Questions have been raised over transparency and communications from the Western trust regarding the ongoing issues around emergency surgery at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) since they were first raised in October.

Campaigners have come out and stated they do not trust the Trust for its handling of the situation.

Indeed, the recent revelations over comments made about safety mitigations the Trust said they have put in place following recommendations from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) have raised this even further in the last week.

At a Special Council Meeting of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council on November 17, the Trust’s Chief Executive, Neil Guckian, said he had invited representatives from the RCOG to review the arrangements the Trust were making around the change to emergency surgery.

Mr. Guckian said three recommendations were made, and these were implemented by the Trust.

However, the RCOG, when contacted about these recommendations, responded by saying: “Whilst, as a matter of course the college does not get involved in local service reconfigurations, and has not provided any recommendations on the withdrawal of some surgical services at this Trust, we are aware that the Trust sought informal advice from a local member of the RCOG council on how to mitigate the impact of these changes.”

When asked about this statement and the recommendations made, a Trust spokesperson said: “The Trust will be implementing additional measures to ensure the highest-quality clinical pathways for obstetric and gynaecological patients at the SWAH.

“These mitigating measures were developed in conjunction with the Divisional Clinical Director, and local Clinical Lead for Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

“The Trust, having written to the Vice-President of the RCOG on September 21, then consulted with the regional representative of the RCOG, who was in agreement that these measures would allow patients to be assured of a continued high standard and quality of care.

“To date, the three options highlighted were [1] on-site, middle-tier surgical cover at the SWAH, similar to that used in Altnagelvin [Hospital] for unpredictable intraoperative complications; [2] exploring a private ambulance service contract to transfer acute patients to Altnagelvin; and [3] consideration that all elective cases that are high intermediate risk of bowel surgery are performed in Altnagelvin, with extra lists allocated to you [the Trust] for this. All the above have been actioned by the Trust.”

The statement raised further questions as to why the Trust was in contact with RCOG on September 21 – almost one month before they made an announcement on the fragility of emergency surgery at the SWAH.

The respective comments coming from the Trust and RCOG are at odds, as one described “recommendations” and “mitigating measures”, while the other referred to “informal advice”.

The Trust was asked whether the statement from RCOG was incorrect, and was also asked why the recommendations were sought one month before the first official announcement; who Mr. Guckian had invited from the RCOG, and when, as well as the date the first issues around emergency surgery at the SWAH were discussed by the Trust.

The Trust had not responded to the follow-up questions by the time of going to press.