OK folks, stop that ironing, put away those gardening gloves and certainly stop playing with that mobile phone – because this gets complicated !
There were 4 options being considered, 3 of which involved the setting up of a Minor Injuries unit at a main location, with back up services at other locations. The full details of these options can be seen here – fingers crossed that this link works.
https://glasgowcity.hscp.scot/…/Option%20apprasial%20inform…
In true NHS fashion there are procedures, meetings and even more procedures, until we finally start to see the wood from the trees so to speak.
There are still a few more meetings (oh I love that word ) to go before a final decision is made but the current state of play is that they do have a favorite option – and that is Option 3 on their list.
This would be the current position with the minor injuries services at Yorkhill closed and
services available for West Glasgow from
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital,
Royal Hospital for Children,
Glasgow Royal Infirmary and
Stobhill Minor Injuries Unit.
To arrive at this decision you will see from the report in the link above that they have gone through procedures which would make the Eurovision Song Contest voting look like child’s play in comparison.
The Community Council had favored a different option with the Minor Injuries Unit being set up at Gartnavel but the writer understands the reasons why this is now only a close second choice.
There is no magic formula which determines how emotive a particular local issue becomes – therefore it was no surprise that only 10 members of the public attended the meeting last night.
OK – normal service can now be resumed.
Kelvindale Community Council 
Is there parking at the Royal as we have no useful bus service in Kelvindale?
To describe the closure of the service at Yorkhill as the current situation is misleading. Last winter the Board removed that service as a “temporary” measure over winter, and subsequently cited a number of different excuses for its continuing closure. This has allowed them to portray the permanent removal of that service as a “no change” option – a cynical and misleading approach.
I share the writer’s disappointment about the poor attendance at the engagement meeting, but how well publicised was that meeting? Probably my own fault – but I was totally unaware of it, and would certainly have chosen to attend. Perhaps the community council could arrange a local meeting to give residents the opportunity to discuss and comment upon the removal of this service, and to publicise and raise support for the community councils preferred option of a service at Gartnavel?