MP demands apology from Conservatives for "misleading people about Kingston Hospital"

21st August 2008

Kingston and Surbiton's MP, Edward Davey, has today written to the Conservative Party's Health Spokesman, Andrew Lansley MP, demanding an apology for publishing misleading information about Kingston Hospital, on two separate occasions during this month.

Edward Davey believes that either incompetent research or mischief-making has led the Conservative's key national health spokesman to make some serious errors, and he believes that the Conservatives should apologise to the Hospital, their staff, their patients and the local community for their "shoddy scaremongering".

Commenting, Edward Davey MP, said:

"Over the years, I have been the first one to question Kingston Hospital's performance, when I think it is below par. In recent years, I have raised issues ranging from cleanliness to long waits for audiology appointments, from management of personal data to major financial problems. Yet in doing so, I have tried to be balanced and fair.

"That's why I'm so angry that the Conservative's leading health spokesman should issue press releases like confetti that are designed to shock and alarm people, yet are built on complete misinterpretation of the facts, whether intentional or not.

"People work hard in our NHS and patients value our NHS. They do not need politicians who clearly don't now our area telling what amounts to lies about their valued local hospital. Any criticism of Kingston Hospital should be made on the basis of fact, not fiction."

Letter to Andrew Lansley

Andrew Lansley MP
Conservative Health Spokesman
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

21st August 2008

Request for an apology over publishing misleading information about Kingston Hospital

During August, 2 press releases were issued by the Conservative Party in your name, following Freedom of Information requests (6th August and 20th August) and in the case of the hospital that serves most of my constituents, Kingston Hospital, they purported to show that:

• Kingston Hospital had a major problem with pests, because pest controllers had visited the hospital 121 times over 2 years;
• Kingston Hospital had a major problem with cancelled operations, because there had been 10,351 cancelled operations during 2007/08.

As a result, Kingston Hospital received bad publicity, which can of course undermine people's faith in their local hospital and in their NHS. Yet in reality, your figures utterly misrepresented the truth.

While I have been the first over the years to criticise Kingston Hospital, when my research has suggested they deserved it, I have always tried to be rather more careful in my research than you clearly believe you need to be. Pest infestations and cancelled operations are serious issues - that's why you publishing misleading information on them is so serious.

Taking your two press releases in turn:

• The 121 visits to Kingston Hospital by pest controllers had been contracted for - i.e., the Hospital has a maintenance contract, for a weekly visit to check up and advise the hospital. The visits bear no relation to any specific pest problem. Your figures simply show how serious the Hospital takes the issue, not that there is necessarily a problem, as you allege.
  
  I am writing to the Acting Chief Executive of Kingston Hospital to confirm the facts on any serious outbreaks of pests and infestations, over the last 3 years, as it is important to get to the bottom of the issue, but given the significant progress in reducing MSRA and C Difficile in the last year, I think this is likely to prove my point - that your figures were totally misleading.
• The figure obtained on cancelled operations from your FoI request - of 10,351 - was dramatically different from the published figure on the Healthcare Commission's website - of 116 for 2006/07, and equally different from the 2007/08 reported figure of 190.
  
  While Kingston Hospital share some of the blame, for allowing a junior analyst's figures to be provided unchecked by senior staff, I believe you also bear a responsibility to check, when there are such huge differences. Moreover, since other hospitals appear to have misinterpreted your FoI questions, it also suggests your questioning was poor.
  
  Part of the explanation may be in different definitions, for example, as to what counts as a cancelled operation - but then again you appear to have chosen a misleading definition, by including as "cancelled operations", operations that were brought forward (surely a good thing), operations where a date was offered to a patient but the patient asked for a different date, operations that were no longer required and operations that were cancelled because the patient had died.

However you look at your press release of 20th August, even if you try to pass off some of the blame on to Kingston Hospital - who have apologised - it is clear your figures were misleading.

Therefore, as in TWO cases in August you published misleading information about Kingston Hospital, I hope you will as a person of integrity issue an apology on behalf of the Conservative Party to Kingston Hospital, their staff, patients and the wider Kingston community.

In future, I would urge you to be more responsible when you undertake research, and check both your facts really are right, and that they really do tell the story you wish to tell. Otherwise you are in danger of appearing either grossly irresponsible or grossly incompetent and innumerate.

If you are really interested in some of the issues of concern at Kingston Hospital, I am more than happy to brief you, as I conducted a massive survey of local people last year on local health issues, and regularly talk to people about them.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Edward Davey MP