Chamber and committees

I have today written to the Chief Executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to confirm my decision in relation to the Lightburn Hospital service change proposals.

I have carefully considered all the available information and representations and am not convinced by the board’s case for change. As such, I am rejecting NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s proposal to transfer the inpatient and outpatient/day case services from Lightburn Hospital, and the request to close the facility; and have asked that the board now works to maintain and improve the quality of the service delivered from the hospital, in the best interests of local people.

In considering these proposals my paramount concern has been whether the benefits to patients of co-locating the inpatient, outpatient and day hospital services for older people in North East Glasgow on two larger hospital sites outweighs the obvious drawbacks around geographical access for a vulnerable patient group from one of the most disadvantaged communities in Scotland. I have repeatedly heard – not least from local patients and clinicians - that Lightburn Hospital provides high quality services that are greatly valued by the community. I am extremely conscious of the socio-economic and demographic profile of the area; and that the proposals combined with difficult public transport links could not only disadvantage the community, but also potentially act as a disincentive to some local people with significant health concerns and poor health outlooks accessing necessary care and treatment. I have heard from local patients who are clear that they do not wish to be admitted to an acute inpatient facility hospital but are prepared to attend the day hospital at Lightburn where they can receive the multi-disciplinary input needed to get them back on their feet again. This position is consistent with the national policy direction to treat people as locally as possible; encouraging as much care in the community as is practicable, whilst preventing inappropriate admissions to hospitals. This particularly applies to the outpatient and day hospital services.

I am also conscious of the argument in this case, reinforced by some local clinicians, that the effective rehabilitation of this patient group is best served by continuing to base the service in the local community; preserving easy geographical access to visitors, many of whom are from the same age group and would find the journey to Stobhill in particular most challenging. The benefits of the proposals for patients would therefore have to be clear and compelling to over-ride my real concerns about limiting geographical access to healthcare services in this community.

Hospital services are not static and need to change, and in that context this has been a difficult decision. However, in this particular case I am not convinced by the board’s proposal for change, and am persuaded by the argument for maintaining local access to what is clearly regarded as valuable and high quality local facility.

The government has a policy of maintaining local access to healthcare services where it is appropriate to do so, and where it is in patient’s best interests. It is my view, having carefully considered all the evidence and representations – not least around the adequacy and availability of the public transport options - that local people’s interests are best served by maintaining Lightburn Hospital and its healthcare services.

I have therefore asked that the board now works to maintain and improve the quality of the service delivered from the hospital, in the best interests of local people.