Top-rated hospital's chief suspended in list inquiry

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The chief executive of one of England's most highly rated hospitals has been suspended because of allegations that waiting lists were fiddled. Jeff Chandra will remain on paid leave until an internal investigation has been concluded at Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands.

Good Hope was identified in Department of Health league tables last month as one of the country's most improved hospitals. Having won just one star for its performance in 2001, it was this year among 46 acute trusts awarded a top three-star rating.

But yesterday Sir Bernard Zissman, chairman of the trust, said Mr Chandra had been suspended "pending an investigation into administrative matters relating to the management of waiting lists".

He added: "The decision to suspend Mr Chandra was taken by the non-executive directors and is effective until the investigation is concluded, which is being addressed, in the interests of everyone, as a matter of urgency."

Mr Chandra, 52, took charge of the hospital in July 1998. He had been chief executive of Walsall Health Authority and an acting chief executive officer of South Birmingham Health Authority.

Nigel Crisp, NHS chief executive, warned that firm action would be taken if the allegations were substantiated. "Most NHS managers are honest and hard-working people, who work tirelessly to ensure fast, convenient, high-quality care for patients. But where there are allegations of waiting lists being managed inappropriately we will fully investigate each and every case."

Last month, the hospital was reported to have met three key targets to reduce 18-month, 15-month and 26-week waiting lists and its improvement in performance was attributed to new initiatives. But the previous year, the hospital had just one star, the second lowest, and was said to have "significantly underachieved" in three areas, including cancelled operations and trolley waits of more than four hours.

Mr Chandra has been critical of the trust's funding levels. In June, he told a meeting of the north Birmingham community health council that many other hospitals in the area received more money than the Good Hope.

Sir Bernard said yesterday it would be "wholly inappropriate" to comment further. But he said the inquiry "did not concern the standards of patient care delivered at Good Hope". He insisted the suspension was an interim measure. "It is normal practice to follow this course of action while allegations are fully investigated. Suspension is a neutral act." Tim Smythe, the deputy chief executive and the director of finance, is acting chief executive.

Health ministers admit revelations about fiddled waiting lists have damaged the NHS. At the Royal United Hospital in Bath at least 2,000 more patients than reported waited more than 13 weeks for an in-patient appointment.

Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat health spokes-man, said fiddling the figures was becoming more common because of the Government's emphasis on meeting targets. "If this suspension is another case of fiddling the figures to achieve a higher star rating, it's a natural outcome of the Government's target-driven approach to health care. These star rating gimmicks are a measure of either how well hospitals massage their figures or a measure of how much they distort clinical priorities."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in