The East Kent Clinical Commissioning Groups are embarking on an exercise in public “ engagement” . Do not, please, confuse this with the statutory public consultation that will have to precede any radical changes that may need to be made to the provision of hospital healthcare services in East Kent.  

 

In their briefing paper the Groups say that “ Our aim is to design modern health services that are high quality, meet people’s changing needs and are sustainable for years to come” . Few would quarrel with that aspiration and I have never personally sought to stand in  the way of measures, including for example the re- location of Neonatal Intensive Care or the creation of a Hyper stroke unit backed up by Stroke Rcovery Centres, that I am persuaded will be in the long- term healthcare interests of those that I have been elected to represent.

 

The creation of a ‘super hospital’, as one local newspaper has described it, on the outskirts of Canterbury at the exp3nse of the downgrad8ng of A& E and othe4 services at the QEQM hospital in Margate and the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford does not fall into the ‘best interests’ category. By seeking to “ engage” the public in this low- flying and ill-designed kite the Clinical Commissioning Groups have, I believe, embarked upon a process that will lead up a blind alley, create false hopes in some, anger and distress in others and will lead to further delay in a reorganisation  that, in order to provide the best possible configuration for the healthcare of all of the people of East Kent and some in East Sussex, is long overdue.

 

Those with long memories will remember the “ Tomorrow’s Healthcare”consultation - I still bear the scars - during which it was established that the geography and demographics of East Kent simply do not lend themselves to the creation of one centre in Canterbury however desirable some clinicians  might , in the interests of their own convenience and careers, see that as being. 

 

The demographics have only made servicing an increasingly elderly population more difficult and the road and public transport systems have not altered since “ Tomorrow’s Healthcare” . Were there ever, in the distant future,  to be one large East Kent Teaching Hospital it would need to be located not in Canterbury at all but probably at Whitfield where the arterial roads converge. 

 

There is also the small matter of the £800 million plus that would be required to build, staff and equip one large hospital, wherever it is located, together with the network of GP super- surgeries that would be required to support such a development.That  money is not at present available and funding is already committed, not before time,  to expanding the A&E units at the QEQM and the William Harvey.

 

The proposed new build offered by a property developer in exchange for a vast new housing estate in Canterbury could, if progressed carefully, provide a welcome replacement for some time- expired premises on the K&C site but it is not anything like large enough to accommodate the range of services that it is suggested would be located there.

 

There are going to have to be some tough decisions taken in relation to the location of  healthcare services in East Kent and those decisions are going to have to be based upon the need to enable the maximum number of people to access the best treatment as swiftly as possible. This is not and must be about medical or national politics but about supporting the right moves to save lives and preserve quality of life. I do not believe that putting forward a proposal that is not achievable, not affordable, is unworkable and for the majority of  people unacceptable, contributes anything useful to the debate.

​

​

​