THE letter from Sandy Watson, chair of Tayside NHS Board (April 3), is, I am afraid, only a further illustration of the incompetence that has beset the proposed 20-seat Integrated Dental Training and Teaching Centre (IDTTC) in Perth.
THE letter from Sandy Watson, chair of Tayside NHS Board (April 3), is, I am afraid, only a further illustration of the incompetence that has beset the proposed 20-seat Integrated Dental Training and Teaching Centre (IDTTC) in Perth.
In his letter, he stated: "An alternative development site could have been made available at no cost, but additional building costs involved far outweigh the savings in site costs."
Unfortunately for Mr Watson, in the outline business case that was presented to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee (SPRC), it is clearly stated that the capital cost (including construction) for the alternative site would have been £150,663 less than the chosen site. It would appear the officers in whom he has "complete confidence" have misrepresented the position to him.
I was also surprised to read his claim that "we have engaged and consulted with the public at each stage of this project". Apart from the presence of one member of the Public Partnership Group (PPG) in the project team that prepared the business case, I am unaware of any consultations with the public. Perhaps Mr Watson would let us know where and when these consultation sessions took place, the matters discussed, the numbers attending and the outcomes.
What remains abundantly clear is that Tayside NHS Board has ignored the criteria laid down by Nicola Sturgeon, Cabinet Secretary for Health, in that this project is not evidence-based, is not patient-centred and it is not in accordance with clinical priorities. There have certainly been claims to have "spoken to many different patient groups including those in rural areas and they were happy to travel into Perth to the business park (the chosen site)". Members of the SPRC challenged this statement and, despite having submitted written requests for any supporting evidence, Tayside NHS Board has been unable to produce a shred of evidence in support of this claim.
Contrary to being patient-centred, the project, if approved, will go a long way to centralise the provision of future NHS dental services in Perth city. Not one of the seven options considered by the project team looked at the possibility of allocating a significant share of the multi-million-pound development to the communities outwith the city. I do not believe that ignoring the needs of so many patients is in accord with clinical priorities. Clearly, Mr Watson and I are unlikely ever to agree on how best to proceed regarding this project. But I have a suggestion for him: why doesn't he suggest to Nicola Sturgeon that she invites the Independent Scrutiny Panel (ISP) to investigate the proposal for the IDTTC?
If the outcome of this investigation is that his officers are in compliance with the Cabinet Secretary's criteria, then the whole community will be suitably reassured that their best interests are being promoted by Tayside NHS Board. If the ISP were to find the board was not in compliance with her criteria, then the sooner their proposals for the dental health of Perth and Kinross are redrawn the better.
Bill Stewart, Dunning, Perthshire.
