I have recently submitted some items at a hospital in my town, which has no emergency department and deals with diagnostics, planned procedures, and outpatient rehabilitation. Here are 2 appeal decisions for items at the hospital which are contradicting each other. The hospital has other PoIs too.
Could the rejection please be looked at again, as it does not block emergency services and I also disagree that a hallway/lift area outside a ward is a sensitive location. The location is Circle Hospital, located in Reading, England.
Thanks! I was interested seeing the name - Sir Steve Redgrave is so incredibly famous. I was a rower as a teenager and my area is quite a “rowing” area - we are not far from the current GB team training facilities, Leander Rowing Club, Henley Royal Regatta course and the London 2012 rowing venue.
I’ve also realised the original post doesn’t show the plaque itself as the appeal statement and reply are so long so here it is.
I believe this is a problem with their use of the word “rehab". The guidelines indicate that rehab facilities are not eligible. But the person who wrote that was only thinking of rehab centers for substance abuse. Places for physical rehab are not sensitive. I have complained about this for years.
That makes sense in terms of the “sensitive” rejection - I was thinking they thought the hospital is sensitive or that it was inside of a ward (its not).
Yes they’re offering physical rehabilitation ie they have a large gym area and rooms for physios to have private sessions or more public within the gym area. Definitely not sensitive. The plaque isnt even inside that space, its next to the lifts on the 2nd floor in a kind of hall area before main doors to a ward area. The rehab facilities are on the ground floor
But its a plaque in a hallway, not inside any rehabilitation facilities, so again I would like to understand why it was rejected when other PoIs at the hospital were accepted.
I am not reporting stuff I submitted in good faith and had accepted appeals for
Its a non emergency hospital with a big physio department. They do a lot of orthopaedic surgery there so employ physiotherapists and have a great facility for outpatients to visit (which the plaque mentions)
Its not a mental health facility, its not a long term care facility. Think more its a place people go to get their hip replaced and then have physio after once a week till they’re better. The plaque is on a wall on a hallway near some lifts.
I totally agree.
Helping support people to recover and regain mobility is not sensitive no matter what part of the body they are mainly concerned with.
Neurology is about the nerves which go throughout the body so for example it is just as likely to cover nerve damage in the spine as the brain or an arm.
People get rehab in order to live well.
Ive been a patient at this place for 5 surgeries. Countless appointments, and a lot of physio. Its just a particularly nice hospital with good facilities. Hospitals arent sensitive locations - many hospitals have in game locations. The only ineligible aspect of a hospital is an emergency area and this hospital doesnt do emergency care at all, so thats not a concern
No. I’ve already explained this. They use the term rehab to mean substance abuse NOT physical therapy rehab. I have literally had face to face conversations with the people who run the Wayfarer program about this.
Actually, they’ve flip flopped back and forth on this a lot. Multiple times criteria publications were posted that were explicit in that hospital locations were not strictly ineligible. I think that we’d finally gotten to a place where people weren’t blanket-rejecting them that it wasn’t a priority to keep them in the guidelines.
I tried searching for some of the old clarifications and everything I’m finding right now is only associating “sensitive” with locations dealing with cemeteries. I thought there were other definitions around but I’m not finding them at the moment. This may be something that has been lost to multiple forum relocations and guideline updates.
If you’re referring to how they have handled in house reviews & appeals, it’s important to remember that these are meant to be taken as a case by case situation and not strictly criteria, and staff themselves have admitted to mistakes and misinterpretations happening.
It is interesting you consider them sensitive. Do you consider other injuries in the same way?
Could you explain to me why so that I can understand your view.
I think there is a difference in the understanding of what a neurology department does which is the all round functioning of nerves in the body.
These may be damaged by accident or specific diseases that cause damage to the neurons and their ability to send and receive signals.
It’s very similar to the problems of movement when the muscles themselves are damaged.
This does not cause behavioural change, which from you describe would be psychiatry which specifically relates to mental health. And most would agree that could be a sensitive issue.
It’s an interesting discussion that has developed.
For this nomination, the plaque describes an event (dedication) for a rehabilitation center. The plaque on its own is not really interesting enough to go see. It can stand as a marker for the rehab center, but a rehab center is not a great place to socialize or explore. It is a place where some may do physical rehabilitation, which can involve exercise, but that’s not why it’s there. It’s there to treat diseases, injuries and disorders. So, I don’t think the rehab center meets any acceptance criteria, and would myself reject it.
Now, there could be things in the public areas of the facility that might be eligible, but the facility itself I think is not.
The interesting part for me is that a super famous local person opened it, which is on the plaque. I submitted the plaque as being linked to exploration, because I learned something interesting. And if the plaque had been rejected for not being interesting enough, thats fine. It was not rejected for that reason though, it was rejected for being in a sensitive location, so thats what I am seeking clarity on - not whether the plaque itself is eligible if that makes sense?
It doesn’t necessarily make sense, but unfortunately, I doubt you’ll be successful in figuring out exactly why that selection for rejection.
Personally, and this is just my opinion I don’t expect anyone else to agree, I would choose sensitive area for any place inside a medical facility except in common areas where patients and non-patients can gather (not just walk through but intended to gather). I’ve been in medicine for 30 years and just feel as though people come to healthcare facilities when they’re sick, when they’re hurt, when they need something and that should be respected above all else. Again, just my opinion. I have no problem with statues in a cafeteria or large lobby your common area or other types of POI’s in these settings. But in the hallways, waiting rooms, in consultation rooms, etc. for me that’s just a no go because it is a sensitive area.
By the way, I recently had a foot bridge along a marked trail in a recreational forest denied on appeal because it was “just a normal foot bridge in the woods.” Appeal decisions I find often don’t make sense.
