IT WAS reassuring to hear that the catastrophic direction taken by the CCG has been halted; but the people and processes that gave rise to it are still in place.
The consequences in terms of financial cost were summed up excellently in last week’s Observer Comment. With financial pressures on our hospitals we have seen £500,000 wasted: Yet there is potential for much more, with the CCG now to obtain legal advice.
Thanks to the Observer and the diligence of groups such as ‘Don’t Cut us Out’, ‘38 Degrees’ and the scrutiny of the HASC, we have been made aware of the lack of transparency and the incompetence of the CCG.
Why was there no impact assessment prior to the offer of a contract? Instead we see that the CCG had intended to proceed regardless of concerns raised.
We have read how Dr George Findlay’s concerns were dismissed by Dr Armstrong who had suggested that the hospital had raised undue concerns simply because they had lost the bid. This apparent arrogant approach perhaps explains the incompetence and ignorance that appears to have prevailed in this process. How can there be any confidence in the claim that the CCG is ‘committed to providing the best service for our patients’?
However, the system which places such a body, (of whom only seven could vote due to ‘declared interests’) in charge of these decisions needs to be changed if we are to be safe from any future damage they can cause.