Peter Moore: ICB must explain why Torbay cardiac unit could close

Whenever I hear an idea that sounds a bit mad, I am always keen to hear the other side. There must be a good argument. I try not to be paranoid or believe in conspiratory theories. Can I get inside the heads of people to see where they are coming from, to use two clichés in one sentence.

When the Devon Integrated Care Board (ICB) suggested that they might close the Torbay Hospital cardiac catheterisation and stent service, it seemed so bizarre that I decided to try to listen to the arguments.

All the arguments against have been well aired online and by my fellow columnist, Sally Allen, in this paper. There is also the excellent work by Susie Colley’s Heart Campaign. The move is opposed by all our local MPs, the council, and the hospital cardiologists. It is even opposed by the Mayor of Cockington, Patrick the Pony, even though he does not personally stand to benefit. I stood outside the hospital in the only mass demonstration I have ever attended. But was I missing some strong arguments in favour of the closure?

The role of the ICB is to look at NHS services throughout Devon. They have to look beyond Torbay and South Devon.

The problem is that trying to find a clear argument in favour of the closure was like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

I found an open letter from 3rd December 2025 from their deputy CEO, Chief Strategic Commissioning and Planning Officer. It was called “Developing a case for change for cardiovascular disease, cardiology services and cardiac surgery.” Surely this will clarify the arguments in favour.

Sadly, it sounded as though it was written by Sir Humphry Appleby in Yes Minister. It used vague expressions such as “to improve the way we work together for the long-term benefit of local people” and “they want to support local people to look after their health and prevent them from developing heart conditions.”

Is there anyone who does not want to improve the way we work together and reduce heart disease? Of course, I support anything which will reduce heart disease, such as anti-smoking campaigns, improved diets, and exercise, but these are long-term goals. It is like telling people whose houses have been flooded in the recent storms, “Don’t worry, we are going to build flood barriers eventually.” Their problem is today.

If someone has a heart attack in South Devon, it is not very reassuring to know that in thirty years’ time there should be less heart disease.

It is good to hear that they are going to be “really clear” and “involve health professionals, stakeholders and local people in our plans.” I have a revolutionary idea. If you want to be really clear and involve local people, why don’t you liaise with the very active local heart campaign and arrange a public meeting to explain all the arguments?

What we need is a clear debate. If we keep our cardiac unit it will cost X, or unit Y would close. The role of the ICB is to look at Devon as a whole. Are you having to weigh the dangers to the population of South Devon against another area of Devon?

Since we know that during a heart attack time is crucial, and travelling to Exeter will waste valuable minutes, any argument in favour of closure would have to be strong.

There is a scene in Yes Minister when Sir Humphry explains how to force something through. First of all, when the idea is leaked, say, “I’ve no idea where you heard that.” The next step is, “Well, it’s been discussed but no decision has been made.” Finally, “I hear what you say, but I’m afraid it’s too late now.”

The letter from the ICB deputy CEO says, “Case for change does not mean closure of services,” but later qualifies it by saying it “doesn’t automatically lead to service changes.” There is a subtle difference. Currently, these are only draft changes, but it would be helpful to change the sentence to: “The case for change does not mean closure of services such as Torbay Cardiac Unit.” That would be “really clear.”