Campaigners are to mount a legal action against a health board’s decision to downgrade an island hospital.
Supporters of the hospital in Portree, Skye’s largest settlement, claim the health minister has been misled over local needs so they are now seeking a judicial review in the Court of Session.
The need for a new Skye hospital has long been recognised. But there has been a debate whether it should be in Portree where historically there has been a 12 bed hospital; or 25 miles to the south at the 20 bed facility in Broadford, which is more accessible to the mainland areas it will also serve.
Members of SOS NHS Skye campaign had appealed to Shona Robison, the Health Secretary, to order an independent review into the health board's redesign of service provision in Skye, Lochalsh and South West Ross.
But in February the Scottish Government approved NHS Highland’s plans to build a new £15m hospital in Broadford.
It would have X-ray and endoscopy facilities, and be able to carry out minor operations. It would also have inpatient beds and offer outpatient chemotherapy, orthopaedic and chest services.
Portree meanwhile would only have a Primary Care Emergency Centre with GP and nurse cover for minor ailments and injuries. Crucially to the campaigners, there would be no inpatient beds.
SOS NHS Skye believes this is a deeply flawed approach which effectively closes Portree Hospital.
"The decision to reduce provision on the island to a single central hospital has been taken without NHS Highland having any idea how this will affect services across the whole area," said Sarah Marshall who chairs the group.
She argued the health board had made no attempt to identify the needs of local communities, which meant there was no way of assessing the effects of the changes.
“The removal of beds and A&E from north Skye are just two very obvious problems that NHS Highland has failed to address,” she said.
A petition in support of a review had attracted nearly 5,000 signatures, which was more than twice the number of people who responded to NHS Highland's public consultation on the proposed changes, she said.
"It's equivalent to around 60 per cent of the electorate of the Eilean a Cheo (Skye) council ward. It's like a petition from Inverness getting over 40,000 signatures, or 250,000 from Edinburgh. With this level of support you would think that our politicians would sit up and take notice.”
Ms Marshall said that if the court action was successful, the health board plans would have to be examined afresh.
"We believe that the Health Secretary has been misled by NHS Highland, and that the judicial review will expose the incompetence and the mendacity of NHS managers."
The campaign already had pledges of financial support from across the world, and within the next few days a website would enable people to donate online, she said.
But Gill McVicar, director of operations for NHS Highland’s north and west operational unit, said the public consultation had been robust and fair, as recognised by the Scottish Health Council. Shona Robison had also said said she was satisfied that NHS Highland conducted the process in a "meaningful and exclusive way, providing local people with numerous and reasonable opportunities to express their views".
Ms McVicar said she was sorry that SOS NHS Skye believed the redesign was flawed and that the board would be happy to continue working with them.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said Portree Hospital was not closing and would continue to provide healthcare services in connection with the new hospital in Broadford.
“This was subject to wide ranging scrutiny, with considerable input from the people of Skye, during the consultation process. The independent Scottish Health Council has reported that NHS Highland’s consultation process was consistent with national guidance," she said.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article