Totally unexpected

Coun Liz Eyre, the council's cabinet member for social services, said she first heard about the proposals to transfer £500,000 of costs after the department's budget for the next financial year had been set.

South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust wants social services to pay £302,000 a year towards the costs of providing occupational therapy in the county.

It also wants the council to pay for practice attached social workers, saving it £151,700, and to contribute £50,000 towards the cost of the day rehabilitation unit at Evesham Community Hospital.

But at a specially arranged Trust board meeting yesterday, Coun Eyre described the proposals as "totally unexpected."

She said the council had recently had to make some difficult decisions regarding its budget.

"You are asking us to absorb a large sum of money," she said. "It would mean taking money from other areas and not allowing us to do things for elderly people."

Coun Eyre said social services had already committed £2m to working on projects with the PCT for this and the next financial year.

If social services cannot find the money for these areas, the PCT intends to withdraw the social worker and occupational therapy provision and reduce the amount of rehabilitation at Evesham.

Dr Tim Davies, the PCT's director of public health, said there were clear benefits to having the social workers in place in general practice.

"However, social workers are the responsibility of social services to fund," he said.

"The health service has picked up the cost in the past, but in this position, it should revert to the organisation that has the responsibility of social services."

The director of clinical services, June Patel, said occupational therapy was funded by the PCT but 70 per cent of the day-to-day workload related to social services.

Service changes aren't a 'fait accompli' - chiefs

HEALTH bosses tried to appease angry health workers, patients and politicians by saying their suggested service changes were not a "fait accompli."

There was standing room only at Pershore Civic Centre yesterday as South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust chief executive Mike Ridley and other board members explained the thinking behind their proposals.

The crowd of more than 150 people included Pershore residents concerned about the future of the town's hospital and health workers worried about cutbacks to frontline health services.

Mr Ridley stressed that cutbacks had to be made to get the Trust out of its £5m debt and prevent it from overspending in the future.

He said the alternative would be for Government officials to intervene and make the cuts for them.

Wychavon District Council leader Malcolm Meikle complained about the lack of consultation with the public about the proposals.

"When we first heard about your problems, we were prepared to address the issues with an open mind," he said.

Disappointment

"I have to say it is with considerable disappointment, three months on, that even with our financial expertise we can't understand the financial implications of what you are proposing."

He pointed out that it would be well into the next financial year before the public consultation process was completed.

Mr Ridley said there would be full consultation on all the proposals.

"Comments will be listened to and looked at to see if there are different ways to approach this," he said.

"There are a whole range of areas where you can make your voices heard. This is not a fait accompli."

Spot checks find 'reporting errors'

HEALTH bosses in Worcestershire have been told to improve after mistakes were uncovered in the way they record patient waiting times.

The NHS Trust which runs the county's troubled £96m hospital must report to NHS chief executive Nigel Crisp by the end of the month.

Managers must convince him they have taken action to prevent errors in recording patient waiting times - a key Government performance indicator.

The Trust has not been accused of the serious offence of "fiddling" waiting lists.

But spot-checks by the Audit Commission found evidence of "reporting errors" for the percentage of patients waiting six months and 12 months or more for admission.

Sir Nigel said: "It is important to note that the Audit Commission has found that in most cases the level of inaccuracy was unlikely to affect the care of individual patients.

"But to be uncompromising in our approach to waiting times I would like all NHS Trust Chief Executives to consider the implications of the Commission's findings and review their procedures and systems to ensure that patients can have as much confidence in their data as possible."

Nationally, three Trusts were accused of "deliberate misreporting" of waiting lists. Sir Nigel said this was "reprehensible and inexcusable".

A spokesman for Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust said there was no reason why any of the issues highlighted in the report would cause patients to wait longer for treatment.

"However, we have already publicly acknowledged that introducing new, more effective ways of monitoring our waiting list data must be one of the Trust's key priorities for 2003, and significant steps forward have already been taken," he said.

n National figures: