'We need a decision on town's stroke unit - and not delays'
Yeovil's MP has raised his concerns in Parliament
Yeovil’s MP has openly criticised the health secretary for delaying a decision on the future of the town’s stroke services.
The NHS Somerset integrated care board (ICB) voted in late-January to approve plans to remove Yeovil Hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit (HASU), meaning the most urgent stroke patients will be transported to either Dorchester or Taunton for treatment.
The decision has proved immensely unpopular with local residents, with newly-elected Yeovil MP Adam Dance asking for the decision to be called in and reviewed by health secretary Wes Streeting MP.
After failing to receive a timely response, Mr Dance raised the issue directly with the speaker of the House of Commons, who in turn reprimanded the government for not being “timely” in answering MPs’ questions.
Stroke services are categorised by the NHS into two camps – hyper-acute (where emergency treatment is required within the first 72 hours) and acute (where the stroke is less life-threatening).
Under the agreed reforms, Yeovil will retain its acute stroke provision but all hyper-acute stroke patients will be transported to either Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton or Dorset County Hospital in Dorchester, whichever is closer.
Implementing the changes is expected to cost around £4m out of the county’s health revenue budget (i.e. day-to-day spending) – including £1.9m for additional staffing at pay at Musgrove Park Hospital and £1.8m for similar costs at Dorset County Hospital.
Around £1.8m of capital funding will be provided to ensure Dorset County Hospital has sufficient capacity for the additional patients.
Mr Dance (who also represents South Petherton and Islemoor on Somerset Council) raised his concerns directly with speaker of the House of Commons Lindsay Hoyle on Tuesday afternoon (December 10).
He said: “On August 1, I wrote to the secretary of state for health and social care about the closure of Yeovil Hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit.
“Despite following up several times, including with his senior staff, I have not received a response.
“On December 2, I submitted a named-day parliamentary question for response on December 6, but I have received only a holding answer.
“My understanding is that while members of parliament can occasionally expect to receive a holding answer, we should usually receive a proper answer by the due date, or at least in a timely manner.
“From a previous parliamentary exchange, I understand that the decision to give a holding answer is determined by the terms of the question, how much information is sought and how difficult it is to obtain, but I do not believe that I am asking a question of great difficulty.
“What more can I do to ensure a response from the DHSC for my constituency of Yeovil?”
Mr Dance’s August letter called for the HASU decision to be reviewed on the the following grounds:
Flaws in the initial consultation, which failed to consider retaining the HASU at Yeovil
Increased travel times for stroke patients, potentially worsening outcomes
Concerns about the cost-effectiveness of establishing a new unit in Dorchester compared to upgrading the existing facility at Yeovil
The ICB revealed in late-November that implementing the changes may take longer than expected due to the need to remove “concealed asbestos” in different parts of Yeovil Hospital, including one of the existing stroke wards.
Mr Hoyle reprimanded Mr Streeting and the DHSC for taking so long to respond to Mr Dance, stating that all MPs should expect “timely answers” to their questions.
He said: “The chair is not responsible for the quality or timeliness of ministers’ answers to correspondence or to questions, but it seems to me that the honourable gentleman has waited an awfully long time, both for a reply to his letter and for a substantive answer to his written question.
“I am sure that those on the Treasury bench will have noted his remarks, and I hope that somebody from the DHSC is already drafting a response. I am sure that they will be in touch with him very soon to explain what is going on.
“I do not want to have to keep repeating this, but members have a right to expect timely answers to correspondence, and to expect that when a holding answer is issued, a substantive reply will be along very soon thereafter.
“This seems to be a trend; it is becoming more and more apparent that ministers are not responding.
“I am still waiting for a minister in the House of Lords to respond to me, so I know the frustration well.”