As mentioned previously, the way the residents were informed about the new medical centre left a great deal to be desired. As a consequence there was a great deal of confusion and anxiety. It was therefore decided to hold a public meeting to discuss the matter. I wasn’t supposed to mention it as the ‘communications people’ wanted to control the narrative – but it would have been ever so slightly weird if, in a weekly column, I’d acted as if it hadn’t happened.

My ‘notes’ were as follows: “The general consensus seems to have been that not all the questions could be answered because not all the relevant people were present. The organisers decided that four local GPs should field all the questions as best we could – but, needless to say, many of these were way outside our remit. For example a lot of the questions concerned access – particularly for the disabled and the frail/elderly. The ‘Highways Dept’ was not present – indeed I gather that the ‘Highway-men’ are not very fond of engaging with the public even when they are represented – I’m told they tend to parry questions rather than attempt to answer them.

Those attending were, by and large, fairly kind to us as most realised that we were there as scapegoats and that we couldn’t answer questions about decisions made by others. We were fortunate in having Peter Christian OBE to guide us skilfully through the evening.

With regard to the questions about where the new facility should have been sited (both at the meeting itself and afterwards) we raked up bits of ‘old history’. For example, I was involved in trying to get the Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT to upgrade the medical facilities in the town at the turn of the millennium. I went round SWF with my little video camera (as is my wont) recording sites that might be suitable. One example: “At one time the building which is now the ‘George’ annex to ASDA was empty for a considerable time (after the Harvey’s furniture showroom closed). It was available and, although not ideal, it did have a lift (which would have facilitated its conversion to a medical facility.) There was a parking area close by which could theoretically have been extended AND it was in the centre of the town so it was worth considering.

Many of the places in (or close to) the town centre that were available then are no longer available – so we missed our chance. The PCT, which was run by ‘Hopeless Harrison’, did nothing at that time to secure a suitable site.”

I went on to give details of Harrison’s hopelessness – making it “clear that the NHS in this area, whilst being very adept at wasting money, did not have what it takes to bring any large-scale project to a successful conclusion – so when a developer turned up here with a ready-made plan for a new facility (which South Woodham badly needed) it seemed like manna from heaven. Here, at last, was somebody with the ability to see a project through to its conclusion. The problem, as repeatedly mentioned, was the lack of information made regularly available in a readily assimilated form to the public – so there was no feedback and none of the problems have been ironed out. I got the distinct impression that, for many of the NHS people involved, last week’s meeting was the first reality check.”

One major criticism of the meeting was that more people were seemingly turned away than were offered a ‘ticket’. Accordingly I reported that: “A recurring criticism since the meeting has been the number of empty seats – especially given that a lot of people who applied for ‘e-tickets’ were told it was ‘full to capacity’. It was obvious that some of them were going to come along on the night in the hope that they could get in if, say, a ticket holder hadn’t showed up – so it would have been sensible to have made some provision for them.”

I also said to the organisers that, if they wanted to be as ‘democratic’ as possible, they should live-stream the proceedings to the residents of South Woodham. The suggestion was rejected. Given that such a small proportion of the residents of SWF were admitted to the meeting, we were grateful to Jon Morter who videoed the event and made it available online.

The meeting raised questions for which there were no adequate answers. What exactly will be done for those who, for whatever reason, have difficulty getting to the new facility? The ‘bus solution’ was obviously unsatisfactory. Access continued to be a talking point throughout the process. There was also talk of a checking that the floor space in the new build compared favourably with that of the existing health clinic plus ALL the GP surgeries in South Woodham Ferrers to ensure the building was ‘future proofed’ There was even talk of setting up a ‘patient constitution’ making genuine public/patient consultation a requirement and containing such revolutionary ideas as “We hold this Truth to be self-evident that all Woodhamites are created equal.” (The idea that patients should be treated fairly and equally by the NHS was, of course, anathema to the dear old PCTs.)”

There was pressure for another meeting involving ALL the people the public wanted to be there – including ‘Highways’, of course, and the NHS people who hold the purse-strings and make the decisions. Needless to say, that never happened.

I ended the article by adding: “Gill Hubbard’s suggestion in last week’s Focus that SWF should appoint somebody with the nous to negotiate a better ‘healthcare deal’ for the town appears to have been well received – so there are lots of ideas floating around. As Gill says: “There will never be a better opportunity in South Woodham to set up a healthcare model that will be robust enough for the foreseeable future” – so it must be taken now!”

At around this time, patients were asked to suggest a name for the new medical facility. My suggestion was ‘The Quackery’, but that went down like a bucket of cold vomit. Most of the suggestions made were fairly non-descript – along the lines of ‘The South Woodham Ferrers Medical Centre’. The funniest suggestion for a name was ‘Shit Creek’ … but, sadly, that didn’t make it through the approval process.

Dr John Cormack