Bromley Clinical Commissioning group has published an Outline Strategic Plan for the Future Utilisation of Beckenham Beacon (BB).
However, the reality is that we are not much further forward. Most of the recommendations are for further work for instance that BB forms part of a wider estates review; work is continued to explore redesign of pathways with a view to transferring out-patient activity from acute settings into the community using BB as a facility (see that jargon!); and that CCG considers further exploration of the gaps identified between need and planned provision. It is welcome, though some may think fairly obvious, that CCG should “consider specifying the desired location of service delivery within future service specification, wherever this is appropriate”, and “agreement is made with all providers providing services at Beckenham Beacon that they will not discontinue or alter the delivery of any service without prior consultation and agreement with the CCG and key stake holders”. We welcome the recommendation that the CCG looks to maximise the facility and improve accessibility for patients through extended operational hours (evenings and weekends) where appropriate.
The Chair of WBRA has attended all meetings of the Patient Advisory Group, but feels that this group has not been used as well as it could have been. The only document we discussed was the “Needs Assessment” which is a statistical analysis of what people using BB are like – the usual age/ gender / income/ ethnic minority profiles. Clearly if you live here it didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. We were asked to prioritise the services we thought should be provided in BB, but WBRA said that it was difficult to do so based just on a statistical analysis and no information on current usage or the capacity of BB to take existing or new services.
Of concern is that it appears that Kings, who took over running BB in October, want to move all paediatric services to PRU. This is apparently because of patient safety issues in that there are insufficient consultants to provide cover at both PRU and BB. However, we understand that further questions will be asked regarding this proposal.
WBRA and CCARA have asked that the Patient Advisory Group be continued into the next phase, but have not had a direct response to this question.