New Devon CCG transformation: as transparent as a lead block

Owl recalls that claims were made that the “transformation” plans for the NHS were ordered by the government to be kept secret, and that attempts by mere mortals to get information about them through Freedom of Information requests should be actively resisted.

Well, here is proof.

A local elector made two requests for information (community hospital bed occupancy and objective evidence for the decisions made by New Devon CCG). Both of these requests have been ignored ( no reply within 20 working days) and the first noted is now 40 working days overdue – with a request for internal review of the decision also ignored. This is a necessary step that must be made before a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Link to the request 20 working days overdue and not acknowledging the Internal Review request made 20 working days ago:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/community_hospital_bed_occupancy

Second needed to be answered yesterday to be in time.

This is the important one – it will be reasonable to assume that either they have no clinical evidence whatsoever, or that they are deliberately avoiding answering because the evidence they have is negative:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/objective_evidence_of_the_clinic

Owl notes that none of our MPs appear to be trying to get this information for us – it is being left to local people to try to find out for themselves.

2 thoughts on “New Devon CCG transformation: as transparent as a lead block

  1. I think that is their idea- that more of us will die sooner – one way of easing their problems.

    Like

  2. The key point is that the CCG needs to demonstrate that their proposals will not just save money but will deliver effective and safe treatments for patients and not put them at risk.

    So we want to see comparative clinical evidence that demonstrates that the proposals for treatment at home are indeed both as effective as hospital treatment and as safe.

    We want to see risk assessments that show that there is no additional risks from complications or emergencies arising from treatment at home which could be handled if the patient was in hospital with 24 hour nursing and doctor cover and emergency treatment facilities but where the patient might e.g. die if it happened at home, at a time when carers were not present so it took time for anyone to see thgat there was a problem and they then had to wait for an ambulance to arrive and then to travel to the nearest emergency unit.

    The CCGs proposals appear to be based on a subjective patient survey in N Devon in which patients said they were satisfied with the way that their home appointments were booked, but says nothing at all about whether the medical treatment at home is effective.

    To put forward radical proposals where either they don’t have any evidence showing it is safe, or worse that they have evidence but are keeping it secret (presumably because it shows it is not safe) is at best negligent and at worse plain dangerous.

    Hence my FoI requests – which have not been answered.

    I also asked written questions in advance of a CCG board meeting last week, but unfortunately was not able to make the meeting and have not received a written response.

    Given the unwillingness of the CCG to answer these questions, we have to assume that these proposals are unsafe and dangerous and should not go ahead.

    Like

Comments are closed.