I HAVE a few comments regarding the 'Clinical Service and Finance Review' published by Worcestershire Acute Hospital Trust (WAHT), and the subsequent meeting held at the Artrix.

It was pointed out by a local GP attending the Artrix that many of the problems associated with the WAHT have been known about since the early 1990s. These issues are nothing new to the WAHT board. Further, the chairman and the chief executive informed the audience there was a certain amount of creative accounting (all perfectly legal) with the accounts published for the WAHT in the previous financial year, to disguise the magnitude of the issues facing the trust. Given that the financial difficulties have been building up over the past few financial years, why has the WAHT waited until now to recommend actions to alleviate the problem? Why were actions not recommended a year ago, when it was already apparent that the financial situation was rapidly deteriorating? Surely this delay can only result in the recommendations being more severe.

It seems clear that the majority of the trust's financial issues lie not with the Alex, or with Kidderminster, but with the Worcester site.

The CSFR report specifies that cost savings can be made by service reconfiguration and site rationalisation. However the report does not indicate the detail of how these savings are to be realised. We were informed that after the previous reorganisation of the WAHT services, this would resolve the trust's financial issues. However it is clear that this has not happened. How therefore are we to have any confidence in the statement that this latest suggested reorganisation will result in cost savings?

The CSFR report recommends increasing average bed occupancy and reducing the number of available beds. Given the fact that in the real world wards rarely on a given day have an 'average' occupancy, isn't it more likely that in the winter, surgical beds will get taken up with the overflow from medical beds, resulting in a greater number of cancelled operations? In addition, if there is only one acute hospital in the county and the number of beds is reduced, then in the event that an acute bed is unavailable, where will that patient be taken?

I feel that as a member of the general public I have a right to know the answers to these and other questions. Indeed, I feel as though I have a right to demand an answer. Would it not be beneficial for an independent inquiry to be set up to investigate the financial and clinical management of the trust?

Dr Mark Tabbernor (BSc PhD)

Marlbrook