HEALTH chiefs should build the new community hospital for the Forest of Dean in the Cinderford area, a Jury of 18 locals has said.
The outcome of the jury’s deliberations will be presented as a recommendation to the boards of the Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust and the Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group who will make the final decision at the end of August.
The reasons for supporting Cinderford were the high rate of health issues and “unhealthy behaviours”, its central location, a forest environment, two A roads to Gloucester and the large number of over-65s and over-85s.
The jury said that if the recommendation is accepted, transport from across the Forest should be improved, thought should be given to facilities such as a café or pharmacy, a full range of services and staffing should be ensured and the future needs of the whole Forest should be considered at the planning stage.
In a “statement to our neighbours”, they also insisted that they worked hard to consider the Forest as a whole and remain unbiased.
It said: “The jury was a far-reaching in-depth exercise, where we experienced a wide-range of information allowing us to make an educated decision and one we can be confident has been evaluated.
“It was a rare and beautiful opportunity to work with an impressively diverse, fair representation of people from across the Forest of Dean.
“We have enjoyed every minute contributing our joint thoughts and feelings for the best hospital location.
“Everybody worked hard to ensure that the jury considered the Forest as a whole, that as many people as possible were able to access the new hospital.
“We recognised the limitations, specifically to the large geographical area this hospital is expected to cover.
“While intense, the jury was an absorbing process which everyone completely committed to.
“The jury process asked us to test our fair-mindedness and encouraged us to look at the decision of a future hospital location from a wide range of angles.
We received and reviewed myriad evidence pertaining to hospital location – both generally and as it related to the proposed locations.
“We received information in respect to demographics, equality, population growth, and transport to name a few. Witnesses, who were not to advocate for any particular location, remained unbiased, forcing us to deliberate about how their presentations would inform our choice of hospital location.
“We assessed and re-assessed the options for each location repeatedly with great dedication.
“It is important to for everyone to know that the jury was carried out in unbiased way. We were treated well and protected from outside influence and public observers treated us with respect.
“The citizen’s jury is a worthwhile exercise irrespective of what is done with our recommendation by NHS bodies and enabled us to create a fair representation of our views.”
But there have been claims the jury was “not fit for purpose” because the issue was so local that bias would be difficult to overcome.
Lydney town councillor Brian Pearman, who helped present the town’s case to the jury, in a letter to the Review said: “I have no issue with the jury, merely the process.
“Citizens’ juries are a well-established process in the USA, less so in the UK and, in my opinion not fit for purpose in making this sort of decision.”
----
Numbers headache
A TIE for second place led to something of a headache for organisers of the citizens’ jury.
The ‘winner’ was to be found using the supplementary vote system where jurors voted for their first and second preferences.
If there was no overall winner then second preferences would be added to the first choices with the town having the lowest eliminated if there was not a clear majority.
Cinderford led on the first preferences with eight votes but there was a tie on five votes each for Coleford and Lydney.
That meant checking, with the Electoral Reform Society, what should be done in the event of a tie – but there was no clear advice on that situation.
The deadlock was broken by first eliminating Lydney and then Coleford.
With Lydney out of the frame, it was nine-eight to Cinderford and with Coleford removed it was 11 votes to six in favour of Cinderford.
Malcolm Oswald, director Citizens’ Juries, the community interest company, organising the event, said: “We checked to see if this situation was covered at the Electoral Reform Society. We think it is robust.”
----
Travel problems highlighted
THE citizens’ jury was “impressive” – but underlined the need for two hospitals in the Forest, says a campaign group against replacing Lydney Hospital and the Dilke.
Figures presented to the jury showed that none of the proposed locations were within the desired 30-minute drive from all parts of the Forest.
Campaigner Owen Adams of HOLD – Hands Off Lydney and the Dilke – said: “This whole proposal has been put on trial by the scrutiny of this very good jury of ordinary people and it is refreshing to see people from the community talking about things in their commuity.
“They have given so much more scrutiny than our elected representatives.
“What is very clear is that we need two hospitals so all the district can be covered in a 30-minute drive.
“It was a worthwhile public participation exercise and should be done more often. It’s been well conducted wth a good methodology.
I was quite impressed. It’s a shame they weren’t asked to make the crucial decision.
“We will continue to fight for the two hospitals to be improved and if necessary rebuilt.”
Figures presented to the jury showed that neither Newent or Redmarley in the north or Sedbury in the south could reach Cinderford by car in 30 minutes.
Patients from Newent or Redmarley could not reach Cinderford by public transport within 90 minutes and only in one in four bus journeys from Sedbury would make it within an hour and a half.
The same limitations from Newent and Redmarley apply to Coleford as does the one in four bus journeys from Sedbury and the same public transport issue arises from Mitcheldean.
Car and bus journeys cannot be made within the time from Newent and Redmarley to Lydney and only one in four bus services could get people from Mitcheldean within 90 minutes.
---
Case for Cinderford
The reasons for supporting Cinderford with the number of votes
? Area of highest deprivation in terms of health and disability and unhealthy behaviours, (eight votes)
? Central to the whole of the Forest (six votes)
? More central location for staff who live throughout the Forest (six votes)
? The geographic centre and can provide a Forest environment (five votes)
? Cinderford has two A roads to Gloucester in case of road closures (four votes)
? Large percentage of people over 65 and over 85 (four votes)
? Specialised services already at Dilke, along with new developments such as the dialysis unit
(three votes)
? Highest area of deprivation (three votes)
? Age demographic: Dilke seems to have older age groups, Lydney younger (three votes)
? The regeneration and infrastructure are ready and available (three votes)
? Because of the location, it can serve the Forest and further into Gloucestershire (two votes)
? Cinderford is well suited to serve the southern region of the Forest by car because people from Lydney could reach the hospital in 30 minutes (two votes)
? The infrastructure and accessibility required to deliver services is already in place, along with central area and two major roads for transfer to/from acute care (two votes)
? Northern Quarter investment in college and roads should improve road network and bus services
(two votes)
? You can be born in a car park and still be a Forester (one vote).
Case for Coleford:
Reasons for voting for Coleford and the number of votes
? Good network and existing bus routes (14 votes)
? Green environment with natural beauty (10 votes)
? New site and keen to prove they can do it (seven votes)
? Good public transport links (six votes)
? Co-location with existing services (five votes)
? Centralisation of services (four votes)
? Needs, and would benefit from, regeneration (three votes)
? Benefits from hospice location research (one vote)
? Well suited to serve the southern region by car because both Lydney and Sedbury could reach the hospital in 30 minutes (one vote)
? Well suited to serve the southern region by public transport because Lydney can reach the hospital in 90 minutes (one vote)
Case for Lydney:
Reasons for voting for Lydney and the number of votes
? Friends of Lydney Hospital (15 votes)
? Well-developed plan for population increase (13 votes)
? Transport facilities are good for transferring acute patients to other areas (eight votes)
? Lydney has infrastructure in place to accommodate additional traffic flow and has rail line and bypass (three votes)
? Desire to offer future services e.g. endoscopy – Lydney has potential to grow and attract staff due to infrastructure (four votes)
? Has good infrastructure for patients and staff giving good access (three votes)
? Friends could raise money for new units (two votes)
? Prime for regeneration and plenty of brownfield sites (no figure)
? Easily accessible (one vote)
? Support of medical professionals and an established hospital location (1 vote)