Doubts raised over findings of £4,500 NHS report

Stoke Mandeville Hospital Stoke Mandeville Hospital

DOUBTS have been raised over a £4,500 transport study which may have produced a massive underestimate of the extra distance set to be travelled by hospital patients and visitors in Bucks.

Health chiefs commissioned the study to assess the impact of removing several inpatient services from Wycombe Hospital and centralising the beds at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

Cottee, a transport consulting firm based in Essex, estimated the changes would result in 44,600 extra kilometres being driven per year. This included the effect of a specialist breast care unit being created at Wycombe.

The report led NHS chiefs to say the controversial changes would only have a "small" impact on travel, before the changes were rubber-stamped in May.

But the Bucks Free Press has suggested assumptions made in the report appear to have skewed the results - and the estimated increase should be closer to 950,000 kilometres.

And after looking closely at the figures and methodology, Wycombe MP Steve Baker believes this estimate is closer to the mark.

He said: "We think you are absolutely right and they have underestimated the figures. It does look like they’ve made fundamental errors....They’ve spent £4,500 and it looks like they’ve got it wrong.

"The company should be looking again at this given what the Bucks Free Press has discovered. And they should be making a response to the charges that have been made at no further expense.

"If they have got it wrong they’ve got considerable explaining to do."

Cottee did not wish to comment, but asked the BFP to contact Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, for which it drew up the report.

The Trust was asked whether it agreed with the suggested figures, and whether the NHS would reconsider its assertion that the overall impact on travel is "small".

Spokesman Lee Jones said: "The transport impact assessment was carried out by independent specialists in the field, and the assumptions made by them are clearly outlined in the report.

"The assessment was based on looking at the whole of Buckinghamshire ward by ward and analysing what difference to travel the changes might make.

"Some assumptions were made about where people go now for treatment and where they might go in the future (and these assumptions are explained in the report). This sort of analysis seeks to show the high level impact of changes but cannot take account of patient choices and other factors."

See related links for background on the hospital changes and click here for the full transport assessment: Transport Statement - April 2012.pdf

SECTION 3 of the Cottee report explains the changes will affect 7,600 patients who currently use Wycombe Hospital - who will now be treated at Stoke Mandeville instead.

Although it seems obvious to assume these patients all live in the south of Bucks - the Cottee report assumes they "come from across the Trust area in proportion to the existing populations of each electoral ward".

This assumption was made because "there is no home postcode data available on patients who have recently made use of these services".

So the report suggests hundreds of patients from north Bucks are currently making the journey south to Wycombe Hospital - despite the fact Stoke Mandeville is closer.

This could include a diabetes inpatient from Winslow, for example, making a hour-long journey to Wycombe - despite Stoke Mandeville offering the same service and taking half the time to get to.

Mr Baker agrees with the BFP that it would be better to assume those 7,600 patients all live in wards closer to Wycombe Hospital - so travelling an average of 30km extra [there and back] to get to Stoke Mandeville.

Though patients from some areas, such as Great Missenden, would travel less than 30km, many would travel further from places such as High Wycombe and Marlow.

Meanwhile, the BFP suggested the 1,700 patients who will get specialist breast care from Wycombe, instead of going to Stoke Mandeville, would travel about 50km further on average.

Once multiple trips for visitors are accounted for under this method, as per the Cottee report, the total increase in kilometres travelled was estimated at just under 950,000.

Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust challenged this figure, saying some patients do currently travel across the county for the some of the affected services, such as respiratory inpatients, which is primarily based at Wycombe Hospital. No figures were provided for this.

It said patient choice may also mean patients currently travel to a hospital which is further away - which could be due to shorter waiting times or personal preferences.

The Trust also claimed it was "incorrect" to assume the 7,600 will travel an average 30km extra. It said this does not take into account the variety of locations patients may travel from, adding: "This is why the assumptions had to be made in proportion to the populations."

Comments(12)

gpn01 says...
1:38pm Wed 8 Aug 12

"This is why the assumptions had to be made in proportion to the populations."
.
No, actually. What you need to do is use valid data instead of making assumptions.
.
The local hospitals must have data on the number of treatments they've provided and who the patients are. They must also have postcode data on the patients. Just glue it together and then anonymise it and supply it to the company doing the "research".

geoffW says...
2:04pm Wed 8 Aug 12

"Health chiefs commissioned the study to .... "
.
Find the results it wants to show the public.

Darren Hayday says...
3:25pm Wed 8 Aug 12

geoffW wrote:
"Health chiefs commissioned the study to .... "
.
Find the results it wants to show the public.
This I'm afraid is very plausible and properly correct...
WDC did the same thing in regards to the Stadium. (allegedly)

J B Blackett says...
4:13pm Wed 8 Aug 12

There are lies , *****d lies , statistics and then Health Service report information.
.
The opposite conclusion can be drawn even the original 'data' points in the opposite direction. That's a tactic all self-serving autocrats , bureaucrats and dictators use.
.
Why the surprise ? You trust the banks and the Stock Exchange and its procedures , don't you ?

gpn01 says...
5:52pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Darren Hayday wrote:
geoffW wrote: "Health chiefs commissioned the study to .... " . Find the results it wants to show the public.
This I'm afraid is very plausible and properly correct... WDC did the same thing in regards to the Stadium. (allegedly)
Actually it ended up doing the opposite - WDC commissioned IPW to produce a Strategic Outline Business Case for the stadium proposal. Why IPW was chosen wasn't publicly explained (the company not having an existing track record) and was subject, I believe, to an investigation by the District Auditor as it was in breech of WDC's procurement rules, but that's another story! Anyway, IPW chose to highlight the benefits of Liberty Stadium in Swansea - something that Swansea Council (and the National Audit Office of Wales) acknowledged was an abject failure and Colchester United - a project that Colchester United itself identified as being the cause of a drop in their matchday attendence!
.
So, yes sometimes Councils commissions reports to say what they want them to....and sometimes Councils don't bother reading what they've been given to make sure the story stacks up!
.
Looks like whoever commissioned this report didn't look closely enough either.

shakesheadindisbelief says...
8:34pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Why is this report in kilometres?

YorksDavey says...
9:05pm Wed 8 Aug 12

shakesheadindisbelie
f
wrote:
Why is this report in kilometres?
Blooming good question about kilometres! Got kids doing the counting? Seriously, do we need this report?
I once had to endure an ambulance ride to Manderville, This from Wycombe Marsh, all because of a MINOR back injury that A&E dealt with. It was not a great journey on that road, which I use regularly and isn't any better now than back then. So, the simple question is which is the cheaper option, upgrading the road to dual carrigeway it's entire length or keeping the services at Wycombe?

J B Blackett says...
2:49am Thu 9 Aug 12

By rejecting all these reports and by not accepting the unrequested imposition of 'Kilometres' , the Electorate have (yet again) let down the Bureaucrats and Betters .
.
It is obviously getting near the time to appoint / select a different Electorate. This current lot are bolshy , argumentative and unco-operative

Brian JM says...
7:01am Thu 9 Aug 12

I think we all knew the effect on travel would be significant. All the more reason to look again at upgrading the dangerous road from HW to PR.

s6blr says...
9:14am Thu 9 Aug 12

The report is an obvious attempt to scan both the hospital AND the public.

Kilometres -- are the consultants on drugs? This is the UK -- we should be demanding a refund if they can't work out in Essex what unit we use.

Furthermore, there's a simple way to calculate number of MILES:

Take the daily number of people parking at HW hospital.

Presume 85% are NOT local, as they've driven there.

Take the distance from HW -> Stoke Mandeville and then multiply.

That will give a far more credible answer in MILES.

Can I have my £4,500 please?

motco says...
10:23am Thu 9 Aug 12

They could upgrade the Bradenham Road to three lane dual carriageway but it would still have to go through Princes Risborough unless a bypass is built.

Joe Ordinary says...
10:46am Thu 9 Aug 12

Two points, if I may.
-
Several have indicated that, irrespective of the correct number of additional kms/miles which will be driven the obvious way to reduce the difficulties caused by this additional travel is to improve the road between the two hospital locations.
-
This is not an NHS issue it is a Bucks CC issue.
-
What is being done to achieve this necessary (for multiple reasons) infrastructure upgrade?
-
Cottee are an independent organisation with a vested interest in ensuring that work which they produce is seen to be both professional and unbiased. They have nothing to gain from misleading either the NHS or the people of Bucks. They were acting against a brief using data made available to them (they could not be expected to consider unavailable data).
-
Virtually all studies involve the application of assumptions based on the unavoidable situation that not all facts are normally available.
-
If a problem exists with the output from their study it is either because they have been inadequately briefed or have been provided with inaccurate data (I have seen no suggestion that they are unprofessional / techically incompetent.
-
How qualified / professionally trained to produce a brief was the person(s) briefing Cottee and to what extent (if at all) was the format of the brief moderated by input from the Patients, Carers and the Public who will be effected by these changes to the way in which NHS services will be provided to the people of Bucks?

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree