Report blows open site debate

Thursday 15 November 2018

An explosive new report has exposed major deficiencies in how the site of the £466million future hospital was decided, reopening an old wound and throwing agreed plans to build on the current site into serious doubt.

The document runs to 124 pages, cataloguing a series of decisions by the previous Council of Ministers leading to a “political mess” in which both rejuvenating the current hospital, or starting afresh elsewhere, are now riddled with significant risks to both patients and the States’ finances.

Compiled by a panel of politicians tasked with reviewing the issue by the Chief Minister, the new report concluded that revamping the current site would result in a hospital that is not big enough for future needs with little room to expand its facilities in line with medical and population demands.

But finding and building on an alternative site would involve significant difficulties in maintaining the current hospital in the interim, with the report including a warning from the Hospital's Group Managing Director of struggles to manage infection control, slower 999 responses and an increased need to send patients away for treatment, including the terminally ill, those requiring basic emergency surgery, as well as pregnant islanders and children.

Pictured: The report was commissioned to review whether the decision to build the Future Hospital on the current site was the right one and made on the basis of all the appropriate evidence.

Building elsewhere would also mean writing off a significant portion of the nearly £26million spent so far on the project.

The findings have left the new States Assembly with a choice to honour their predecessors’ plan – despite warnings that there were gaping holes in the process that led to this plan – or seek a new site and set the project back in terms of money, time and hard work. 

Politicians will now be asked to vote on whether to endorse the decision, putting the issue to bed once and for all, in early 2019. 

Published today, the report was authored by the ‘Future Hospital Policy Development Board’, which was chaired by Constable Chris Taylor and made up of Health Minister Deputy Richard Renouf, Constable Richard Buchanan, and Deputies Carina Alves, Rowland Huelin and Trevor Pointon.

Controversial in nature, the idea of reopening the site selection issue already appears to have reanimated previous public and political divisions.

Pictured: The Board conducted a staff survey which was only responded to by 22% of employees in the Health and Community Services Department

The board itself was not unanimous in its findings, with the Health Minister reported as having dissented on key aspects.

Meanwhile, a survey of hospital staff showed a ‘majority’ were in favour of building on a new site. However, the ballot was only taken up by 714 people (only 22% of all employees) – which showed that the majority of the small number who responded to the survey think that the Hospital should be built on a different site.

Among these respondents, equating to one in five of all Health staff, the People’s Park was the top choice.  

However, the Future Hospital Policy Development Board claim that choosing a new site will only delay the entire project by around six months.

Pictured: Regardless of the decision, the Future Hospital project will see significant delays due to the fact the question will return to the States Chamber for debate next year in light of the Board's findings.

Work was due to start at the end of this month, but now the completion of the new Hospital’s first clinical service could be pushed back to the end of 2021 – the year initially ear-marked for the delivery of the entire Future Hospital back when it was proposed in the States in 2012. 

Financially, the delay on securing funding for the project could mean that the cost could skyrocket given the uncertainty of Jersey’s credit rating post-Brexit.

The report estimates that every extra month of delay on the current site build will cost an extra £1million.

The Board also expressed anxiety that further delays in the project could “risk the termination” of the construction contract with J3, meaning that a new contractor will have to be secured before building work commences.  

Alternatively, the Board envisages a new Hospital based on an alternative site opening its doors in 2028 if every key decision on the journey is “green lighted” and the process unfolds without further reviews or amendments. This scenario, though preferred by the majority of the Board (excluding the Health Minister), does not come without its downsides.

Pictured: The report reveals that for every month there is a delay on the current site build, it will cost £1million extra.

An alternative site may not be found by 2021 – when building would be completed on the first out-patient clinic if the current site was approved – a timescale that could put patients at risk from being treated in a Hospital which is not fit for purpose. 

Worse waiting times, overcrowding, maintenance costs to keep the current Hospital running and escalating costs due to inflation and Brexit are just some of the risks involved with finding an alternative site. The Board also conveyed trepidation about what impact this decision will have given the unpopularity of the Future Hospital project.

The report reads: “It is clear to the Board that there is no perfect site and that alternatives have both better and worse characteristics to the existing. Selecting a new site will require strong political will and the risk to the timetable is that this is not realised within the current political cycle.”

Speaking at a press conference yesterday, the Board’s Chairman Constable Chris Taylor emphasised that “a hospital can be delivered on the existing site in the way it’s being proposed” and that the Future Hospital team, whom he called “extremely professional and hardworking”, “and in due course will deliver a new Hospital.”

He added that “other sites have always been preferable to the existing hospital site” and the Board’s report highlights that the “potential” of alternative sites “was not fully explored.” 

Pictured: The Hospital Policy Development has raised some serious questions over the future of the new hospital project which has been in the works since 2012.

One of the sites discussed was the Waterfront, which is now home to the International Finance Centre (IFC) buildings. It was described in the report as being ruled out for “political reasons."

Constable Taylor explained that there was a perception in the previous Council of Ministers that the Waterfront “is too valuable a site” for the Hospital, to which he added that he felt “there’s nothing more valuable than your health!”

An annex to the report detailed a meeting in which former Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst and ex-Senator Philip Ozouf put forward their case in favour of keeping the hospital away from the Waterfront. Senator Gorst said that the island "could not afford to lose the JIFC."

Meanwhile, Senator Ozouf relayed the point of view of the States of Jersey Development Company - the team contracted to carry out the IFC builds - that the threat of a new hospital would frustrate efforts to attract a key tenant for the buildings.

"In his view this meant the site should not be considered further," a minute from a meeting at the time read. 

Pictured: The report has resurrected the idea of looking at the Waterfront as a potential hospital site.

The report has been received by the Chief Minister and whether or not to implement its recommendation will be debated in the States Chamber in early 2019.

Read the full report by clicking here.

READ MORE:

Q&A: The “political mess” – and how we got in it

Comment: "Our very own Christmas disaster movie has begun early"