Orchard Beds Vindicated by The Freedom of Information Requests

Today Beds in the Orchard received the responses to the FOI requests.

All along, we have said that the closure of the ward was for financial reasons, that it was due to impact of closing the 22 male beds in Burnley and that it was until The Harbour opened.  The Trust have denied this.

They have denied this on BBC Radio, in the Lancaster Guardian, to our service users in response to our letter of complaint and in the letters to the MPs.  Below are some of the things that have been said.

• "The intention isn't for this to run for weeks and weeks".
• "I would like to reassure you that the use of The Orchard as an all-male facility is very much a temporary measure."
• "This isn't for financial reasons."
• "This has nothing to do with the closure of the ward in Burnley."

To reiterate:-

This was a short term, temporary measure that wasn't for financial reasons and had nothing to do with the closure of 22 beds in Burnley.

The FOI information should have backed this up.  The Trust have been consistent in their reply and surely they would not give misleading information to the media, their service users or the MPs would they?

Perhaps we're misunderstanding what we've been sent, but here is some of the information provided to us from our FOI requests.

From 9/9/14 Sustainability Minutes - Suggestion made to open male ward on Darwen as no extra staff will be required. Discussed use of the Orchard as a ‘flexible friend’ to support longer term pressures of gender demand and we could scale down females to make all male to support this transition.

Longer term pressures of gender demand.  Please note: Longer term pressures.  Not short term pressures. Making the ward all male for longer term pressures.


Many thanks for your input and pragmatism yesterday in the meeting around managing the correct number of male vs female bed reductions, in line with our need to close a ward in total this financial year.

Our need to close a ward in this financial year.  Please note: Close in financial year, for financial reasons.


We all agreed we couldn’t manage with the loss of 22 male beds though so we agreed mitigation plans (some dates for the mitigation actions below TBC):

We couldn't manage with the loss of 22 male beds.  Please note: The closure of the 22 male beds in Burnley was acknowledged as unmanageable and therefore would have a known impact on the rest of the inpatient provision provided by the Trust.


TH suggested using The Orchard as a flexible ward if the network is under pressure for male or female beds for a period of time. The current female patients could be moved to Scarisbrick Unit. AW stated that as the Orchard is a standalone unit it would have to be clear which patients could be admitted as there is only 1 seclusion room. The ward would be flexible until the opening of the Harbour.

Flexible until the opening of the Harbour.  Please note: Until the opening of The Harbour.  The hospital due to open in March 15 if it runs to time. 

There are other details in the FOI information, mainly talking about where they were going to make up the shortfall of beds, and talk of the transitional period - which we believe to be the period before the beds being closed and The Harbour opening.


What is clear is that what we said all along was true.  That the women of North Lancashire were the victims of cost cutting measures and the closure of the Male ward in Burnley and that the Closure of the ward was until The Harbour opened.

Shame on you Lancashire Care NHS Trust.  Shame on you for treating your female service users like this.

Full response publicly available here.

Can you prove WHY you believe not? Asks one of our supporters.

This email arrived from one of our supporters.  For context, the statement "We believe not" was given by Keith Dibble in a radio interview when asked if he believed that closing the ward to women was harmful.

Dear Beds in the Orchard.

"We believe not".  What a statement.  It is a phrase which in itself cannot be easily challenged.  How can you say to a person or a corporation "You're not being truthful when you state 'you believe not'?"  You cannot justifiably say that without evidence as you cannot get into people's minds.  Evidence of a person's thinking / belief is generally obtained by witnessing their actions.  Nevertheless, statements of belief can be used as a smokescreen and a very useful corporate conscience protection device.

The question therefore is not "Do you really believe not?" Rather the question should be, "If you believe not, then WHY do you believe not."

For belief, no evidence is necessary.  But for a health authority, evidence is essential, to confirm or reject whether or not any particular action is acceptable.

So, Beds in the Orchard, you need to obtain directly from the Trust management the answer to "Why do you believe not?"

If the corporation has a clear conscience they will answer this willingly and without delay.  They won't make you work for the answer.  After all, it seems clear from the blog that while you are all passionate about the subject matter and angry with the actions of the trust, you appear to be approaching the issue from the viewpoint of genuine concern and dismay, not just to cause trouble.

If the Trust action was based on empirical evidence then I wonder why things needed to go this far.  I also believe that offering this evidence up front would have saved so much unnecessary work and unnecessary angst on both sides of the divide.

Conversely, if it acted on the assumptions, or worse, on the belief that they may simply just get a few letters of complaint, that could be shrugged off, then shame on them.

Their shame is the unnecessary distress upon the people who use their services and their friends, families and carers.  These people are the women of Lancaster and the men of Burnley for whom a residential facility was prematurely closed down without adequate alternative provision for care being set up ahead of need and available when required.

 If the latter is correct, then one would say that both groups have been abused.

Yours sincerely.

Not financial reasons LCFT? Tsk!

First of all, Beds in the Orchard would like to send an apology to Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust.  We have previously stated that the Trust closed 15 bed male ward in Burnley.  It now turns out that Ward 18 held 22 beds.  We are assuming that the Trust were happy with this misinformation as they haven't corrected it.

However, we think that the Trust owe Beds in the Orchard an apology for stating publicly on BBC Radio that these changes have not been for financial reasons.


http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/11077649.Burnley_mental_health_ward_still_set_to_close/?ref=rss

In the above Lancashire Telegraph article from March this year, it states...

"Ward 18 was due to close this year, saving £720,000 for the Trust's in year 7.45million cost improvement plan. But it has been confirmed the plans are slightly behind schedule – though the ward is still expected to finally close this year"

This makes it quite clear that the closure was indeed for financial reasons.  The article goes on further to state,

"Trust chiefs have been working on a programme to provide more community services, decreasing the need for in-patient beds."

We have submitted a FOI request to find out how the Crisis and other home treatment teams have been augmented in the East Lancs area to meet the needs of service users affected by this closure.

Finally, on the subject of the ward closure, the Trust says.

"The closure will only take place when it is clinically appropriate to do so."

We've heard that phrase before as we've been told that the 6 beds in The Orchard unit will revert back to female "when it is clinically appropriate to do so."

"Clinically appropriate", in our opinion, appears to be a meaningless phrase used to defend cuts to services.  The female service users of North Lancashire appear to be the victims of these "clinically appropriate" decisions.

"It is not the intention for this to run for weeks and weeks"

We've spent this evening going over Claire's interview on BBC Radio Lancashire and the response to our campaign from Keith Dibble, the Deputy Director of the Lancashire Care NHS Trust.

We were going to post a long reply, but can actually summarise quite swiftly.

The County
There were a number of mentions by Keith about the County, for example  "Balance across the county" and  "Cross county requirement".

If there is a cross county requirement then removing 15 male beds will have changed the balance across the county of male beds. 

We'll be submitting a FOI request about how many men from the Burnley area are being treated in the west and north of the county.

Home Treatment
Home treatment is indeed preferable.  Sadly the crisis and home treatment teams are not augmented when beds are closed.  Existing teams have an ever expanding case-load and less people are expected to look after more Service Users.

We doubt that when the male beds in Burnley were closed, the home treatment teams were expanded in that area and we doubt that when the female beds were closed in Lancaster that the home treatment teams were expanded in that area either.

Another Freedom of Information Request will be sent out tomorrow so we can confirm that to you.
(Our FOI person is going to have a busy day)

Clinical Priorities
Beds in the Orchard has never suggested that people requiring PICU care etc. should be treated at The Orchard.  We all have personal experience of being unwell and know that some women need to be treated in specialist units.

However the women being sent away from Lancaster for treatment do not all need specialist treatment and they would benefit more from local care. 

It appears that the trust position is that the Clinical Priorities are caring for the men of North Lancashire after the balance across the county was tipped by the closure of male beds.


Length of Closure
Keith stated that it is "Not the intention for this to run for weeks and weeks."

This goes against information we have been given, but will be pleased if this turns out to be correct.  We will continue to campaign for the female beds at The Orchard to be reopened until provision for women is restored and also to ensure that this statement from the trust is upheld.

We will continue to actively publicise the closure of the beds by the Trust and we will be further investigating at the treatment of women in Mental Health Services run by the Lancashire Care NHS Trust.

Financial Reasons
Keith said there were no financial reasons for the closure of beds.  However, since the Trust has to deliver a 25% cut in expenditure as directed by the Department of Health, we suspect that financial pressures may well be involved.