Support Stafford Hospital

Minutes taken at the meeting of the Support Stafford Hospital Committee on November 3rd 2014

Minutes of Committee Meeting held on 3 ^rd November, Civic Centre (Conservative Room) at 4.30pm.

Attendance

Present: Chris Baron, Jane Cannell, James Cantrill, Ann Edgeller, Gail Gregory, Mike Heenan, Graham Powell, Cheryl Porter

Apologies: Trish Rowlands

Absent: Jack Kemp

In attendance:

 

Declaration of Interest in any matter on the agenda     

There were no declarations of interest.

 

Minutes – any sensitive matters to redact before publication to wider membership?

The Minutes were agreed by members present at that meeting to be a true record.

It was agreed to remove some reference to rumour surrounding the KPMG report, lest it place individuals in a difficult position, but to let reference to the non appearance of that report remain as this was a matter of legitimate public interest.

Once these amendments have been made, copies will be forwarded to Chris for display in the shop and to Lee for publication on Facebook

 

Matters arising

The proposed meeting to discuss the future of camp will be held on Saturday Nov 8 ^th .

Camp has been joined by a gentleman from Devon who originates from Penkridge.

The plan to host a Father Christmas at the shop in the market appears to have stalled because the Guild Hall manager feels it encroaches upon their own arrangements for the festive season.

There was much discussion about this, concerning whether the manager had any right to influence the decision, whether the market was a separate entity (which it appear to be) and whether plans could still be made. Mike and Chris are to meet and discuss the logistics further.

 

Reports (if available and relevant):

Treasurer

Graham presented an updated report. All signatories to the new account are now in place and the cheque authorised last time to repay the kind generosity of the benefactor who bankrolled our first attempts at legal action has now been drawn.

However, it has come to light that there are several other related payments, individually small but totalling £1269.64, associated with this generous action. Committee felt that, after discussion, this was exactly the same situation as that discussed last time and that SSH have a moral duty to repay this outstanding balance to the kind person who made the loan when it was most needed. Members donated this money to help fund legal action and campaigning and this is exactly what the funds have been used for. Our only regret is that the legal action proved unsuccessful.

Payment of this outstanding sum will leave us with £3860.19 in the bank with a small additional sum to be banked.

 

Membership Not yet appointed

Occupy

This has already been covered under Matters Arising. Nothing further to add.

Shop

The shop continues to be busy and has proved more accessible than former locations, -perhaps because there is no barrier between the public and the staff. It is often possible to explain things to people in such a way as to help them understand where we are and how e got there. Many misapprehensions can thus be ironed out.

Any other meetings attended

Ann, James and Cheryl attended the Transitions Meeting on Wednesday 29 ^th October. Robert Courtney Harris (RCH) stated that “every child who needs specialist attention will get it.” This seemed to fly in the face of evidence given on the website by a family who had eventually been referred to SDGH (as it then was) because nowhere else could help their baby.

There was discussion about WMAS, bed capacity, emergency transport. There was no mention of UHWM closing A&E to admissions on two occasions this week despite the people present being those who would be aware of this fact.

There was discussion of maternity provision and RCH accused Cheryl of talking Stafford out of a MLU. This she freely admitted to doing, saying that she could not support the provision of an MLU because it lulls people into a false sense of security which is unfounded due to the distance needing to be covered before specialist consultant support would be available. Apparently straightforward deliveries can turn into emergencies very quickly and there would not always be time for these to be handled successfully. Therefore she could not and did not support an MLU for Stafford. Many committee members agreed with her.

Lichfield MLU had been held up as a model of good practice but a FoI request had revealed worryingly high numbers of blue light referrals from that unit because of complications. This seemed to prove that her concern was well-founded.

Discussion moved to consider why services were still being moved without the maternity review had still not taken place. The meeting on 29 ^th was told that maternity had to move because emergency surgery was moving. In fact, it is anaesthetic support which necessitates the move.

There was some suggestion that a local review is not now to take place because a national review is happening instead. James was able to clarify the source of this:

 

At the Transitions Reference Group the week before the meeting on 29 ^th , MH had implied that the review was now national. James had reminded him that at the meeting with the Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt, JH had asked what studies of small CLU units (c 2500 births) suggested as to performance. That data was not available because no such studies have been done. There was even uncertainty about how many such units existed (19). This of course calls into question the validity of the decision to close the unit at Stafford on the grounds of size if the “evidence” to support that decision is non-existent.

One told this, JH said “we’d better do one (review of small units) then” and proposed that after Stafford was done, the remit would be expanded first to national then to international comparisons. There was no suggestion (as MH has suggested) that this meant the Stafford review should be shelved, or delayed.

James will ask Jeremy Lefroy to get back in touch with JH to clarify that this was his stated intention and thus to question why services are being moved ahead of the Stafford review.

It was also stated at the SoS meeting that there should be a follow up after one month and that time has now elapsed so this too should be checked out by JL.

 

Jane attended Patient Participation Panel – District level 22 ^nd October

The meeting was told that RA had been done and would shortly be published. We know that this is not so.

It was also clear that the goalposts are moving re the Double Lock and who will undertake it reported in last minutes.

 

Consideration of applications for Committee

There are three posts to fill – two replacements and one new position.

Two are general committee members and the new post is that of Membership Secretary, which carries serious implications regarding Data Protection, sensitive material, IT capability etc.

There were two applications which were examined and one other for the post of Membership Secretary which was not sufficiently detailed to offer members the assurances they sought regarding capability and expertise. However, they were concerned that the person may not have understood exactly what was required for committee to make a decision on this post.

It was therefore resolved that Chris would speak to the person who had applied and ask for a more detailed application which answered the questions re experience and qualification. Once this is received, committee can make a decision.

 

Handover/transition issues

These had been dealt with under Reports above.

Questions from members of the public

There were none on this occasion as no Members of the Public were present.

Any Other Business

Mike Heenan was concerned to read in the Newsletter of plans for SSH members to stand for election as Borough Councillors following widespread dissatisfaction with the actions of councillors, who were roundly and generally criticised in the article. He sought clarification that this was not the view of the committee; if it was, then the Borough must cease all involvement as this would be unlawful for Borough to support a body which was campaigning against it.

Much discussion followed about the meeting which precipitated the article, the statements within it and the possible repercussions of it. They all stemmed from the frustration felt by many members because they felt insufficiently informed about forthcoming action. At the end of the discussion it was agreed that:

Mike would consider writing a letter/article for publication either in the Newsletter or on SSH Fb page to explain to people that it was impossible and inadvisable for Borough to spell out their intentions as many people apparently wished them to (hence frustration), because that would also alert those they would be taking action against.

Secretary would write to the Newsletter explaining that the story referred to individuals deciding on personal action, not an official stance of SSH committee.

In future, no rooms would be booked without the express agreement of the committee to try to avoid such situations in future.

Date and Time of next meeting

17th November 4.30

Meeting closed: 6.50pm