I NOTE with interest your report on the Lothian NHS health board (“NHS board expects rise in waiting times”, The Herald, May 16). NHS Lothian says that due to “financial challenges”, funding to support treatment time guarantees by sending patients to private hospitals would “no longer be available”.
NHS Lothian blamed a funding shortfall from the Government plus the ageing population and “a lack of staff and capacity”.
I believe the lack of capacity is self-inflicted.
When the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (ERI) was planned, Lothian BMA discovered that the new building was going to have fewer beds than the existing one. The health board assured the BMA that the number of beds would be sufficient because patients would be discharged within three days of admission. Possible delays due to infection were dismissed since, being a “state of the art” building, there would be no infections. The new ERI became notorious for an extremely high rate of infection because because of confusion over the supply of cleaners.
The health board continued to close existing hospitals with no increase in the number of beds, or operating capacity, at ERI. Hospital closures in Lothian resulted in the loss of 20 fully functioning operating theatres plus the accompanying beds (double the old Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh share of 10 operating theatres plus beds).
Having recently been in ERI twice, I became acutely aware of the problems facing my ex-colleagues. The first time, I was kept in recovery for hours before a ward bed was available.
The second time was six hours, and another patient on the same operating list remained in recovery till next morning, when a medical bed was eventually found for a patient in the surgical ward.
NHS Lothian has a very high burden of PFI debt imposed during the Blair/Brown and Cameron governments. Nevertheless the board management structure increased, resulting in the necessity to move from a relatively small building to a very much larger establishment.
Dr Evan Lloyd,
72 Belgrave Road,
Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here