S A Hughes wrote:
> <[log in to unmask]> writes
> >
> >> 2. 90% of patients have access to a major A&E unit
> >> within 30 minutes' normal road travel (i.e. not a blue-light ambulance);
> >> every town of 50,000 or more has a major unit.
> >
> >Number 2 would be a retrogressive step IMHO.
> >All others I agree with in principle.
> Andrew,
>
> Would you care to expand on this? Are you saying that only large
> population centres should have an A/E department?
>
No.
How many towns of 50,000 are there? How many of them currently do not have a
Hospital never mind a major A&E unit? Quite a few I suspect.
How many new A&E departments would be needed to give this degree of access?
Is it feasible to staff this number of Hospitals to the level required to have
a major unit?
I think not.
> Why on earth should someone with what they perceive as a nasty cut or or
> bony injury face a long drive to a major town with a teaching hospital?
> What sort of service will they get?
A nasty cut does not need to be treated in a major A&E unit.
> The centralisation of health care is a disaster for rural communities,
> and from what I've seen in Newham, doesn't do the urban folk much good
> either.
If you centralise in order to try and do more with less it will be a disaster.
If a certain degree of centralisation is accompanied by increased investment
then care could be improved.
> Are you trying to tell those of us in out of town DGH's that we provide
> a poor service?
Not at all. But I think our service might get worse if we try to spread
ourselves even more thinly than at present.
--
Andrew
_______________________________________________________
Andrew Hobart FRCS FFAEM
Birmingham
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|