Apology not enough, Jenny tells health boss on Panorama health programme

1.25.22pm BST (GMT +0100) Fri 9th Sep 2005

Jenny speaks out

Letter from Jenny Barnard-Langston, The Argus Letters Page, 9th September 2005.

The apology from Peter Coles, chief cxecutive of Brighton and Sussex University Hospital Trust, made startling reading (The Argus, September 6).

That management "knew of the problems" and put them down to the "old wards" beggars belief.

A decision was made (wrongly, in my view) many years ago to retain the old wards. I am sure no one envisaged it would lead to a gross abuse of care toward elderly patients featured on the BBC's Panorama programme.

Mr Coles' apology, couched in these terms, is shameful.

What aspects of the quality of provision for vulnerable elderly patients has changed since Panorama's expose?

Mr Coles has appeared before Brighton and Hove City Council's scrutiny committee and said he was sorry - but for what?

He said he was sorry "our services for elderly people were shown in such a terrible light". They were shown in a terrible light because they are terrible and Mr Coles, his fellow managers and the Trust's board, which collectively failed to monitor the provision of care on the wards, should be ashamed.

Little will be achieved by shuffling papers, endless meetings and empty words.

Why was there no comment in The Argus's report from the chairman of the trust's board? The chairman and his fellow non-executives are charged by the Government on behalf of the public to develop high-quality services for the local population. It is they who are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the public - what, if anything, have they been doing to monitor the quality of provision in our hospital?

It should not have been necessary for an undercover nurse to have to expose the appalling treatment; there should be regular checks being made by those charged with the responsibility for delivering the service - the chief executive, the chairman, the non-executive board members and the managers.

Furthermore the problems would have been addressed if the board had been willing to listen to relatives and walk around the wards themselves. It would be an interesting exercise to check whether any of the management and board members would be expecting to be cared for in the conditions they are providing for others, or are they signed up to a private scheme?

Jenny Barnard-Langston, Hove