Burstow begins investigation into drop in funding for Voluntary organisations

3.48.28pm GMT Fri 1st Sep 2006

Local MP, Paul Burstow, has begun a London-wide investigation into the drop in funding for voluntary organisations working with the NHS.

Burstow took action after being contacted by the local branch of Age Concern and other local voluntary organisations, which had been informed that funding from the local Primary Care Trusts will be cut. Age Concern contacted Mr Burstow after being informed that funding for its popular and valuable Hospital Discharge Scheme, will be cut later this year.

The Hospital Discharge Scheme is aimed at older people returning from hospital, who do not qualify for support from Social Services. Volunteers from the scheme assess the needs of discharged patients and offer help with tasks such as shopping, cleaning or financial affairs.

Speaking about the decision in a recent debate in the House of Commons, Paul Burstow said:

"…people who have been inappropriately and too hastily discharged will end up having to go back into hospital because their home was unsafe or ill suited, or because they were unable to get out to get the necessary food to provide themselves with a decent meal…"

"This will increase the direct cost to the NHS, which is why that decision by the local NHS is a false economy. It is a short-sighted approach, and it will lead to long-term costs and consequences."

Commenting recently, Mr Burstow said:

"Age Concern is not the only voluntary organisation to have contacted me after becoming concerned about reduced funding from the local NHS."

"This government's obsession with inflexible targets and its cost-cutting drives have resulted in this short-sighted approach."

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

The full text of Paul Burstow's speech, given on 25th July 2005 is as follows:

"… my concern for one of the valuable and well-regarded voluntary organisations in my constituency, which is losing some much needed funding. For four and a half years Age Concern in Sutton has run a hospital discharge scheme to support those leaving hospital. The scheme is aimed at people returning from hospital who are judged not to require personal care, and who are therefore not covered by social services care packages.

The principal issue is eligibility, and how different authorities draw up eligibility criteria. The scheme co-ordinators visit the home of an individual leaving hospital to assess any financial, nutritional or safety needs, and take steps to ensure that those are met. Volunteers from the scheme then make weekly visits to the home of the discharged patients, helping with shopping, financial affairs and cleaning. Without this service, those people would have no support once they had left their hospital beds.

Until recently the scheme was funded by a pooled arrangement between the Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust, the London borough of Sutton social services department, and the Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust. However, earlier this year—I think this is driven by financial pressures—the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust began to question the value of the scheme, despite the clear support of patients who had benefited directly from it and health care professionals working for the trust.

My point is about a voluntary organisation that is doing extremely good work, but which has been notified that its funding will be withdrawn in the course of this year. Without that organisation in place, hundreds of vulnerable people will leave hospital with no support, which will in turn increase pressure on hospital beds, because those people will not be able to leave hospital as promptly as the NHS increasingly wishes them to.

There will also be an increase in readmission's readmissions as a direct consequence. People who have been inappropriately and too hastily discharged will end up having to go back into hospital because their home was unsafe or ill suited, or because they were unable to get out to get the necessary food to provide themselves with a decent meal during their recovery and convalescence. All those matters will increase the direct cost to the NHS, which is why that decision by the local NHS is a false economy. It is a short-sighted approach, and it will lead to long-term costs and consequences."