Dear Matthew,

I was extremely concerned to read the front page article 'Critical condition' in yesterday's Sutton Guardian (8 March 2012) which claimed 'The future of St Helier is in jeopardy after it became the frontrunner for plans to close an accident and emergency (A&E) and maternity unit’ (in south west London).

Please could you justify why you refer to us as the 'frontrunner' (for closure) as if it is a fact?

The facts are that no proposals about specific sites have been put forward yet.

I know we have communicated previously about how newspapers separate the reporting of news and speculation and, to me, this is – once again – a clear blurring of the two.

I have three key concerns about saying St Helier is the ‘frontrunner’:

1. It is blatantly wrong and misleading;
2. It causes unjustifiable concern amongst our patients and local people;
3. It unnecessarily undermines the confidence and morale of our staff and volunteers.

We will write a letter for publication as a right of reply, and would also like a front page apology and correction in next week's paper. I’d also like to know how this happened and what you will do to stop it happening again.

Considering the severity of this matter, I ask that you reply to me by return. In addition, I am minded to refer this matter to the Press Complaints Commission, but will give you the opportunity to reply first.

Kind regards,

Antony Tiernan
Director of Communications and Corporate Affairs

Dear Antony,

While I understand that some people in the world of PR believe bad news should be buried without a trace and only the positive be shown, I was amazed to read your response to last week’s front page story.

The idea that St Helier is the likely target for service cuts against Croydon, Kingston and St George’s was not dreamed up on the news desk, it came from soundings taken from a wide variety of informed people, including MPs, senior councillors, union members and health campaigners.

They were all of the same, considered opinion that the threat to St Helier was greater than to the other hospitals citing the following points:

• St Helier has the smallest maternity department serving fewest patients by a considerable percentage according to NHS figures
• Your A&E department treated fewer patients and has the least number of A&E consultants.
• You must find cuts of £57m by 2016-17 and an NHS London study said St Helier would not be ‘financially viable’ in three years.
• Tom Brake, MP for Carshalton and Wallington, also thinks your maternity ward is the most vulnerable.
• Siobhain McDonagh, MP for Mitcham, said she also considers the St Helier most likely to be downgraded.

Unless I am missing something fundamental about the way decisions are made in the NHS, I would argue that this puts St Helier as the most likely to face any cuts.

The demerger with Epsom and the collapsed merger with St George’s are also very relevant factors.

Mr Brake, Care Services Minister Paul Burstow and Sutton Council leader Sean Brennan also raised concerns over the future of the A&E and maternity services by resurrecting their 'Save St Helier' campaign - long before the March 1 announcement of the findings of the Better Service, Better Value clinicians, which I obviously took note of as well.

You claim you were extremely concerned to read our Sutton Guardian story, yet your own hospital board must be well aware of all the above facts and therefore that St Helier is very much in the danger zone for the proposed cuts.

This was not scaremongering. Nor was it causing unjustifiable concern among patients and residents, as you claim.

Looking ahead and letting them know what key people think is likely to happen at the earliest opportunity not only ensures they understand the gravity of the issue but allows them to take action to protest and campaign against the cuts, should they so wish, before it is too late to influence the decision.

If we simply waited for an official statement saying units at our local hospital were going to close, we would have done our readers, and the hospital, a tremendous disservice.

And let me assure you that if the NHS does formally indicate it intends to close the units at St Helier, the Sutton Guardian will do everything in its power to campaign against the closures.

That is responsible journalism, for which I have no intention of apologising.

I am, of course, happy to run a letter from your chief executive in this week’s newspaper.

Matthew Knowles
Assistant editor, Sutton Guardian

Dear Matthew

Thank you for your email (in response to my original letter).

As a transparent organisation, we have absolutely no intention - as you imply - of burying bad news. However, we owe it to our staff, volunteers, patients and local people to ensure we are represented fairly.

Your other points are duly noted. However, you have not addressed my key concern: why did you feel it was acceptable to categorically state (as fact) that St Helier Hospital is the 'frontrunner' (to lose is A&E and maternity)? As you know, no proposals about specific sites have been put forward yet.

I can see how the 'soundings' you have taken from 'selected' people, combined with your assumptions about the importance of the size of our A&E, maternity and financial challenge, may lead you to believe it 'could be' the 'frontrunner'. However, this does not allow you to say 'it is'.

As I said previously, your blurring of fact and opinion:

Is blatantly wrong and misleading;

Causes unjustifiable concern amongst our patients and local people;

Unnecessarily undermines the confidence and morale of our staff and volunteers.

You ask am 'I missing something fundamental about the way decisions are made in the NHS'. The answer Matthew is, yes!

As such, I refer you to the six factors that NHS South West London have publically stated (see this press release you were sent) the criteria for shortlisting the options. These are:

Clinical outcomes and safety;

Patient experience;

Workforce development;

Access to services;

Deliverability;

Travel and transport.

Whilst the views of your selected stakeholders are important, they are clearly not linked to the criteria above (which is how the options will be chosen). Nor do the criteria directly link to the number of patients our maternity or A&E units served last year or the savings we need to make.

I note that you have offered to run our Chief Executive's letter in this week's paper and thank you for this. However, I note you haven't offered a front page apology and correction.

Unfortunately, I feel my next step is to refer this to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), who, as you know, have very strict rules to ensure the media make it clear when reporting fact versus comment. I refer you to the PCC's Editors' code, 1iii: "The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact."

However, I did want to give you one last opportunity to come back to me. As such, I would appreciate this by return.

Kind regards,

Antony Tiernan Director of Communications and Corporate Affairs

Antony,

Without wanting to prolong this correspondence, I refer to my previous letter as to why we took the decision to name St Helier as the hospital most at risk from these cuts.

Feel free to pursue this matter with the PCC.

Matthew