"Inpatients and outpatients from the Grantham and District Hospital catchment area, which includes Sleaford, Newark, Melton Mowbray and villages in between, found the doors to the hospital closed virtually overnight.
“I hope they will take in the message that they must properly consult in the future.” It was a strong judgement and I feel that would be the best course of action for them to take. “It’s a huge relief to hear the trust are not planning to appeal the decision. We knew it was wrong, our main concern now is getting the services fully restored. SOS Grantham Hospital chairman Charmaine Morgan said: “It’s a real vindication of all the concern of the people in the Grantham area.
Justice Linden also noted “numerous patients” had welcomed the changes and that the decision itself was “perfectly rational and was taken in good faith and for proper purposes”. He rejected a contention whether there was sufficient reasons for why the decision was to last for “at least nine months”. He did, however, add that the quarterly reviews carried out after were meaningful, proportionate and fair. “The present case illustrates how failure to involve service users in decision making will foster a sense of injustice or, worse still, undermine confidence in the good faith of the decision maker.” Justice Linden said: “The perspective and concerns of the consumer of the services will lead to better informed decisions and will increase the likelihood that the human impact and implications of plans, proposals and decisions are taken into account. That publicising the decision after it had been taken did not amount to meaningful involvement in the making of the decision.That the board limited feedback to be written questions at a subsequent board meeting and did not answer all.That media interviews had not been enough to enable service users to understand the proposal or a fair opportunity to respond.There was “no good reason” why publicity could not have been taken at that stage.A decision on the proposed green site had been made by May 12 at the latest and “steps could and should have been taken to involve service users in the development and consideration of the proposal”.
The evidence for a lack of resources and need for urgency was “thin” and “weak on facts”.The reason for the approach the trust took appeared to have been led by a concern about “messaging” and the “reaction of service users”.The legal duty to involve service users could not “be sacrificed” without clear evidence.The less than three-day consultation period was not enough to be meaningful or fair.There had been “a total failure” of the trust to comply with the National Health Service Act and consult with residents.Here are the top lines from the Dawson v ULHT judgment (final), in which Mr Justice Linden said: ULHT has apologised following the result and said it will not appeal the decision. Campaigners said they have been vindicated after a High Court judge ruled that United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (ULHT) did not consult properly when it downgraded Grantham Hospital into a Covid-free site.Īs the Journal reported on Friday, following a review in March, Mr Justice Linden ruled that the trust breached its legal duty to consult people on the changes, and said the decision taken in June 2020, which saw a number of services transferred out of the hospital and the creation of an urgent treatment centre, had been unlawful.
0 kommentar(er)
