Letter: Disappointed by decision to withdraw Ludlow health unit support
Here is a sample of a copy of a letter to the board of Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust.
Portcullis GPs like the majority of the Ludlow Community are deeply disappointed and saddened by the recent decision made by the Community Trust Board to withdraw its support for the new Ludlow health facility due to the income gap found in the business case which neither the Community Trust or Shropshire CCG have been prepared to bridge. We would appreciate a response to some questions.
Question One: We would like to know what representations the Community Trust has made in order to request NHS England bridge the funding gap and allow important investment in our community to go ahead and what the response of the LAT has been to this request for additional funding.
Question Two: We would like to know what representations the Community Trust have made to request the Health and Wellbeing Board bridge the gap to allow for this important investment in our community to go ahead and what the response of this board has been to this request for additional funding.
Question Three: Finally we are disappointed that the Community Trust has involved us only to a limited extent in participating in developing suggestions in order to bridge the funding gap. We feel that the gap was substantially reduced in the few workshops that were held in order to explore ideas and that if more time had been allowed for these ideas as well as any others to be adequately explored that the gap could have been reduced and that the risk would have been substantially mitigated.
The penalties that will result from the cancellation of the project will be substantial and would in fact be enough to fund the annual shortfall for many years to come, allowing sufficient time for increasing the throughput in the hospital and bridging the financial gap in the future.
We would therefore remain keen to continue to explore ideas in order to continue the possibility of the new Ludlow Health Facility to go ahead and would urge the board to reconsider its position.
We feel if this is not possible and that all avenues are exhausted then it would be important to carry out a full inquiry in order to learn lessons from this and ensure that robust processes are in place for any future projects regarding Ludlow.
Dr Boog-Scott, Dr Farnell, Dr Yarham, Dr Beanland, Ludlow Portcullis GPs