LETTER: Salisbury NHS patients safe
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.THERE WERE serious mistakes in your article about funding problems in the NHS around Salisbury ("Patients abandoned under two-tier NHS", 15 October).
You claimed that only private patients and those from GP fundholders are now getting routine operations in Salisbury. In fact, patients of non-fundholders are getting them too.
You claimed that Salisbury Health Care has cancelled non-emergency surgery for patients of non-fundholding practices for at least six months. In fact, many patients of non-fundholding practices will be admitted from the waiting lists during the next six months.
I explained the facts to your reporter, but these were given only a brief mention: "Christopher Mould ... admitted there was a 'slowing down' of treatment for patients of non-fundholders." Some readers will know that's not the same as stopping.
Since the beginning of the NHS internal market in 1991 there have been different waiting-list targets set by different purchasing health authorities and GP fundholders. There is no secret about this.
Our hospital consultants are not, as claimed, "incensed" and have not "criticised hospital management for continuing to take in patients for whom payment is guaranteed". Like me they are realists and, for certain, they are not suggesting we cancel or postpone more patients, nor that we close more hospital beds.
The article underplays two issues that really are important. The patient referred to in the article had her hopes raised and was disappointed. She feels, as a result, that a six- to seven-month wait for a routine operation is poor service when it's actually well below the national targets set for the NHS and better than the experience of thousands of other patients. I'm very sorry that the information we provided to this patient caused her disappointment and I have investigated to see if we could have avoided it.
Secondly, when funds in the NHS are limited and unplanned admissions to hospitals increase, (extra emergencies, for example) something has to give. In our case it's been waiting-list patients from Wiltshire and Bath Health Commission having to wait longer. But, unhappy though it is, who would argue that heart attacks should not take priority over hernias?
Christopher Mould
Chief Executive
Salisbury Health Care
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments