Patient safety (From Penarth Times)

Patient safety

I THINK the Vale of Glamorgan MP's assertion that "an independent report identified the hospital as unsafe for patients" is both misleading and untrue.

The report on Sully hospital published in January 2000 by consultants HAS 2000 contained the notorious "safety risks" phrase, mentioning "hanging hazards, potential for barricading and loose wiring" and an empty building in poor repair close to the Bristol channel.

Apart from repair and maintenance problems, they criticised the low level of staff and lack of a secure unit for mental health patients. NO staff could be spared for escorting patients using the grounds, as is usual in such hospitals.

However, "safety risks" were not overcome by moving patients to Whitchurch. The Royal college of psychiatry (RCP, May 2000) report found staffing levels there "below the minimum safety level" and said Whitchurch is "physically inappropriate modern mental health services".

What of the so-called independence of these reports?

HAS 2000 were employed by the Trust who wanted to close down Sully hospital. So they recommended closure rather than upgrading and played up the term "safety risks" to suit their paymasters.

RCP changed the May 2000 report under pressure from the Trust, to delete the sentence on staffing being "below the minimum safety level".

John Smith is too experienced a politician to be misled by words like "unsafe" and "independent". Nor should he seek to mislead them.

Max Wallis Vale Mental Health Campaign Westbourne Road Penarth