'Logical' to keep at-risk walk-in centre open
An NHS walk-in centre in Norfolk which faced being closed down or having its opening hours reduced in a bid to save as much as £1.5m a year will remain open for now.
The facility in Norwich was one of three services NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board (ICB) considered reviewing in a bid to save money.
Changes to its out-of-hours GP service and Vulnerable Adults Service were also explored, with patients asked for their views as part of a consultation.
Ed Garratt, interim chief executive of the ICB, said all proposals had been taken off the table and a U-turn at this stage made "logical sense".
"The strategic direction of the ICB is to increase 'neighbourhood' level services and improve access to primary care," he added.
He said the decision was in line with the government's 10-year national plan to shift resources from acute to community services, treatment to prevention and analogue to digital services.
"It therefore makes logical sense to end this consultation and take stock of plans once the 10 Year Plan has been published," he said.
The walk-in centre, at Rouen House, in Rouen Road, is used by about 72,000 people every year and previously faced closure in 2023 before a new contract was agreed.
But in March, the ICB said it was once again reviewing its future as it faced a £280m gap in its budget.
It said closing the service would free up £1.5m a year while opening only in the morning would save £750,000, with the money saved being put towards GP services.
Sadie Parker, director of primary care for the ICB, said the government's drive to address the challenges facing the NHS had encouraged them to reconsider.
She suggested the under-threat services could potentially play a key role in realising the government's goal of "developing a neighbourhood health service".
"The situation has changed and we are expecting further national guidance on this which will help inform how we plan for and provide local health services," she said.
The news of the U-turn has been welcomed by Norwich city councillor, Lucy Galvin, who sits on Norfolk's health overview and scrutiny committee.
"This was a hard-fought campaign and I am so glad to see it has resulted in this complete change of heart," she said.
"These services for the most vulnerable should never, ever have been under threat.
"I have seen first hand the patients and professionals who have been deeply concerned over the past few years. Now we need to see stable, transparent funding for these vital services."
Alex Stewart, chief executive of Healthwatch Norfolk, said he was "pleased" the services would continue to operate.
"There was a concern the loss of the walk-in centre could have had a devastating impact on A&E units.
"As of this morning we had received 3,540 responses to the consultation around the walk-in centre and GP out-of-hours service, and 207 around the vulnerable adults service," he said.
"The overwhelming majority felt the walk-in centre was a vital care safety net for those who either struggled to get an appointment from their GP or felt their condition was not serious enough for them to attend accident and emergency.
"We have no doubt today's decision will reassure the many people who responded to our survey."
Ahead of announcing the walk-in centre would no longer be closed, the ICB had encouraged residents to attend drop-in sessions at King's Lynn Town Hall on Monday, The Forum in Norwich on Tuesday, Blyburgate Hall in Beccles on Wednesday and Lowestoft Community Hub on Thursday to share their views.
These have now been cancelled.
Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
NHS walk-in centre faces closure or a cut in hours
Walk-in centre firm had "inadequate management"
City walk-in health centre under closure threat
NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board (ICB)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NHS calls for 200,000 new blood donors as supplies run low
The NHS has warned that it continues to face a "challenging" blood shortage, as it calls for 200,000 new donors to come forward. Concern over blood stocks prompted the health service to issue an "amber alert" last year, meaning supplies were running low enough to have an impact on patient treatment. Supplies have remained low ever since, with officials warning there is a "critical" need for more donors who have O negative blood, which can be given to the majority of patients. NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), the body that oversees England's blood donation system, said the number of regular donors needs to rise from around 800,000 to more than one million to maintain a safe and reliable supply. NHSBT chief executive Dr Jo Farrar said: "Our stocks over the past 12 months have been challenging. If we had a million regular donors, this would help keep our stocks healthy - you'd truly be one in a million." There is a pressing need to avoid a "red alert", which would mean demand far exceeds capacity, threatening public safety, NHSBT added. The body's chief medical officer said such an alert could see patients waiting longer for treatment. Dr Gail Miflin told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It can mean, if you're not urgently needing blood, that you may be delayed or have an operation delayed. "But if you really need blood you'll still get it." Four-year-old Isaac receives transfusions every 12 weeks, which he calls "Hulk blood" because it makes him feel strong. Born with Spherocytosis, a condition which affects the red blood cells, he regularly becomes severely anaemic. His mother, Jasmin, said the "superhero blood" works like "magic" for Isaac, and that the shortage was worrying. "Everybody lives such busy lives. It isn't always a priority until it's someone you know or it's yourself that needs a transfusion," she told BBC Breakfast. Health Minister Baroness Merron said the NHS was in "urgent need" of more blood donors from all backgrounds. "We are working alongside NHS Blood and Transplant to make donating blood easier than ever before, opening up new donor centres and making appointments available closer to home," she added. NHSBT stressed the need for more black donors in particular, as they are more likely to have specific blood types which can help treat people with sickle cell disease. Just 2% of the population keep the nation's blood stocks afloat by donating regularly, the body said. Donors are defined as regular if they have donated in the last 12 months. The number of people registering as donors rose in 2024, but only 24% of them went on to donate. The appeal comes almost a year after the NHS issued an amber alert for only the second time in its history, last July. It was caused by what the NHS called a "perfect storm" of unfilled appointments at donor centres and increased demand following a cyber-attack, which affected services in London. At that time, stocks of O negative stood at just 1.6 days, and 4.3 days for all types of blood. Two thirds of the blood collected by NHSBT is used to treat people who rely on regular blood transfusions, including people with cancer and blood conditions. Those who want to give blood can register and book an appointment online. Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The cost of caring for a loved one
It's Carers' Week, when we're encouraged to recognise the effort put in by unpaid carers looking after their loved ones. As more people live longer and need more care, it should also be a chance to consider what we'd do if we found ourselves in this position, and someone we love needed care. You might want to step in and help, so it's worth understanding the potential costs — from the extras you'd need at home to the cost of any lost income. In many cases, the whole family will need to have a frank conversation about how to support the person offering care, as well as the person needing it. If your family member needs professional care, the question of costs becomes even more pressing. On average, you'll pay about £50,000 a year for residential care and £66,000 for a nursing home, but the averages hide some big costs, and plenty of people pay well over £100,000 a year. You may be able to get some help from the state, but there's a process you need to go through first. It starts with a "needs assessment", done by your local authority, who will work out what care the person needs. Read more: How much does it cost to become a driver in the UK? Next you go through a financial assessment, which looks at the assets of the person needing care. If they're getting care at home, or they're in a care home temporarily, this assessment won't include the value of their own home. If they're going into a care home permanently, it may include their home, unless someone from specific groups also lives there. This includes a partner, any of their children under the age of 18, or a relative who is disabled or over the age of 60. In England, if they have assets of less than £14,250, the council may pay for care — although it will also take their income into account. If they have between £14,250 and £23,250, they will have to contribute to the cost of care, but if they have assets over £23,250, they'll need to foot the entire bill. If your loved one has complex medical needs, they should be assessed for NHS Continuing Healthcare. This can pay for all their care in some cases, but don't assume they'll qualify. It's not enough to have caring needs around the clock, they'll have to have very high medical needs too, requiring regular intervention from medical experts and professionals. If you end up needing to pay for care for someone, there are a few benefits that will help. If they are over state pension age, they could get the attendance allowance — or pension age disability in Scotland. However, this will barely scratch the surface of costs. It means you may need to speak to anyone in your life who might need care, to see what preparations they've put in place. A piece of research we did a while ago found that fewer than half of people thought their loved ones could pay for care from their savings. It means you should consider their pension too. A guaranteed monthly pension income will go towards the cost of care. If they're using pension drawdown, they may have money in their pension pot that can be used too. For younger people, this often makes sense as a way to save for your own care needs, especially if you're saving into a workplace pension and your employer is helping to build the pot. Read more: What is the Pension Investment Review? However, the value of the property will often need to be used. Some people will rent the family home out to cover fees, although this is risky because rental income isn't guaranteed, and will be depleted by maintenance and repairs. You can consider equity release to free up some of the value in the property, but this is expensive. There will be a set up cost, and usually any interest on the loan will roll up, and needs to repaid when the property is sold. There's also the option of a deferred payment arrangement with the local council, which is a bit like equity release, but run by the council and slightly less expensive. But for many people, the most sensible option ends up being selling up. You might pay fees from the lump sum as you go along, but it's worth considering an immediate needs care annuity instead. These pay a fixed amount to the care home every month for the rest of their life, and tend to cover the gap between pension income and the cost of care. Talking to your loved ones about care, and how they'd pay for it, is difficult, but it's a far easier conversation well in advance, when they have time to make a plan. It's much more stressful to try to discuss this at the point they already need care and are starting to panic about how they're going to pay for more: How to tell if you're rich Should people keep working until later in life? How to get your children to move outSign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The NHS and Royal Mail are a match made in hell
Your bank doesn't send letters ticking you off about your overdraft anymore. Neither does your lawyer, or your accountant, or anyone else for that matter. Even your birthday or Christmas cards typically arrive via your phone's inbox instead of the front door. There is, however, one organisation that still finds a piece of paper delivered by hand to be the most efficient way to communicate: the NHS. Its spending on the Royal Mail is still soaring – with taxpayers footing the bill. The Health Secretary Wes Streeting may still trot out his standard speech about how the NHS is a global leader in new technologies and how Artificial Intelligence will drive a new era of productivity. The reality, as so often, turns out to be very different. We learned this week that the technology that the health service relies on is one from the 1840s: the letter with a stamp on it. Despite pledging to switch to a completely digital way of communicating with patients, according to research from the Taxpayer's Alliance the amount the health service spent on mail punched through £100 million this year, up by 12.5 per cent over the last twelve months. Even though up to a quarter of the estimated eight million missed appointments a year were the fault of delays in the post, hospital managers persist in using letters as their main form of managing the system. The last quarter of a century of technological progress has completely passed it by. Indeed, at the current rate of growth the NHS will be spending £180 million a year by the end of the decade on the postal service, and more than £500 million by the 2040s. Perhaps the takeover of the mail system by the Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky makes sense after all. While most of us may have imagined the postal business was in terminal decline, perhaps there is a fortune to be made as the booking system of the NHS. The trouble is that it should hardly come as a surprise to anyone. In reality, the NHS and Royal Mail are perfect partners for each other. They are both relics of a different era, created at a time when we still believed that government-owned monopolies were the most effective way to deliver a product or a service. They are both hopelessly inefficient and riddled with restrictive practices. They are both dominated by trade unions that are resistant to change; that protect their privileges with a single-minded determination; and bask in a sense of entitlement that justifies everything they do. And they are both completely resistant to new technology, even if it could transform both the quality and the efficiency of the service they are meant to be delivering. They could both move with the times if they wanted to. But it would cause too much inconvenience for the staff. Instead, they are perfectly happy to prop each other up – with the long-suffering taxpayer left to foot the bill for both of them. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
