RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO BRIDGFORD MEGA SURGERY
The proposal by five GP surgeries in West Bridgford to merge and move to a large new building on Wilford Lane, at some distance from the main residential areas, has proved controversial. Opponents of the scheme that affects some 30,000 patients are concerned not only about the extra journeys involved by the choice of site, but also about the limited scope of public involvement so far.
Feedback on the consultation exercise, which attracted over 3,000 responses, is yet to be revealed, but it is thought most are against the scheme. Results from a smaller questionnaire, carried out by local Lib Dem councillors in December 2011 in the Musters Ward, showed that 69% of responses were against the proposal, with 21.5 % as don’t knows and only 9.5% in favour. It also indicates that there is support for the option of a smaller merger of two or possibly three surgeries, enabling the purchase of a more central site.
The main issue emerging was the highly inconvenient location of the proposed new site for those patients without access to a car. It seems awkward to reach by all modes of travel, especially on foot and by bus, from most parts of central Bridgford.
Opponents argue that the difficulty of the journey by foot, cycle or bus will prove as critical as the extra distance, since there is a complex road junction plus two busy main roads to negotiate and, for bus users, two routes are involved. This may deter some patients altogether and they may opt to move to a more convenient surgery which they can reach in greater safety.
Patients are also questioning the value of the additional locally-based services that the PCT claims will be accommodated at Wilford Lane. Almost all of these additional services (such as physiotherapy and phlebotomy) are currently available either at the five surgeries, or at the modern West Bridgford Health Centre on Musters Road.
The feedback so far indicates that many Bridgford patients feel that the overall costs of accessing the new surgery will outweigh the supposed benefits. They see a consultation process which was flawed because only one option was offered, and no early public meetings were held to explain proposals and gauge reactions fully. The building is already part-designed and a planning application close to submission.
Jake Jackson is recently retired and would like to see a more accessible surgery than that proposed. Speaking as a patient of the Trent Bridge practice, he said: “The message to our GPs and the PCT is please think again. Thousands of people in West Bridgford will be adversely affected by this proposal, both current and future generations. Car travel will only get more costly and difficult in the future, especially for the elderly and
under -25s. It seems to me that proper consultation needs good and timely feedback. At present, patient views are coming second-best. The PCT and the GPs should come clean and present the full picture well in advance of any final decision. Then they should be prepared to change their plans significantly and not merely try to tinker with local bus routes.
“I fear that the PCT Board’s judgement will be clouded by its emphasis upon the business case for the project. The economies of scale for the GPs should not be more important that patients’ travel issues and the need for a healthy, less car dependent environment.”
Jake is keen to hear from others who support the stance against the merger and is willing to make representations to the PCT Board and/or their local doctor. Call 0115 981 6036 or send an email to pjakejackson@gmail.com.
In response to your article in issue 109 ‘Bridgford split on mega surgery plans’, I take exception to the suggestion by Peter Roche that all objectors are politically motivated. I am a patient who has always been able to walk to the doctor’s. If it moves to Wilford Lane I cannot get there by bus. I do not have access to a car most of the time. The elderly, pregnant and mothers with young children will have a harder time than me. It is easy to think that the County Council will pick up the bill for providing a new bus service (you can’t just divert existing ones). In fact we all know money is tight and providing this will mean that some other bus service has to be cut or reduced.
Peter Roche and Patient Participation Groups are too cosy with the doctors and do not want to have their agreed posiitons questioned. But patients as a whole have been kept in the dark about these plans until too late a stage. Other sites would be possible if practices were amalgamated into 2 smaller groups instead of one big one.
The assumptions behind the choosing of the site have not been examined. Proximity to the centre of the area should have been a major factor not ignored for expediency. By the way, I have yet to see what services would be provided that could avoid the need to go to QMC. Who needs to go to a surgery for counselling, weight loss etc., they can all be provided in community buildigns much more centrally. This scheme is more to do with GP partners building empires that they can then take a fat salary from.
I too am appalled at the disgraceful comments of Peter Roache.
I am not politically motivated nor are my views represented by the Patients Participation Groups, who have not to my knowledge actively sought the views of patients – certainly not mine. I agree with Jean Jones that these groups are probablty in too cosy a relationship with the GP’s.
I have nothing against GP’s. My daughter and son-in-law are both GP’s in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. I have nothing but praise for the staff at Ludlow Hill Surgery and have every confidence in them.
But why this clamour for ‘Super Surgeries’? I for one do not want to be a patient amongst many thousands seeing a different doctor each time. Inspite of assurances that patients will be able to see a doctor of their choice – the reality will be very different.
I have submitted my comments to the PCT and await their response with interest.
Wilford Lane has become a complete nightmare for residents and users alike.
Innept Councillors from the County Council and Rushcliffe BC take and make the horendous decissions that will affect and blight the area for years to come, all in the name of what?
Rushcliffe is renouned for disposing of as much green field land as possible. If it’s green, then let’s approve a building project for it. Nothing to do with politics, but all to do with revenue.
The objection I have regarding the proposed re-siting of the doctors surgery’s is the unecessary destruction of the green fields to make way for it. Reportedly 56 or so sites were considered and the open green field was chosen. SHAME on YOU ALL who were involved in the site proposal!!
Moving the surgery’s on medical grounds, so more services can be provided. Well an environmental report on Air Quality in West Bridgford and along Wilford Lane was very critical So what happens? New Schools, Sainbury’s, the demolition of the Old Beckett School buildings to make way for more appartments. We have a B road used as the main trunk between Ratcliffe Road and the MI Motorway. We need weight restrictions and definate speed camera control of the ridiculas excess speeds being used by the so called proffesional drivers of buses, Fuel Tankers, Taxis, Articulated Delivery vehicles. Then of course all the parking from the Football games and Test matches. Can you imagian the very young, old or infirmed trying to cross this road ? Can you see the traffic chaos coursed by vehicles trying to tun right into and out of the entrance to the proposed surgery.
think again please !!!!
I find it amazing that suddenly all five of the surgery’s considering the amalgamation are being described by Peter Roche and the NHS Nottinghamshire County medical director Trevor Mills as being unfit for purpose. I wonder just how many members or participants there are in Ludlow Hill PPG and anyother group for that matter?
Can somebody ex[lain to me what is wrong with the West Bridgford Health Centre on Musters Road. From all the accounts that I am party too are that, patients are very pleased with the care and service they receive.
I am 63 years old, and I have never seen a stretcher in use at a doctors surgery! This amalgamation proposal is a doctors revenue motivated scheme and nothing more. Before the building and proposal is pursued, undertake a proper referendum of all the patients involved and not just be swayed by the vocal few, as our friends above. Then and very importantly, find a suitable brown field site. If that is beyond the proposers, then have a compulsary purchase scheme do the deedful. For instance the Old Balfour Beatty site also on Wilford Lane or the Old Texaco petrol station and derilict Indian Restaurant on London Road. There are more suitable sites out there!!
I, like Jean Jones, object to being described as “politically motivated” for expressing concerns about the proposed practice relocation which are in fact based on the evidence-based benefits (to individual health and the environment) of physical activity such as walking. I also wish to see continued good primary care provision in (rather than adjacent to) West Bridgford which I am sure is what the GPs and primary care teams would ideally like, too. The ideas about public transport are wishful thinking. Our existing services have recently been reduced in frequency during the evenings which does not suggest that resources will be available for a meaningful additional service. In any case, the real problem is the peripheral location of the site, not public transport per se. A new bus service would not meet the objective of keeping people physically active and making it easy for people to make the choice to walk or cycle rather than get in their cars. In addition I find myself wondering what plans the PCT has for primary care provision for the extensive housing development which will eventually take place up at Sharphill. According to the PCT’s own figures, that new population will not be large enough on its own to justify a new practice, and with most of the existing provision moved out of the area, it will be poorly served. Perhaps the PCT could tell us.
I was horrified to learn of a health centre being built on this lovely field. Wilford Lane is a ‘B’ road and the second busiest ‘B’ road in Nottinghamshire. To have an extra 1,500 – 2,000 cars a day accessing this site is absolute madness and downright dangerous. To have vulnerable and elderly people driving or trying to cross the road to enter the site would be hazardous.
At the PCT Board mtg on 31st May the PCT decided to go ahead with this proposal without so much as a show of hands. They did not offer any questions at all from patients and Wilford Lane residents who attended the meeting. It was totally one-sided and an absolute sham. Patients opinions were not taken into account at all. Have members of the PCT board that made this decision actually visited the proposed site? They were invited to but to my knowledge never took up the offer from W. Lane residents.
I hope that everyone who is not in favour of this move will oppose the planning application by Rushcliffe Borough Council.