this not be negotiated whilst the EOC still retains tenancy? Monies raised could be invested in the new technology necessary to make the Bransford site fit for purpose.
LK EOC employee, concerned resident of Herefordshire and Worcestershire.
Hereford and Worcester EOC has invited all members of the Board to visit the control room to see first-hand how it works, the building lay-out and its location.
Thank you for your email of 30th June. Like you, I am in favour of retaining the Worcester EOC.
Yours sincerely
Sir Michael Spicer MP
Thank you for your email. Although in the North of the County is not as affected, I am extremly concerned about the proposed closure of Bransford and worry that Worcestershire is being treated unfairly.
Kind regards,
Julie
Danielle Johnston-Jones
Parliamentary Secretary to
Miss Julie Kirkbride MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Paul Keetch, MP for Hereford, has no jurisdiction in the Bransford area and so we assume that campaigners will have contacted Sir Michael Spicer, the MP for West Worcestershire, who covers this locality to seek his assistance.
Paul Keetch, however, is aware that some of his constituents may be employed at the Bransford HQ and is keen to hear from those who may wish to seek his assistance personally. He is also of course sympathetic to the potential job losses affecting those outside his constituency and the effect the closure will have on the ambulance service locally.
If this message could be conveyed on your website it would be much appreciated.
Paul Keetch can be contacted via his website www.paulkeeetch.org.uk or by using the numbers given below.
Tel: 01432 341483
Fax: 01432 379424
Kind regards
Helen Jones
It's unclear why Mr Keetch should make reference to potential job losses when it has been so clearly stated on this website that there will be none. The closure of Hereford and Worcester EOC potentially effects all the residents of our two counties including Paul Keetch's 91491 constituents (UK polling report 2001). More up to date figures from the Mr Keetch's office suggest this figure is more in the region of 72,000. Paul Keetch's constituency covers the city of Hereford south of the Roman Road, Clehonger, Madley, Peterchurch, Clifford, Cusop, Cludock, Walterstone, Longtown, Ewyas Harold, Allensmore, Garway, Symonds Yat, Whitchurch, Ganarew, Holme Lacy, Fownhope, Brockhampton, Upton Bishop, Lea, Weston-under-Penyard, Ross-on-Wye, Walford, Goodrich and all villages in between these perimeters
Can all constituents please lobby Mr Keetch (when he's better and we hope he very soon is), and ensure he is fully aware of the exact nature of the problem and the possible repurcussions.
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to give you my views on the proposed EOC changes. I have just read the draft document on this issue and have aTo whom it may concern,
I've read the consultation document and could give you a concise balanced response in opposition to each bullet point and paragraph.
I will give you a shortened version of my response but if you would prefer the full version, I'd be happy to oblige.
Bransford is situated in between Malvern & Worcester on a main busy road, which in the past has seen many serious RTC's and fatalities.
I agree that staff in the EOC who wish to be clinically trained, should be, so they can respond accordingly and deliver care to the wider community.
If this vision is for real and as Bransford is in a prime position, clinically trained EOC staff would be ideal for this excellent concept to work.
If EOC staff are forced to move to Brierly Hill, my understanding would be that the community of Hereford & Worcester would lose out on future care whilst the community in BB&C would ultimately gain further. This means me & my family are not being afforded the same forethought and attention you anticipate that the BB&C community are set to receive.
This training could & should happen without the closure of Bransford.
WMAS road staff have had operational procedures, processes and systems implemented on a Regional basis, without needing to close stations in order for this to happen.
Bransford does not need to be closed for this to happen. As with the operational procedures with road staff, there is no decent and honest reason why Regional systems, procedures and processess cannot be implemented.
Good communication skills is what it needs to succeed.
In addition to the latest and most up to date dispatching system, Bransford EOC dispatch officers have always maintained and updated daily, hourly & minute accounts of all controlled resources on paper, so that in any unforseen event of a catastrophic failure, they know at all times where each vehicle is and where to commit a vehicle to.
Also to assist in any catastrophic failure, Bransford house a Major Incident Unit and included in the 'unforseen' package, is Bromsgrove Ambulance Station.
Bromsgrove has been the 'back up' EOC centre for H&W locality for several years and I've been led to believe (by managers not EOC staff) that it passes its regular tests for it's sustainability and purpose.
Since I was knee high to a grasshopper, my parents and grandparents taught me never to put all of my eggs into one basket, as I could end up having egg on my face. Even as front line road staff experience has taught me that if plan A fails, immediately draw on plan B.
If there is a catastrophic failure or such like, why close a 'non-fragile', performance producing EOC, effectively 'plan B' and suck it into 'plan A'
Satelite navigation systems. All frontline ambulances are fitted with them. Advanced and improved technology. Countless occasions on 999's have staff - myself included - been misled by advanced and improved technology. It doesn't recognise roads, it takes you down roads which have since been cut off half way down and you need to get to the other side...
When there's a sense of urgency needed, at someones time of need, local people with local geographical knowledge is what's needed, not the improved and advanced technologies.
As an employee I see the proposal as an Orcon driven decision. If 95% of red calls that are soon needed to be answered, were answered - which due to the geography and saturated population would be predominantly BB&C calls - H&W Locality vehicles will inevitably be drawn to BB&C (already happening) to assist in this government standard being met.
H&W community will achieve less and less of the same standard and will be treated differently.
As a member of the community, I see the proposal as a cost saving excercise with alot of ticked boxes and unfortunately not an awful amount of improved patient care.
I hope you will reconsider the proposal and rightly keep our local EOC.
Thank you for your time - it is appreciated.
Mrs. G
few points to make.
The document is quite keen to state that there will be NO compulsory redundancies and all staff with be offered alternative posts within the trust if they do not wish to or are unable to relocate. I feel that the staff at H&W (Herefordshire mainly) locality live the furthest from Brierley Hill (BBC) or Tollgate (STAFFs) (Shropshire and Leamington being closer by far and as such a closure for them would not impact as much) and to ask them to travel up to 2 hours for some staff just to get to work and then 2 hours back means a 0700-1900 shift becomes a 0500-2100 shift. When will they sleep, eat, wash and see their families? And how dangerous will they be on the road after just, at best 6 hours sleep and that's assuming they have no family, small appetites and don't wash.
This leaves them with the option of working within, as quoted in the document, "back office functions" or "operational road jobs". How will these back office jobs be found? Surely if the jobs existed, they would be filled already or is the trust proposing to create a need for them which not only seems a waste of time but also money. And as for retraining to work on the road, has it occurred to anyone that with the current climate of a need for more paramedics and the subsequent training that has occured, if an EOC staff member wanted to progress to road staff they would have done already? Some people remain out of the public eye for a reason and don't particularly wish to change that. If you consider these factors above, it amounts to constructive dismissal for many of the EOC staff in H&W. It would be fairer to offer voluntary redundancies to staff that felt it was not possible to remain working for the Trust through no fault of their own and after numerous years of dedicated service. Surely they deserve that much?
2. The draft fails to explain how Leamington (C&W) can possible cope with the increase in calls acting as a "Buffer" in the occurrence of a failure of one of the larger EOCs. It states that it has a total seat capacity of 10 but "very little space to develop further positions" whereas Bransford (H&W) has a total seat capacity of 7 but "space available to expand". Surely the trust will need more than 10 seats to cope with a failure in 1 or heaven forbid 2 regional EOCs and with call numbers rising each year the need to increase the size of this "buffer" EOC is obvious. How can a site with little room for expansion be practical?
Leamington is cheaper compared to Bransford to keep open now (no income from sale if closed because it is leased, no need to update technology) BUT what about in 5 years when the Trust needs to build a larger "buffer" EOC because Leamington can no longer be classed as an adequate fallback. I believe that in Bransford, you have a modern building structure (no need to update it like Shrewsbury) that will not require a large amount of upkeep as a result and that with a £250,000 short term investment in technology, will save a lot more money in the long term. And don't forget that Leamington will also still require a short term investment in an upgrade of the estate of about £400,000 (unfortunately this is listed along with Brierley Hill and the break down of this cost is conveniently not detailed). Maybe it is also £250,000 for Leamington? But that would not back up the ONE proposal that has been suggested and so this biased (in my opinion) document does not show it.
Another thing that suggests a bias and which the draft does not include is the extra cost in mileage and relocation expenses for the staff of Bransford. There are only 4 staff less than Leamington but their extra mileage incurred to travel to Brierley Hill or Tollgate would be significantly more than for Leamington. I obviously cannot provide proof for this other than glancing at a road map and seeing how far away South East Warwickshire is from them compared to South West Herefordshire (also taking in to account the road infrastructure too i.e. M42, M5 etc. compared to M50 only). But then that's not my job to do. I would have thought the authors of the draft proposal would have done this or if they did, published it along with the other information.
I hope this has brought a few things to your attention that had not been considered before and if not, that a reiteration of them will hopefully give them some more weight and validity.
And Finally I hope that it is clear that despite my concerns regarding the nature of the proposals, it can be seen that I have not questioned the need for any change's to occur, just the decision to close Bransford and keep Leamington open.
Yours Faithfully
Paramedic
Week 13
Received 2nd July 2007 from the office of MP Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire)
Thank you so much for your email which Peter was most interested to receive. He does have a concern though – so far we haven’t had any contact from any constituents of Peter. If you know of anyone who lives in Peter’s constituency of Mid Worcestershire (Evesham and Droitwich and surrounding villages – NOT Worcester) then do encourage them contact him on luffpj@parliament.uk This would help him put pressure on the Service to re think their proposals.
Peter Luff requests you include your name address and contact details.
Droitwich Advertiser, Droitwich Standard, and the Evesham Journal have all been contacted late on Friday, may have been too late to publish. Will contact them again.
|
|