SaHF DMBC Volume 1 Edition 1.1.pdf - Shaping a healthier future

This evaluation was agreed by the Clinical Board and the Programme Board preconsultation.
9.9.23 Feedback received about the patient choice sub-criterion during consultation
During consultation we received the following feedback related to the patient choice subcriterion:
Kensington & Chelsea LINk
“Where services are to be specialised there is a removal of choice for the patient, therefore it
is important that these services are monitored to ensure that they are run in a sensitive
manner, are accessible, and that all staff are trained in accordance with a robust equality
delivery strategy.”
Independent report conducted by Tim Rideout Limited on behalf of the London
Borough of Ealing
“In terms of patient choice (included within the access criteria), the business case gives the
highest rating to the “two options [that] result in a lower reduction of sites in obstetric and
elective care as well as leading to five Trusts having major hospitals”. Indeed, emphasis is
placed on patient choice benefitting from a greater number of Trusts (not sites) offering
services. This argument is open to challenge on two counts. Firstly, no evidence is provided
to support the proposition that patient choice is enhanced by the number of trusts as
opposed to sites offering services to patients. Secondly, the distribution of sites between
NHS organisations is not fixed and can be changed.”
9.9.24 The implications of this feedback for the patient choice sub-criterion
We have considered feedback received about the sub-criterion as follows:
Response to feedback about how patient choice relates to the number of trusts
referenced in the Rideout report: The Co-operation and Competition Panel set up
by DH and Monitor to advise Secretary of State and Monitor, and the Office of Fair
Trading (OFT), work from a presumption that it is the number of providers (trusts)
that impact on patient choice and competition. We recommend that the JCPCT
makes that same presumption.
The feedback we received did not include suggestions for an alternative.
9.9.25 The outcome of the patient choice sub-criterion
Given the feedback, the absence of any suggested alternative, we reached the conclusion
that the evaluation of the sub-criterion is robust and valid for decision making.
We confirmed this decision with the following groups during the post consultation phase:
Clinical Board
Finance and Business Planning
Programme Board.
This outcome is unchanged from pre-consultation. The complete analysis of patient choice
can be found in Chapter 11.
9c Decision making analysis stage 6 358