Nursing beds in Ferendune to close after March 2014
As a member of the White Horse Practice Patient Participation group (WHMPppg) I have done some research and found that the nursing beds at Ferendune were initially funded by a local man and that the seemingly inadequate management of the beds by Health authorities and councils may have contributed to their imminent closure.
In 1980s, a local man, Aubrey Parker, discussed giving his land expressly for funding a hospital for Faringdon. It was Mr Parker’s clear wishes that any proceeds from the sale of 3.73 acres near the old cricket pitch should be used towards a hospital in Faringdon, following the decision to close LongworthHospital.
Mr Parker died in 1985. After then, Oxfordshire Health Authority (OHA) minutes show that the plans for a Faringdon Hospital were cancelled, but the new nursing home (Ferendune) would have a special wing for ‘8 hospital like’ beds for Faringdon patients, as well as the usual care home facilities. These Intermediate care or nursing beds, are especially for people needing hospital level nursing or end of life care. The length of stay was intended to be around 6 weeks.
Ferendune was built with contributions from Oxfordshire County Council (OCC), OHA and Anchor Housing, and on Ash Close land provided by Vale of the White Horse District Council. There was some sort of land swap agreed, presumably with the land given by Mr Parker.
The 25 year agreement made in 1991 was for 8 intermediate care beds. In 2006, only 15 years later, a new agreement was put in place based on 6 beds. It is questionable whether it was legal to do this. but OCCs legal department say ’Therefore, in conclusion, in answer to your questions there is an argument that the Care & Funding Arrangements in the 1991 Management Agreement have been superseded by the 2006 Agreement and it is probably unlikely, given the change of practice adopted by the parties in relation to care and funding since commencement of the 2006 Agreement, that it is open for any other party to successfully persuade a Court that the provisions in the 1991 Management Agreement continue to apply’ Ineffect ‘ ‘it’s too late to do anything about this now’. The termination conditions are more flexible than the original agreement.
A significant issue, is poor bed management resulting in, as far as I can see, no time when the use of the beds were maximised. It’s a bit hard to tell to what extent this was, as there are few records. I have some figures for 2010-2013 where stays were up to 349 days. I tried to get information about the usage from OCC for earlier years, but they say they do not have any records, though I am assured that they were responsible for management and throughput. An additional issue is that the agreements require the beds to be paid for as a ‘block’ This means that Anchor Homes is being paid however well or badly the beds were used.
At a meeting in early December 2013 it seemed evident that OCC had given no consideration to how the closure would impact people in Faringdon or length of stay in hospital (apparently there are always around 100 people ‘bed blocking’ in Oxford hospitals).
When asked what additional services would be put in place to counteract the reduced service, nothing appeared to have been considered.
When the substantial population growth in Faringdon was mentioned, we were told that there will be a needs analysis done by the end of March 2014.
Fenella Trevillion (OCCG) said ‘that we have started to look at needs and what provision is needed. We are moving away from block buying large amounts of care to flexibility around individual need’
When asked who owned the building and the land on which it is built, no one seemed to know. Since then I have been told by Anchor that they own the building and lease the land from OCC.
When it was pointed out that Mr Parker’s gift had been misused, Sara Livadeas of OCC said ‘It is disheartening if the donation was made and subsequent events haven’t reflected what Mr Parker intended, but it is very difficult to tie intentions down legally for long periods of time. We can’t do anything legally to insist the service continues.
Judith Heathcoat (OCC councillor) on behalf of OCC said ‘She was aware that there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to explore alternatives’ No detail was given.
When we asked where the nearest intermediate care beds will be, no one seemed to know definitely, but it was thought to be Bicester.
When asked why the residents of Faringdon have not been consulted about this decision, it was said that there will be a consultation in the future.
The summary of this tale of woe is that Faringdon is set to lose a major health service and Mr Parker’s very generous gift of land has been misused through poor management by OCC, Primary Care Trust and the Oxford Health Authority. Had the 1991 agreement not been changed, possibly illegally, it would be in place for a further 2 years. This would allow time for OCCG and OCC to manage the beds effectively, understand our need based on current population forecasts, and establish support services as appropriate.
At a meeting in January, we were told:
The needs analysis would be finished end February/early March 2014, and it would be available for comment then. I have tried to have OCC/OCCG carry out the needs analysis based on the main community hubs ie Abingdon, Wantage, Faringdon. They have not committed to do this.
Intermediate care beds available in Oxfordshire are:
Chipping Norton 14, Watlington 13, Banbury 20, Oxford 20. There are 200 beds in Community Hospitals ie Witney, (Wantage I think and probably in Banbury area)
There are 22 respite beds across the County, mostly thought to be based at Witney. The OCC/OCCG people at the meeting could not say.
GeneWebb
Member of the White Horse Medial Practice Patient Participation Group
Nursing beds in Ferendune Jan 2014.docx7-Oct-18
Gene Webb, WHMPppg