Letter: I wonder what the original remit was for Future Fit review?

I originally thought it was just about A&E services and how these should be delivered in the county. Maybe two sites, maybe one, maybe a trauma unit at one site and urgent care centres at two or various other options. As time has progressed we have seen the apparent decision that A&E (major trauma?) should be at one site and more recently, that site should also have the Women and Children's Centre. Do the goal posts keep moving? Or did we really considering moving the Women and Children's Centre in 2013, when the future fit process started, a year before the unit opened in 2014. Seems at least, a little bizarre.

There has been reference made by David Evans, Future Fit, to experts elsewhere saying the women and children's units should be located at the same site as the A&E. Has Future Fit just put that as an add on or has a full review of the implications that would have? Perhaps you could turn it the other way and say the A&E should be located at the same site as the women and children's, unit? As I understand it the Future Fit review was to say what the preferred options would be on a non-financial basis. I could have told you that for nothing three years ago.

The public's preferred option would be two fully functioning A&E department. So going back to the original question, what was/is the remit for the Future Fit review? If it is to present a purely non-financial preference, then I would suggest that the remit was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, as any option has to be paid for in a time when funds are limited.

David Dixon, Shawbirch

Send us your letters for publication:

Email us at starmail@shropshirestar.co.uk or write to: Readers' Letters, Shropshire Star, Ketley, Telford, TF1 5HU. Letters MUST include the writer's name, address and telephone number. Letters will only be published anonymously in exceptional circumstances. The editor reserves the right to condense or amend letters.