Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Advanced Search

UHS AR 23-24 Final

Description: 2023/24 Incorporating the quality account University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2023
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/UHS-AR-23-24-Final.pdf

Annual report 20-21

Description: 2020/21 Incorporating the quality report University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2020/21 Presen
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/annual-report-20-21.pdf

Annual-report-and-quality-account-2019-20

Description: ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2019/20 Incorporating the quality account 2019/20 Page 2 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual report and accounts 2019/20 incorporating the quality account 2019/20 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25 (4) (a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 Page 4 ©2020 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Page 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview and performance report Welcome from our chair A word from the chief executive Overview of the Trust Statement of purpose and activities History of UHS Our executive team structure Structure of our services Our vision and values Our priorities, key issues and risks Voluntary disclosures Equality, diversity and inclusion 92 8 9 Environmental sustainability and climate chan ge 95 Quality account 10 Chief executive welcome 101 10 11 Annual accounts 12 Statement from the Chief financial officer 183 13 Independent Auditors report 185 14 Foreword to accounts 192 Performance report Going concern disclosure 16 Reporting structure 16 Key performance indicators 18 How we monitor performance 19 Overview of performance of UHS 18 Regulatory body ratings 19 Environmental matters 23 Social, community, anti-bribery and human rights issues 23 Accountability report Members of the Trust Board 25 Trust Board purpose and structure 30 Board meeting attendance record 2018/19 31 Well-led framework 32 Finance and investment committee 34 Quality committee 33 Audit and risk committee 35 External auditors 36 Governance code 36 Performance evaluation of Trust Board and its committees 36 Remuneration 36 Countering fraud and corruption 37 Independence of external auditor 37 Internal audit service 37 Better payment practice code 37 Statement as to the disclosures to auditors 38 Disclosures 38 Income disclosures 38 Governance disclosures 38 Approach to quality governance 38 Council of Governors 41 Annual remuneration statement 51 Remuneration and appointments committee 54 Governors’ nomination committee 57 Staffing report 61 Staff survey results 65 Trade union facility time 68 Statement of chief executive’s responsibilities as the accounting officer 72 Annual governance statement 73 Page 6 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Page 7 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Welcome from our chair 2019/20 was another challenging year for University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS). Demand for our services continued to rise rapidly, partly because of the ageing of the population we are here to serve and partly because of challenges in the external environment, but also because of our ability to offer exciting innovations for a range of conditions. As a result, we were not always able to offer treatment as rapidly as we wished. A major challenge towards the end of the year was the need to prepare the Trust for the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the need to re-engineer services on an unprecedented scale. The response of UHS staff to these challenges has, from start to finish, been magnificent. We saw major innovation in improved patient pathways to accommodate rising demand, and the creativity of colleagues in readying the Trust for COVID-19 was truly breath-taking in its scope and energy. UHS has had a long record of effective financial management. By constantly seeking operational innovation and better value for money in procurement, the Trust has been able to generate the funds necessary to make a number of capital investments which will provide huge patient benefit in future. There has been rapid progress in our major project to refurbish and extend our general intensive care unit. Our £2.2m investment in our new urology unit was completed this year; it will transform our patients’ experiences. We have continued wherever possible to work with partners and we are delighted that work on the £5m Maggie’s Centre has started. Quite apart from the need to navigate our way through the COVID-19 crisis and into the world beyond it, the Trust needs to prepare to play its full role in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight healthcare system as it develops in a way consistent with the NHS Long Term Plan. The responsibility for this falls of course to the Trust Board and I believe that even after having had more change on the Board this year than for some time, we continue to have a strong and committed leadership team. Following the retirement of Caroline Marshall, our long-serving chief operating officer, in September 2019 we welcomed Joe Teape into the position. Joe had not been at the Trust long before we were thrust into the COVID-19 pandemic and got to grips with it impressively rapidly. During the year we said farewell to three non-executive directors (NEDs); Catherine Mason who left us to become chair of Solent Healthcare, Mike Sadler our clinical NED and Simon Porter. After a series of rigorous selection processes, we were delighted to welcome Dave Bennett, Dr Tim Peachey and Keith Evans as replacements. Simon had been both deputy chair and senior independent director (SID) and on his departure Jenni Douglas-Todd succeeded him in both roles. The work of the Board is supported, stimulated and, quite correctly, challenged by the Council of Governors (COG) whose enthusiasm is of huge value to the proper governance of UHS. All of the elections to the COG were competitive, in some cases by a multiplicity of candidates. Unfortunately, one of those vacancies resulted from the death of Edward Osmond. Although Edward had only recently been elected as a governor, he had shown huge commitment to the role and I am sure would have gone on to make a major contribution to UHS. We welcomed nine new governors and one new young governor. I look forward to working with them and all the other governors as we move through and beyond the COVID-19 world. Peter Hollins Chair Page 8 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT A word from the chief executive My first full year as chief executive officer of UHS has been exciting, inspiring, and extremely rewarding but not, as you would expect, without a considerable degree of challenge! The pressures on the NHS have been well publicised as we strive to provide the highest possible standard of care at a time when demand for our services escalates rapidly. At the same time, at UHS we need to play our full part in working out how we shape and deliver the health and care provision for our community into the future. During the year we have done a great deal of work on how we turn our vision for the Trust, world-class care for everyone, into what happens on the front line every day. While the vision may be new it is built firmly on our long-standing values; patients first, working together, and always improving, which together describe who we are as an organisation. These values were central to the development of our new clinical and corporate strategy which sets out an exciting future for UHS over the coming decade. It includes how we will deliver the safest care, delivering the best outcomes, as well as how we will focus on improving the health of our population, supporting both health and wellbeing. The values also provided the basis for our CQC rating of ‘Good’ awarded during the year as were some other fantastic accolades. These included a prestigious British Medical Journal award for improving care for older patients with the development of our frailty unit and activity hub. Our women’s and maternity care at the Princess Anne Hospital was named as being among the best in the world. In addition, we adopted prehabilitation for cancer patients, a pioneering service. There are countless other examples of innovation which have sprung from the creativity and innovative spirit at UHS. Some of these have involved better outcomes for patients, some an improved patient experience and others simply lower the cost of doing things, liberating money which we can then invest in improving other services. I’d like to thank every one of our staff for creating the spirit of UHS which means that the extraordinary happens every day. The world of health and social care is changing dramatically and we continue to be integral to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP). UHS will have a leading part to play in ensuring that, with our partners, we forge a pattern for the provision of healthcare across the local system and beyond, delivering the highest possible standards of care on an enduring basis. As we entered 2020, we began preparing to face COVID-19, the largest pandemic we have seen. Some areas of the hospital are truly unrecognisable as we have adapted to the fight against this virus. The loss of life as a result of COVID-19 has been utterly devastating and it has, I am sure, touched us all personally. It has also challenged the health and wellbeing of all our staff, but particularly our frontline staff, in a unique way. I am not sure whether I am prouder of the spirit with which our staff have responded to the challenge or of the fact that they made us by common consent one of the best prepared trusts in the country. Finally, I’d like to recognise the acts of kindness I see throughout the Trust on a daily basis. It is one of the things that has struck me the most as I have got to know this organisation and the people within it. I watch how they support one another through challenging times, how they support patients and visitors in their own time and in work time, and how they go above and beyond every day for the people they’re caring for. Every day they make me hugely privileged to lead this amazing organisation. Paula Head Chief executive officer Page 9 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Overview of the Trust Statement of purpose and activities UHS is a large teaching hospital located on the south coast of England. We have a tripartite mission to provide clinical care, educate current and future healthcare professionals, and undertake research to improve healthcare for the future. Our clinical care encompasses local acute and elective care for 680,000 people who live in Southampton, the New Forest, Eastleigh and Test Valley. We also provide care for the residents of the Isle of Wight for many services. As the major university hospital on the south coast, UHS provides the full range of tertiary medical and surgical specialities (with the exception of transplantation, renal services and burns) to over 3.7 million people in central southern England and the Channel Islands. UHS is a centre of excellence for training the doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals of the future. We work with the University of Southampton and Solent University to educate and develop staff at all levels, including a large apprenticeship programme, undergraduate and postgraduate education. Our role in research, developed in active partnership with the University of Southampton, is to contribute to the development of treatments for tomorrow’s patients. This work distinguishes us as a hospital that works at the leading edge of healthcare developments in the NHS and internationally. In particular we have nationally-leading research into cancer, respiratory disease, nutrition, cardiovascular disease, bone and joint conditions and complex immune system problems. We are one of the largest recruiters of patients into clinical trials in the country. Over 12,000 people work at the Trust, making it one of the area’s biggest employers. We also benefit from the contributions of over 1,000 volunteers. Our turnover in 2019/20 was £912m. History of UHS The Trust has its origins in the 1900s when the Shirley Warren Poor Law Infirmary was built on the site of what is now Southampton General Hospital. In the early half of the century, the site began to expand, including the opening of the school of nursing and the creation of the Wessex Neurological Unit. In 1971 a new medical school was opened in Southampton and the 1970s and 1980s saw a significant building programme encompassing the current footprint of Southampton General Hospital, Princess Anne Hospital and Countess Mountbatten House. During the 1990s, services were increasingly centralised at the general hospital, with the eye hospital and cancer services being relocated from elsewhere in the city. The Wellcome Trust funded a clinical research facility at the hospital in 2001 and this unit remains the foundation for much of the Trust’s groundbreaking medical research. In the last decade, development has continued with the opening of the North Wing Cardiac Centre in 2006, the creation of a major trauma centre with on-site helipad and the opening in 2014 of Ronald McDonald House for the relatives of sick children. Organisationally, Southampton University Hospitals Trust was formed in 1993, creating a single management board for acute services in Southampton. Eighteen years later, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) was formed (1 October 2011) when Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust was licensed as a foundation trust by the then regulator, Monitor (now known as NHS Improvement (NHSI)). Page 10 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our executive team structure Executive team structure as at 31/03/2020 Page 11 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Structure of our services Our organisation is split into five areas, with our clinical services grouped into four divisions. Within each division there are care groups. Each division, with the exception of Trust headquarters, is led by a divisional management team consisting of: • divisional clinical director (DCD) • divisional director of operations (DDO) • divisional head of nursing/professions (DHN) • divisional research and development lead • divisional finance manager • divisional planning and business development (or strategy) manager • divisional education lead • division HR business partner • divisional governance manager (DGM) The diagram below outlines the five divisions and care groups/services within each. Each care group has a clinical lead, care group manager and matron/s for specific services as a minimum. Page 12 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our vision and values Our vision outlines who we are and what we stand for, as well as describing the current challenges we face and our priorities for the future. It also provides an in-depth review of our three Trust values, which are summarised below: Patients first Patients and families will be at the heart of what we do and their experience within the hospital, and their perception of the Trust, will be our measure of success. Working together Our clinical teams will provide services to patients and are crucial to our success. We have launched a leadership strategy that ensures our clinical management teams are engaged in the day-today management and governance of the Trust. Always improving Our growing reputation in research and development and our approach to education and training will continue to incorporate new ideas, technologies and greater efficiencies in the services we provide Page 13 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our priorities, key issues and risks Our goals 1. Improving patient journeys (system focus, integration) We will: • Write a strategic plan for integrated ‘front door; services to address capacity and demand mismatch and enable flow • Secure influence in primary care by establishing the hospital’s role in supporting primary care networks • Promote value-based healthcare, particularly: Introduce ‘advanced decision making’ • Redesign services to provide timely safe care and meet constitutional access trajectories • Deliver priorities relevant to UHS in the first year of the long-term plan including commissioning and long-term changes 2. Delivering value-based health and care We will: • Deliver the Trust financial plan and maximise any national funding • Prepare UHS for the new NHS financial regime • Deliver the Trust Quality Improvement plan to improve safety/experience and outcomes • Build capability for change by embedding quality improvement, innovation and transformation at a leadership level • Deliver the Cost Improvement Plan (CIP) without compromising on quality 3. Supporting health lives (prevention, wellbeing inequalities, outcomes and experience) We will: • Improve staff health and wellbeing • Improve population health, maximising the impact of UHS touch points • Develop an early warning tool to identify any deterioration in quality 4. Building an expert and inclusive workforce (diversity, engagement, leadership) We will: • Close the staffing supply gap in priority groups/services to provide high quality and timely care • Manage overall workforce cost to meet CIP challenge • Measure improvement in staff engagement by increasing participation in staff survey • Increase representation of diverse groups in leadership and decision making • Improve the staff engagement score 5. Being agile in meeting people’s needs (organisational elegance/design/flexibility) We will: • Reset organisational structure as necessary, responding to changes outlined in the NHS long-term plan • Leverage digital capability to support patient empowerment and self-care • Measure staff user satisfaction with the Trust IT systems and use this to support the digital strategy • Be agile in flexing resources, responding to fluctuating demand • Secure strategic influence by establishing UHS role in the transition from STP to ICS 6. Leading edge research, education and innovation (research and outcomes) We will: • Identify the capacity constraints to expand research and plan to address • Identify priority areas without a research base and set strategy • Improve quality and breadth of education and training programme Page 14 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) will continue to have a significant impact on public health, morbidity and mortality if adequate prevention and control is not in place. The Trust put rapid and robust arrangements in place early on to prepare for the potential surge in COVID-19 patients. As the government now announces the easing of the lockdown restrictions, the COVID-19 challenge continues to unfold and still represents a very significant future risk to the organization. Our response and mitigations will continue to evolve through 2020/21. Further details on our response to the COVID-19 challenge are in included in the Annual Governance Statement on page 73.. Key issues and risks 1. Inability to develop partnerships and redesign services innovatively renders the Trust unable to meet the expectations of the NHS long-term plan, our strategic plan, and sustainable elective and non-elective pathways. UHS continues to actively develop partnerships across the region and work within the Integrated Care System whilst promoting value-based healthcare and delivering priorities relevant to UHS in the first year of the longterm plan. 2. Failure to deliver regulatory requirements results in license breach and loss of local control with an enforced change in leadership, impacting on Goals 1 to 6. UHS continues to monitor progress against NHSI Performance framework at committee and Board level and build capability for change by embedding quality improvement, innovation and transformation at a leadership level. 3. Failure to achieve financial targets results in a shortfall in cash required to deliver the capital programme. A robust cost improvement programme is in place, continuously monitored through governance processes with a focus on delivery of the Trust’s financial plan. 4. Reduced access to resources compromises the quality of services. We will implement the Trust Quality Improvement plan to improve safety/ experience and outcomes. 5. Capacity and capability gaps in the workforce lead to an inability to provide safe and timely care. To mitigate this risk, we will continue to develop initiatives to improve staff health and wellbeing with proactive recruitment and retention initiatives in place. Staff engagement is monitored through staff survey and leadership and development training in place. 6. Lack of inclusion and diversity results in the failure to get the best from every individual. UHS has an equality, diversity and inclusion strategy, with established Trust networks and inclusive talent management programmes. Page 15 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Performance report Going concern disclosure After making enquiries, the directors have a reasonable expectation that the Trust has adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future. For this reason, they continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing the accounts. Reporting structure As a large NHS university hospital foundation trust, UHS monitors performance within individual teams throughout the year with feedback processes in place to escalate issues to more senior management teams. At a corporate level we have an established executive reporting structure. Page 16 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Monthly Trust Board Public meeting where executive directors present high level summary to chairman and non-executive directors. Audit andrisk committee Finance and Investment committee Quality Committee People & Organisational Development Committee Trust executive committee (TEC) Review performance/issues/risks in greater depth For further detail on role of these committees please refer to the annual governance statement section. Trust Board study sessions Trust Board members meet to focus on a specific issue. Performance meetings Operational management team (led by chief operating officer) and division and care group management teams focus on individual patient and service pathways to develop improvement plans. Page 17 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Key performance indicators (KPIs) The Trust publishes a monthly integrated KPI Board report on our website which provides both the Board and the public with an overview of our performance. This report is constantly evolving as new areas of monitoring are developed and new areas of national focus become apparent. The format of the monthly report follows our six strategic goals: • Improve patient journeys • Value-based health and care • Healthy lives • An expert and inclusive workforce • Being agile in meeting people’s needs • Leading edge research, education and innovation The monthly report features the following sections: • Overview – Aggregation of commentary supporting all sections of the report • Safe • Effective • Caring • Activity • Emergency access • Referral to treatment and diagnostics • Cancer waiting times • Flow • Staffing • Research and development • Estates • Digital This report also includes summary versions of quarterly reports submitted to the Trust executive committee, which go into greater detail about patient experience, patient safety, clinical effectiveness outcomes, and infection prevention. In addition, a separate finance Board report is submitted to Trust Board on a monthly basis. The Emergency Access, Activity and Flow section has several KPIs that are relevant to the key risk of delivering the national access target. Some of the KPIs are: • Number of attendances • Time to initial assessment • Delayed transfers of care • Non-elective length of stay The Activity and Flow sections have several KPIs that are relevant to the key risk of capacity and occupancy. Some of the KPIs are: • Length of stay • New referrals • Number of attendances • Bed occupancy The Staffing (HR) section has several KPIs that are relevant to the key risk of Staffing. Some of the KPIs are: • Staff turnover • Nursing vacancies • Friends and Family Test – percentage of staff who recommend UHS as a place to work You can see full copies of the monthly report by visiting www.uhs.nhs.uk Page 18 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT How we monitor performance In addition to reviewing the data submitted to the Trust Board in these papers, we have a suite of tools available to compare UHS performance to that of comparable trusts around the country. Depending on the measures being monitored, UHS has a number of peer groups to benchmark against, including other local providers, major trauma centres and university hospital teaching trusts. Each NHS trust will service a different size and type of population and will offer a slightly different range of services so it is important to understand that this benchmarking provides an initial indication of performance rather than an absolute guide to our position nationally. In 2020/21 we continue to review the National Model Hospital data as it is published from NHS Improvement. The data and ability to compare our performance has helped to highlight areas of excellent practice and areas where there is potential to improve. The Trust is engaging with the model hospital team and has a member of staff on the ‘model hospital ambassador program’, as well as reviewing areas highlighted as having potential opportunities alongside finance and operational teams. Overview of performance Improving patient journeys 2019/20 was a challenging year in which we made only modest progress against some objectives to ‘Improve Patient Journeys’, and deteriorated in performance against others. • Inpatient length of stay remained stable but didn’t reduce as significantly as we had intended. The percentage of bed days used due to ‘Delayed Transfers of Care’ to other settings increased to nearly twice the national target. This, combined with growth in non-elective admissions (2.8% YTD excluding M12), resulted in occupancy rates which often exceeded our target, and an increase in patients cared for as ‘outliers’ away from their own speciality wards. • Emergency Access Performance (patients spending less than four hours in the emergency department) remained below both the national and local targets, though performance did show modest improvement during the year. There has been a further substantial increase in the volume of emergency department attendances. • The number of ‘elective’ patients waiting for treatment, the percentage of patients waiting within 18 weeks, and also the waiting time for first outpatient appointments, deteriorated significantly during the year. This has, in part, been impacted upon by reduced availability of clinical capacity due to staff concerns about the impact of new pension/tax regulations. There are, however, good indications that service changes are being implemented to increase consultation capacity in an efficient way as we had aimed to. There has been a substantial increase in consultations provided through ‘non-face-to-face’ routes, and a small decrease in the number of more traditional face-to-face consultations. • Urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer seen within two weeks saw a substantial and sustained improvement compared to the previous year, exceeding that target. • Performance against treatment within 62 days measures also demonstrated modest improvement during the year. Significant improvement in cancer performance continues to be required in order for UHS to deliver the national targets for timeliness of treatment. Page 19 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Delivering value-based healthcare • Complaints about UHS care have remained low, with the percentage of complaints ‘closed’ within 35 days above target for the first 11 months of 2019/2020. • Pleasingly, the availability of nursing care to our inpatients (expressed as care hours per patient per day) has increased progressively through the year from 8.6 to 8.9. An active overseas nursing recruitment and induction process has supplemented domestic recruitment and training. • The Trust has formed a 50/50 joint venture company with Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust called Wessex NHS Procurement Limited (WPL). From 1 December 2019, WPL is providing procurement, supply chain and materials management services to the Trust. The objectives of this innovative partnership include the consolidation of supplies purchases for both Trusts (combined revenue £1.4bn) to leverage better prices from suppliers and increased productivity through the elimination of previously duplicated procurement activity. Supporting healthy lives • There was very good performance on the Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio. The standard is 100 and we are consistently below this (83 in December, results are reported nationally retrospectively). This measure includes all patients in England with the same condition and compares those who have died with those that have survived. Being below 100 is a strong indicator of good care. • We continue to receive feedback, which is largely positive, through the national ‘Friends and Family’ survey for both our inpatient and maternity care. • The Board monitors a range of quality indicators. Of these, exceeding the target number of patients infected with clostridium difficile by six is of some concern, we are pleased that the number of severe/moderate medication errors has been maintained well below our target level, and following an increase in the number of Serious Incidents Requiring Investigation (SIRI) that were reported to Board in the early part of the year both the number of SIRIs has reduced and the timeliness of investigation has significantly improved. • Staff sickness levels were on target through the summer months, but significantly in excess of this through the winter months. As a whole, this is a cause for some concern. Building an expert and inclusive workforce • Very pleasingly, nursing vacancies were reduced significantly during the year, from 18% to 15%. Though still a challenge, this supports increases in the treatment capacity we can make available in the Trust, in our ability to open additional bed capacity to reduce our inpatient occupancy rates, and increases the care hours provided per patient per day. • Turnover rates have been in excess of our target throughout the year and there has also been a reduction in the percentage of staff who would recommend UHS as a place to work, though we remain above our target of 76%. The percentage of non-medical appraisals taking place within 12 months remains below target and is declining. • We have made steady progress this year towards our target of 15% of staff at Band 7 and above being from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds by 2023 (above 9% in March 2020). Being agile in meeting people’s needs • 2019/2020 has seen further progress in the implementation of digital tools that enable patients and clinicians to review and discuss patient specific clinical information in new ways, for example, large increases in usage of ‘My Medical Record’ and ‘digi-rounds’, modest further progress in electronic requesting and acknowledgement of tests, and stable usage of other tools. Page 20 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Leading edge research, education and innovation • The majority of recruitment targets have been achieved during 2019/20. • In Q4 UHS ranked 13th for contract commercial study recruitment, which is the same position achieved in the previous year and thus did not achieve our target of Top 10, with a constraint on pharmacy research capacity being a contributing factor. • The proportion of commercial studies closing in the 2019/20 financial year on time and to recruitment target ended the year below the 80% target at 68%, though the year-end target for the proportion of non-commercial studies closing on time and to recruitment target was exceeded at 88% compared to 80% target. Details of UHS performance can be found in the Integrated Performance report which is available in the Trust Board papers section of our website www.uhs.nhs.uk. UHS performance is scrutinised by the Board on a monthly basis. Paula Head, chief executive officer 22 June 2020 Regulatory body ratings Single Oversight Framework NHS Improvement’s Single Oversight Framework provides the framework for overseeing providers and identifying potential support needs. The framework looks at five themes: 1. Quality of care 2. Finance and use of resources 3. Operational performance 4. Strategic change 5. Leadership and improvement capability (well-led) Based on information from these themes, providers are segmented from one to four where ‘4’ reflects providers receiving the most support, and ‘1’ reflects providers with maximum autonomy. A foundation trust will only be in segments three or four where it has been found to be in breach or suspected breach of its licence. Segmentation During 2019/20 the Trust was confirmed as being placed within segment ‘2’. This segmentation information is the Trust’s position as at 31 March 2020. Current segmentation information for NHS trusts and foundation trusts is published on the NHS Improvement website. Finance and use of resources The finance and use of resources theme is based on the scoring of five measures from ‘1’ to ‘4’, where ‘1’ reflects the strongest performance. These scores are then weighted to give an overall score. Given that finance and use of resources is only one of the five themes feeding into the Single Oversight Framework, the segmentation of the Trust disclosed above might not be the same as the overall finance score here. The Trust was on track to deliver a use of resources score of ‘2’. However, as a direct result of COVID-19 our staff were unable to take their full complement of annual leave. The Trust was required Page 21 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT to allow for this additional cost, which was an unfunded cost pressure allowable by NHS Improvement. This had the impact of moving the distance from financial plan score to a ‘4’ and subsequently the overall use of resources score to a ‘3’. Area Financial sustainability Financial sustainability Financial sustainability Overall scoring Metric Capital service cover Liquidity Income and expenditure margin Distance from financial plan Agency spend Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 Care Quality Commission ratings: Overall rating for this trust Are services at this trust safe? Are services at this trust effective? Are services at this trust caring? Are services at this trust responsive? Are services at this trust well-led? Good Requires improvement Outstanding Good Requires improvement Good In December 2018, the CQC inspected four core services; urgent and emergency care, medicine, maternity and outpatients. It also looked at management and leadership, and effective and efficient use of resources. The CQC report (published on the 17 April 2019) rated the Trust as ‘good’ overall and ‘outstanding’ for providing effective services. All sites and services across the organisation are now rated as ‘good’ in the effective and caring domains, with Southampton General Hospital rated as ‘outstanding’ in these areas. The Well-Led section of this report provides further details of the inspectors’ findings. “Our inspectors found a strong patient-centred culture with staff committed to keeping their people safe, and encouraging them to be independent. Patients’ needs came first and staff worked hard to deliver the best possible care with compassion and respect. Inspectors saw many areas of outstanding practice, with care delivered by compassionate and knowledgeable staff. Several teams led by example with a continuous focus on quality improvement. The Trust did face some challenges especially with the ageing estates. Some patient environments were showing significant signs of wear and tear – but again staff were doing their utmost to deliver compassionate care”. Dr Nigel Acheson Deputy chief inspector of hospitals (South) Page 22 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Environmental matters We recognise that the Trust’s business has an impact on the environment. As a large hospital, we undertake a wide range of activities and use a large amount of resources. We are committed to environmental sustainability and consider it as part of the business culture. We continue to invest in energy saving initiatives and staff awareness campaigns that focus on promoting sustainability. We acknowledge that reducing waste and minimising the consumption of scarce resources is consistent with financial sustainability. Our sustainability disclosure section on pages 86 and 95 provides greater detail on the steps we are taking to reduce our activities’ impact on the environment. Social, community, anti-bribery and human rights issues We recognise our responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights (included in the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK), which are relevant to health and social care. These rights include the: • right to life • right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment • right to liberty • right to respect for private and family life The Trust is committed to ensuring it fully takes into account all aspects of human rights in our work. At University Hospital Southampton we value our reputation for top quality care and financial probity and conduct our business in an ethical manner. The Bribery Act 2010 was introduced to make it easier to tackle the issue of bribery which is a damaging practice. Bribery can be defined as ‘giving someone a financial or other advantage to encourage them to perform their duties improperly or reward them for having done so’. To limit our exposure to bribery we have in place an Anti-Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy, a Standards of Business Conduct Policy and a Freedom to Speak Up (formerly Raising Concerns) Policy. These apply to all staff and to individuals and organisations who act on behalf of UHS. We also employ a local counter-fraud specialist who will investigate, as appropriate, any allegations of fraud, bribery or corruption. The success of our anti-bribery approach depends on our staff playing their part in helping to detect and eradicate bribery. Therefore, we encourage staff, service users and others associated with UHS to report any suspicions of bribery and we will rigorously investigate any allegations. In addition, we hold a register of interest for directors, staff, and governors, and ask staff not to accept gifts or hospitality that will compromise them or the Trust. The Board of Directors carries out its business in an open and transparent way. We are committed to the prevention of bribery as well as to combating fraud, and expect the organisations we work with to do the same. Doing business in this way enables us to reassure our patients, members and stakeholders that public funds are properly safeguarded. There are no important events since the year end affecting the Foundation Trust. No political donations have been made. The Trust has no overseas branches. Page 23 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Page 24 ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Members of the Trust Board Board member Name Title Paula Head Chief executive officer David French Deputy chief executive officer and chief financial officer Gail Byrne Director of nursing and organisational development Biography Paula joined the Trust as chief executive in September 2018, having been chief executive at the Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust in Guildford and before that at Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust. She began her career as a pharmacist working in the community, in hospitals and at health authorities before moving into general management and her first board position at Kingston Hospital. Since then she has spent time on the boards of commissioners and providers, including director of transformation at Frimley Park Hospital NHS FT. Paula lives in Hampshire and has a daughter studying medicine at the University of Southampton. David joined the Trust in February 2016 and served as interim chief executive officer from April to September 2018. He read Economics and Social Policy at the University of London before joining ICI plc, where he qualified as a chartered management accountant. David has extensive healthcare experience from the pharmaceutical industry, mostly Eli Lilly and Company where he held many commercial and financial roles in the UK and overseas. He joined the NHS in 2010 as chief financial officer of Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. He also serves as a non-executive director for Vivid Housing Limited, a social housing provider across Hampshire and the Solent. Gail joined the Trust in 2010 as deputy director of nursing and head of patient safety. Prior to this, she has worked at the Strategic Health Authority as head of patient safety, and director of clinical services at Portsmouth Hospital. Gail has also worked in Brisbane, Australia as a hospital Macmillan nurse, and as general manager of a special purpose vehicle company for the private finance initiative at South Manchester Hospitals. Declarations Daughter is a medical student at University of Southampton; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Executive Delivery Group Non-executive director and chair of audit and risk committee, Vivid Housing Limited; Director, UHS Estates Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UHSFT; Director, Southampton Commercial Estates Development Partnership (CEDP) Project Company Limited, a joint-venture company owned 50/50 by UHSFT and Prime plc; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Counter Fraud Board; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Capital Planning Panel; Director of Wessex NHS Procurement Limited (WPL), a joint venture company owned 50/50 by UHSFT and Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (from December 2019) Husband is a consultant surgeon at UHS; Daughter is a midwife at UHS (from March 2019) Dr Derek Sandeman Joe Teape Medical director Chief operating officer Derek was appointed to the Trust as a consultant physician in 1993 and went on to develop a regional Director of UHS Pharmacy Limited, endocrine service. Throughout his career he has had a wholly-owned subsidiary of extensive clinical leadership experience, most recently serving eight years as clinical director. Derek’s leadership roles have also included programme director for postgraduate education and the Wessex Endocrine Royal College representative. He has a strong history of wider system engagement, working collaboratively with partners to improve systems resilience and pathways. UHSFT; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Clinical Executive Group Joe joined the Trust as chief operating officer in December Nil 2019. Previously he was deputy chief executive and director of operations of a large health board in Wales which managed integrated services across three counties including four district general hospitals as well as mental health, learning disability and community services. Prior to this, Joe worked in director roles across finance and strategy within provider acute trusts across the south west of England. Joe is passionate about providing leadership and support for all staff, whatever their profession, and contributing to excellent patient care. He is committed to open and ongoing engagement with the general public and often uses social media to engage with colleagues and with those who have an interest in healthcare. Page 25 ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Non-executive directors Name Title Peter Hollins Chair Dr Tim Peachey Non-executive director David Bennett Non-executive director Biography Declarations Peter graduated in chemistry from Hertford College, Chair of CLIC Sargent Cancer Care Oxford. Joining Imperial Chemical Industries in 1973, for Children (a company limited by he undertook a series of increasingly senior roles in guarantee) (until December 2019); marketing and then general management. Following Council member of University of three years in the Netherlands as general manager of Southampton ICI Resins BV, he was appointed in 1992 as chief operating officer of EVC in Brussels – a joint venture between ICI and Enichem of Italy. He played a key role in the flotation of the company in 1994, returning in 1998 to the UK as chief executive officer of British Energy where he remained until 2001. From 2001, he held various chairmanships and non- executive directorships. In 2003, he decided to return to an executive role as chief executive of the British Heart Foundation in which post he remained until retirement in March 2013. He joined Southampton University Hospital Trust as a non- executive director in 2010, became senior independent director and deputy chairman of UHS in 2014, and was appointed chair in April 2016. Tim qualified as a doctor from Kings College Hospital Director, TP Medcon Ltd; Clinical School of Medicine in 1983. For nearly 20 years, he Safety Officer, Block Solutions Ltd; worked as a consultant anaesthetist at the Royal Free Non-executive director and Quality Hospital in London, specialising in pancreatic cancer Committee chair, Isle of Wight NHS surgery, liver surgery and liver transplantation. He also Trust developed an interest in medical leadership and management and has held positions such as clinical director, divisional director and medical director at the Royal Free. In 2012, Tim moved into full-time management as chief executive of Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust until its acquisition by the Royal Free. He then worked as the London associate medical director at the NHS Trust Development Authority before moving to Barts Health NHS Trust as improvement director and subsequently became deputy chief executive. Tim now holds two NHS non-executive posts. In addition to his role at University Hospital Southampton, Tim also serves on the board for Isle of Wight NHS Trust as deputy chair. He is a practicing mediator specialising in the healthcare sector. He also consults for companies in the medical information technology industry. Dave graduated in chemistry from the University of Director, Davox Consulting Limited; Southampton before entering management consulting, Non-executive director, Faculty of becoming a partner in Accenture’s strategy practice. Leadership and Medical In 2003 he joined Exel Logistics (later bought by DHL), Management (from November managing the company’s healthcare business across 2019); Director Royal College of Europe and the Middle East. During this time, he General Practitioners (RCGP) established NHS Supply Chain, a UK organisation Enterprises Ltd and RGCP responsible for procuring and delivering medical Conferences Ltd (from November consumables for the NHS in England, as well as sourcing 2019) capital equipment. Dave joined the board of Cable & Wireless as sales director in 2008. He later set up his own strategy consulting practice serving the healthcare sector, completing numerous projects in the UK and the US. Dave has also served as a non-executive director at The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust between 2009 and 2016. He chaired the Trust’s quality committee. Page 26 ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Board member Name Title Jenni DouglasTodd Senior independent director/deputy chair (from 01/02/2020) Biography Jenni is a former chief executive of Hampshire Police Authority and the office of the Hampshire police and crime commissioner. After beginning her career in the probation service, she was headhunted into the civil service, at the Home Office, where she spent four years before becoming director of policy and research for the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In the latter role she was responsible for establishing governance of the new police complaints system. She then spent two and a half years as a resident twinning adviser for the UK, based in Turkey to help set up a law enforcement complaints system before taking up the role of chief executive of the county’s police authority. During her three years in the post, she supported the authority in developing effective governance processes to increase accountability and transparency. She also helped the organisation deliver cost-savings whilst still improving performance and developing closer working relations with neighbouring forces. Declarations Independent chair, Dorset Integrated Care System. Managing director, Diversa Consultancy Limited; Member of the Judicial Conduct Investigative Office; Nonexecutive director, Hampshire Cricket Board; Trustee, NACRO; Member of English Cricket Board’s Regulatory Committee. Professor Non-executive Cyrus director Cooper In 2012, she became chief executive and monitoring officer for the Hampshire police and crime commissioner, where she led the development of the office’s vision, mission, values and organisational strategy. She took on the role of investigating committee chair for the General Dental Council in 2014 and, in April that year, founded the Diversa Consultancy, which supports organisations with changes in business, culture and behaviour. She is also a member of the Judicial Conduct Investigating Office, a public appointment. Cyrus Cooper is professor of rheumatology and director of the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit. He’s also vicedean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Southampton and professor of epidemiology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics (rheumatology and musculoskeletal sciences, University of Oxford). He leads an internationally competitive programme of research into the epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders, most notably osteoporosis. His key research contributions have been: • discovery of the developmental influences which contribute to the risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture in late adulthood • demonstration that maternal vitamin D insufficiency is associated with sub-optimal bone mineral accrual in childhood • characterisation of the definition and incidence rates of vertebral fractures • leadership of large pragmatic randomised controlled trials of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in the elderly as immediate preventative strategies against hip fracture. Director and professor of rheumatology, Medical Research Council (MRC) Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit; Vice-D
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/annual-report-and-quality-account-2019-202.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 15 July 2025

Description: Agenda Trust Board – Open Session Date 15/07/2025 Time 9:00 - 13:00 Location Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd Apologies Alison Tattersall In attendance Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (from 9:30) (shadowing Craig Machell) 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 2 Patient Story The patient story provides an opportunity for the Board to reflect on the experiences of patients and staff within the Trust and understand what the Trust could do better. 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 13 May 2025 9:15 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 May 2025 4 Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions To discuss any matters arising from the minutes, and to agree on the status of any actions assigned at the previous meeting. 5 QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE Quality includes: clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee 9:20 Keith Evans, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee 9:25 Dave Bennett, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:30 Committee Jane Harwood, Chair 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee 9:35 Tim Peachey, Chair including Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 4 Report and Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Report 5.5 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:40 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 2 10:10 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.7 Break 10:40 5.8 Finance Report for Month 2 10:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.9 ICS Operational Delivery Report for Month 2 11:05 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.10 People Report for Month 2 11:10 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.11 Freedom to Speak Up Report 11:20 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Christine Mbabazi, Equality & Inclusion Adviser/Freedom to Speak Up Guardian 5.12 Infection Prevention and Control 2024-25 Annual Report 11:30 Receive and discuss Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Julian Sutton, Clinical Lead, Department of Infection/Julie Brooks, Deputy Director of Infection Prevention and Control 5.13 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 11:40 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2025-26 Quarter 1 Review 11:50 Review and feedback on the corporate objectives Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendee: Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships 6.2 Research and Development Plan 2025-26 12:00 Discuss and approve the plan Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendees: Christopher Kipps, Clinical Director of R&D/Karen Underwood, Director of R&D/Laura Purandare, Deputy Director of R&D Page 2 6.3 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update and Risk Appetite Statement 12:10 Review and discuss the update. Review and ratify the risk appetite statement. Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary/Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager 7 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Register of Seals and Chair's Actions Report 12:30 Receive and ratify In compliance with the Trust Standing Orders, Financial Instructions, and the Scheme of Reservation and Delegation. Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 7.2 Review of Standing Financial Instructions 2025 12:35 Review and approve the SFIs Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer Attendee: Phil Bunting, Director of Operational Finance 8 Any other business 12:40 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 9 Note the date of the next meeting: 9 September 2025 10 Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair To agree, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust's Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. 11 Follow-up discussion with governors 12:45 Page 3 Agenda links to the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) 15 July 2025 – Open Session Overview of the BAF Risk 1a: Lack of capacity to appropriately respond to emergency demand, manage the increasing waiting lists for elective demand, and provide timely diagnostics, that results in avoidable harm to patients. 1b: Due to the current challenges, we fail to provide patients and their families / carers with a high-quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes. 1c: We do not effectively plan for and implement infection prevention and control measures that reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections and limit the number of nosocomial outbreaks of infection. 2a: We do not take full advantage of our position as a leading University teaching hospital with a growing, reputable, and innovative research and development portfolio, attracting the best staff and efficiently delivering the best possible treatments and care for our patients. 3a: We are unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to the unavailability of staff to fulfil key roles. 3b: We fail to develop a diverse, compassionate, and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive staff experience for all staff. 3c: We fail to create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs identified in the Trust’s longer-term workforce plan. 4a: We do not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in sub-optimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. 5a: We are unable to deliver a financial breakeven position, resulting in: inability to move out of the NHS England Recovery Support Programme, NHS England imposing additional controls/undertakings, and a reducing cash balance impacting the Trust’s ability to invest in line with its capital plan, estates/digital strategies, and in transformation initiatives. 5b: We do not adequately maintain, improve and develop our estate to deliver our clinical services and increase capacity. 5c: Our digital technology or infrastructure fails to the extent that it impacts our ability to deliver care effectively and safely within the organisation, 5d: We fail to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce our direct and indirect carbon footprint by 80% by 2028-2032 (compared with a 1990 baseline) and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045. Agenda links to the BAF No Item Linked BAF risk(s) 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 2 5.8 Finance Report for Month 2 5.9 ICS Finance Report for Month 2 5.10 People Report for Month 2 5.11 Freedom to Speak Up Report 5.12 Infection Prevention and Control 2024-25 Annual Report 5.13 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2025-26 Quarter 1 Review 6.2 Research and Development Plan 2025-26 1a, 1b, 1c 5a 5a 3a, 3b, 3c 3b 1c 3b All 2a Appetite (Category) Minimal (Safety) Current risk rating 4x5 20 Cautious (Experience) Minimal (Safety) 4x4 16 4x4 16 Open (Technology & Innovation) 3x4 12 Open (workforce) Open (workforce) Open (workforce) 4x5 20 4x3 12 4x4 16 Cautious (Effectiveness) 3x3 9 Cautious (Finance) 4x5 20 Target risk rating 4 x 2 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 3 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 27 4 x 3 Mar 12 30 4 x 2 Mar 8 30 3 x 2 Mar 6 29 3 x 2 Dec 6 25 3 x 3 Apr 9 30 Cautious (Effectiveness) Open (Technology & Innovation) Open (Technology & Innovation) 4x5 20 3x4 12 2x4 8 4 x 2 Apr 8 30 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 2 Dec 4 27 Does this item facilitate movement towards or away from the intended target risk score and appetite? Towards Away Neither x x x x x x x x x Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date 13/05/2025 Time 9:00 – 13:00 Location Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Dave Bennett, NED (DB) Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer (GB) Jenni Douglas-Todd, Chair (JD-T) Diana Eccles, NED (DE) David French, Chief Executive Officer (DAF) Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer (PG) Steve Harris, Chief People Officer (SH) Jane Harwood, NED/Senior Independent Director (JH) Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer (IH) Duncan Linning-Karp, Interim Chief Operating Officer (DL-K) David Liverseidge, NED (DL) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) In attendance Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships (MDeS) Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Ceri Connor, Director of OD and Inclusion (CC) (item 5.11) Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (LA) (item 6.2) Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant (DH) (item 5.12) Kelly Kent, Head of Strategy and Partnerships (KK) (item 6.1) Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience (JM) (item 5.13) Natasha Watts, Deputy Chief Nursing Officer (NW) (item 5.13) Helena Blake, Head of Clinical Quality Assurance (shadowing G Byrne) Raquel Domene Luque, Interim Lead Matron, Ophthalmology (shadowing G Byrne) 1 governor (observing) 6 members of staff (observing) 3 members of the public (observing) Apologies Keith Evans, Deputy Chair and NED (KE) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) 1. Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting. There were no interests to declare in the business to be transacted at the meeting. It was noted that apologies had been received from Keith Evans and Alison Tattersall. 2. Patient Story Item postponed to the next meeting. 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 11 March 2025 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 11 March 2025. Page 1 4. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions The matters arising and actions were noted. It was noted that action 1218 could be closed. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee Ian Howard was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 17 March 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee considered the going concern assessment in respect of the 2024/25 annual accounts and agreed that it was appropriate that the accounts be prepared on a going concern basis. • The committee additionally noted that there had been no significant issues raised by the Trust’s external auditors. • The committee received a report on losses and special payments during 2024/25, noting that these payments generally related to lost patient property. • An update was received in respect of Information Governance. The Trust – in common with most others – was not expected to meet the standards set out in the Data Security and Protection Toolkit due to the introduction of the Cyber Assurance Framework as part of the Toolkit requirements. 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee The chair of the Finance and Investment Committee was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 24 March and 28 April 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 12 (item 5.8), noting that the Trust had achieved its forecast deficit of £7m for 2024/25 following the receipt of revenue support. Furthermore, the Trust had achieved £85.3m of Cost Improvement Programme delivery and Elective Recovery performance of 127%. Nonetheless, the Trust’s underlying deficit was circa £75m. • The Trust’s cash position remained challenging with the Trust likely to require revenue support during either the first or second quarters of 2025/26. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s proposed 2025/26 plan during March 2025 and noted that there were no material changes between the draft reviewed and that submitted on 23 April 2025. • The committee supported a proposal for the Trust to participate in the elective hub at Winchester. 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee The chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 24 March and 25 April 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee received a briefing in respect of the Staff Survey 2024 (item 5.11). • The committee reviewed the People Report for Month 12 (item 5.10), noting that the Trust had ended the year 373 whole-time-equivalents (WTE) above plan. This was largely due to the reductions in patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients not materialising. In addition, there had been higher than normal use of bank staff in March 2025 and lower than anticipated staff turnover. Page 2 • An update in respect of the planned organisational restructuring, including regarding the Equality and Quality Impact Assessment process being developed. • It was considered likely that the delivery of the Trust’s 2025/26 workforce plan would necessitate additional workforce controls. It would be important to ensure that appropriate support was provided to staff in managing at a time of increased demand, financial pressures, and a reducing workforce. 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee The chair of the Quality Committee was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 17 March 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee reviewed the Trust’s quality indicators, which continued to indicate that the organisation was under pressure. • Following an incident at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth on 4 March 2022 whereby a member of the public had suffered fatal injuries due to the downwash from a landing helicopter, the Trust had commissioned a review of its own safety arrangements. It was noted that some additional safety measures would be required. • A visit by NHS South East Region to the Princess Anne Hospital in February 2025 had provided some positive feedback about the service. The Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024/25 Quarter 3 Report was noted. It was further noted that: • The report had been reviewed by the Quality Committee at its meeting held on 17 March 2025. • The proportion of births via caesarean section remained high at over 40%, with late requests in particular placing additional pressure on theatre capacity. • Following successful recruitment of additional staff in late 2024, operational pressures had reduced substantially compared with the previous situation. • A never event relating to a missing swab was under investigation. • The Trust was currently over establishment in terms of its number of midwives and expected to be staffed above the requirement indicated by the anticipated birthrate for the area by the end of 2025/26. 5.5 Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Significant reorganisations of NHS England and integrated care boards (ICBs) had been announced. NHS England was to be abolished, and certain functions merged into the Department of Health and Social Care. Integrated care boards were expected to have to reduce their costs by 50%. • A ‘model’ integrated care board blueprint had been published, which appeared to imply that a significant proportion of ICB functions could be redistributed to providers. • It was expected that the number of ICBs would reduce to 25-30, with each serving populations of c.2m. In Hampshire, ICB and local authority boundaries were expected to align, which was considered to be beneficial. • The British Social Attitudes Survey 2024 showed the lowest satisfaction rating for the NHS since the survey began. • The Spring Statement and subsequent messaging indicated that there would not be additional funding during 2025/26. • The Trust continued to face significant pressure due to patients having no criteria to reside. Historically, there were typically around 100 such patients at Page 3 any one time, whereas 281 had been reported on 13 May 2025. This was the equivalent of six wards. • The Trust faced significant financial pressure during 2025/26 with a lower financial settlement than expected. In order to meet its plans, the Trust would be required to deliver c.£110m of Cost Improvement Programmes, reductions of 5% in divisions and 10% in Trust Headquarters, coupled with clinical and non-clinical recruitment controls. The Trust continued to experience high demand for services, especially in the Emergency Department. • It was important to protect the frontline and assist the organisation with managing at such a time. 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 12 Duncan Linning-Karp was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 12, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust continued to face significant challenges in terms of its Emergency Department performance, with only 57.2% of patients spending less than four hours in the main Emergency Department. An external review was to take place. • There had been a four-month trajectory of increasing numbers of falls. Whether there was any correlation between the increasing number of falls and number of patients having no criteria to reside was being investigated. • The Trust continued to report strong Elective Recovery performance, although the size of the Trust’s waiting list continued to increase. There was some concern as to whether the financial pressures were impacting elective performance and waiting times. • There had been a decrease in the number of virtual outpatient appointments. • Ten never events had been reported as of the end of March 2025. The Trust expected regulatory scrutiny as a result. • The metrics reported in respect of research and development were being reevaluated. Duncan Linning-Karp was invited to present the spotlight on the Mental Health Patient Cohort, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Regular reports on mental health patients were provided to the Quality Committee. • During 2024, there were 347 patients with a decision to admit to a mental health bed whilst at UHS (2023: 303), of these only 13.2% were transferred within the expected 12 hours (2023: 18.5%). During the first quarter of 2025, there had been 92 such patients. If the numbers remained consistent for the rest of 2025, a growth rate of 6% was expected. • In terms of patients brought to the Emergency Department as a hospital-based place of safety detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, only 22% of patients brought to the Trust had a physical need, whereas the remaining patients were brought to the Emergency Department due to the lack of an available facility. • There were insufficient beds available at mental health providers, who were also impacted by delayed discharges. • The enhanced care required by mental health patients placed significant demand on the Trust’s resources. The situation appeared to be worsening with around 100 patients at any one time, of which around 10 were acute. • The Trust has met with the Integrated Care Board and mental health provider to push for a working group to address the issue that care for mental health patients at the Trust cost significantly more than the cost for looking after Page 4 patients at a dedicated facility due to the need to engage specialist agency staff. Actions Duncan Linning-Karp agreed to investigate why the number of virtual outpatients appointments had reduced. Gail Byrne agreed to examine the trend in respect of the friends and family test negative score for inpatients. 5.7 Break 5.8 Finance Report for Month 12 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 12, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had delivered its forecast £7m deficit at year end. This had been achieved through a combination of additional Cost Improvement Programme (CIP) delivery and additional revenue support • Whilst the Trust had delivered £85.3m of CIP, a significant proportion of this was non-recurrent. The Trust continued to record an underlying deficit of £6- 7m per month. • The Trust had £17m in cash, below its usual minimum holding of £30m. The Trust continued to closely monitor and manage its cash position, but it was likely that support would be required in the first quarter. • During 2024/25, the Trust had carried out £34m of unpaid for activity, particularly in terms of Emergency Department, non-elective and outpatient follow ups. There were, however, limited opportunities to reduce this activity due to quality impacts . 5.9 ICB Finance Report for Month 12 Ian Howard was invited the present the ICB Finance Report for Month 12, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System had achieved a breakeven position for 2024/25. It was noted that this represented a significant achievement given that the system was reporting a cumulative deficit of £80m at Month 5. • The system-wide transformation programmes had had a lower-than-expected impact on the Trust. 5.10 People Report for Month 12 Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 12, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • At year end the Trust was 373 WTE above its 2024/25 plan. There had been a significant increase in use of bank staff in March 2025 due to annual leave and the number of mental health patients. The size of the substantive workforce had, however, reduced, albeit at a lower level than expected. • The formal consultation in respect of the organisational changes had been commenced with the unions. The Trust would be moving from four to three divisions and reducing its workforce. • The Trust had announced its intention to reduce the size of its workforce by 780 WTE (c.6%). This was to be achieved via a combination of natural Page 5 attrition and vacancy control and through a Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme. • There were a number of risks to achievement of the Trust’s 2025/26 workforce plan, including: quality and safety risks (mitigated through Equality and Quality Impact Assessment); a lower-than-expected turnover rate due to a lack of opportunities elsewhere; the Trust’s cash position; and delivery of non-criteria to reside and mental health patient reductions. • The Trust had released a statement to staff and was awaiting guidance in respect of the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010. 5.11 UHS Staff Survey Results 2024 Report Steve Harris was invited to present the UHS Staff Survey Results 2024 Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The results of the Staff Survey had been discussed in detail by the People and Organisational Development Committee on 24 March 2025 and at a Trust Board Study Session held on 1 April 2025. • The Trust benchmarked well in certain areas, such as recommendation as a place to work and in terms of views of line management. However, the response rate was lower than in previous years and violence and aggression and civility and dignity scores remained areas of concern. The Board discussed the results of the Staff Survey and agreed that the Trust should focus its efforts on violence and aggression and on helping staff to manage change. It was noted that there was a strong correlation between line manager engagement and the survey response rate. 5.12 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report Diana Hulbert was invited to present the Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • There was to be a change in the exception reporting process from September 2025. The Trust was considering how best to manage these changes. • The financial constraints during 2025/26 would potentially impact the locum fill rate. • The Trust’s estate remained an issue, but work was ongoing, including consideration of re-purposing existing spaces. • Concerns had been expressed from some seeking consultant posts about the impact of the organisational changes on these opportunities. • The duration of handovers continued to result in breaches of working hour limits. 5.13 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 3 and 4 Reports Jenny Milner was invited to present the Learning from Deaths Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s expected death rate remained lower than the national average, with the Trust ranked 12 out of 119. Page 6 • Further improvements in terms of the sharing of learning from Mortality and Morbidity meetings were required. Consideration was been given to using the Ulysses tool. • The Trust’s medical examiner service had reviewed more than 1,000 deaths since inception. 6. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2024-25 Quarter 4 Review Martin de Sousa and Kelly Kent were invited to present the Corporate Objectives 2024/25 Quarter 4 Review, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had delivered 50% of its annual objectives for 2024/25 and 37.5% of objectives had been partially achieved or had incurred minor delays. Two objectives remained ‘red’. • Particular areas to highlight included progress on long-waiters, patient experience, turnover/sickness of staff, and capital scheme delivery. The Trust had also been successful in slowing the rate by which the waiting list grew and in delivering Cost Improvement Programmes. • Areas of concern included the financial position, patients with no criteria to reside, and staff experience. • The Trust was in control of the delivery of some of the objectives, but full delivery of others was outside of the Trust’s control. 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Lauren Anderson was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The BAF had been previously reviewed by the Board in March 2025, following which it had been reviewed by the relevant executive directors and committees. • None of the ratings of the risks had been amended. However, the target dates for three risks had been extended to reflect the challenges in achieving the target rating. • The Trust was holding a higher overall level of risk than had previously been the case. It was considered important to ensure that risks were managed across domains and not in silos. • The Trust was using its risk appetite to support decision-making such as in capital prioritisation and in terms of the decisions required to deliver its 2025/26 plans. • A risk appetite review had been scheduled at a future Trust Board Study Session on the basis that the current situation potentially necessitated changes in terms of the Trust’s stated risk appetite. Action The review of risk appetite was to be scheduled to take place at the Trust Board Study Session on 3 June 2025. Page 7 6.3 South Central Regional Research Delivery Network (SC RRDN) 2024-25 Annual Performance Review and 2025-26 Annual Plan Paul Grundy and Clare Rook were invited to present the South Central Regional and Research Delivery Network (SC RRDN) 2024/25 Annual Performance Review and the SC RRDN 2025/26 Annual Plan, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • During the year the organisation transitioned from the Clinical Research Network Wessex to the South Central Regional Research Delivery Network, whereby the Wessex and Thames Valley and Midlands Clinical Research Networks were integrated into a single entity. • In the Wessex region, 33,000 participants were recruited to over 500 studies during the first half of the year. A further 35,000 participants were recruited to over 800 studies during the second half of the year in the South Central region. • Commercial research remained a priority, with the South Central region benchmarking well in terms of recruitment. • In terms of the 2025/26 plan, the NHS 10-year plan was awaited, as this would likely impact the plan. It was currently intended that the network would focus on the National Institute for Health Research’s seven priorities. A stakeholder group was being convened to inform the SC RRDN’s direction of travel. 7. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governos’ (CoG) meeting 29 April 2025 The Chair presented a summary of the Council of Governors’ meeting held on 29 April 2025. It was noted that the meeting had considered the following matters: • Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Report • Annual Report and Quality Account Timetable 2024/25 • Draft Quality Account • Corporate Objectives • Non-NHS Activity • Governor Attendance at Council of Governor meetings • Council of Governors’ Elections 2025 • Appointment to the Governors’ Nomination Committee • Membership Engagement and Governor activity • Chair’s and Non-Executive Directors’ appraisal outcomes 7.2 Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report The paper ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’ was presented to the meeting, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that, due to an issue with the electronic signature platform, a number of items were included in the report, which should have been included in previous reports. Decision: The Board agreed to ratify the application of the Trust Seal to the documents listed in the ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’. Page 8 8. Any other business Gail Byrne informed the Board that a joint targeted area inspection of the Trust’s Emergency Department and Maternity service by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), social services and the police was scheduled to take place on 20 May 2025, which would focus in particular on safeguarding of children. In addition, a routine Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations inspection was due to take place in June 2025. It was noted that the CQC had recently carried out unannounced inspections at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust and at South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. Accordingly, it appeared likely that the Trust should also expect an unannounced CQC visit, followed by a Well-Led review. It was noted that this was Dave Bennett’s last formal scheduled Board meeting, as his second three-year term was due to expire on 14 July 2025. The Board expressed its thanks to Dave Bennett. 9. Note the date of the next meeting: 15 July 2025 10. Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Decision: The Board resolved that, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust’s Constitution and the Standing Orders of the board of directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. The meeting was adjourned. Page 9 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Trust Board – Open Session 13/05/2025 - 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 12 1246. Virtual outpatients appointments Linning-Karp, Duncan 15/07/2025 Explanation action item Duncan Linning-Karp agreed to investigate why the number of virtual outpatients appointments had reduced. 1247. Friends and family test Byrne, Gail 15/07/2025 Explanation action item Gail Byrne agreed to examine the trend in respect of the friends and family test negative score for inpatients. Trust Board – Open Session 13/05/2025 - 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 1248. Risk appetite Byrne, Gail 03/06/2025 Explanation action item The review of risk appetite was to be scheduled to take place at the Trust Board Study Session on 3 June 2025. Status Pending Pending Completed Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 5.1 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 15 July 2025 Committee: Audit & Risk Committee Meeting Date: 9 June 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • The committee considered the results of a review of historical private activity (pre-2022/23) which had not been invoiced by the Trust. It was noted that, of the £2.5m total, £1.6m had since been paid, but that £0.9m should be written off. It was further noted that this issue should not arise in future due to changes in contracting arrangements and improvements in processes. The committee noted an update in respect of the Trust’s submission as part of the annual National Cost Collection exercise. The committee received a report on waivers of competitive tendering between October 2024 and March 2025, noting that these represented c.£11m of activity over the period. The committee reviewed a draft of the Annual Report and Accounts for 2024/25. The committee noted that the external audit had not progressed as planned. The committee received the Quarter 4 Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Work Plan Update Report, noting that under the Counter-Fraud Functional Return that the Trust was green-rated. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 6.3 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial N/A • There had been an increase in the number of critical risks recorded from 30-35 to c.50. Many of these risks related to staffing or capacity. • It was noted that some of this increase was driven by new risks being identified (or existing risks worsening), but that existing critical risks were not being closed due to insufficient resources. • In addition, following the Six Facet survey, there had been an improvement in the articulation of Estates-related risks, which was now reflected in the total number of operational risks. • The committee reviewed the Board Assurance Framework, noting that all risks had been reviewed by the relevant executive(s). 7.2 Review of Standing Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Financial Instructions 2025-26 Substantial N/A • The committee reviewed the Trust’s Standing Financial Instructions, noting that changes were proposed to two areas: employee expenses and non-pay requisition limits. Any Other Matters: • The committee reviewed the Trust’s internal audit plan and agreed that a cyber security audit should be included as part of the plan. Page 1 of 2 Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. No Assurance There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Not Applicable Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.2 i) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 15 July 2025 Committee: Finance and Investment Committee Meeting Date: 2 June 2025 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 1. The Trust had reported a deficit of £4.4m in line with its plan whereby the Trust would move from a deficit to breakeven to surplus over the course of the year thereby achieving an overall breakeven position at year end. • The Trust’s underlying deficit was £7.2m in month. This was driven by patients having no criteria to reside, activity above block contract levels, and mental health patients. Use of bank staff had normalised when compared to Month 12, but there had been high drugs spend and lower than expected income which was under investigation. • The Trust was on track in terms of its Cost Improvement Programme (CIP). • The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s cash position, noting that the Integrated Care Board had agreed to move scheduled payments to aid the Trust’s position. The Trust was forecasting a £7m negative balance in March 2026. • The committee reviewed the ‘Acute Drivers of Deficit’ report prepared by Deloitte, noting that many of the identified areas were long-term and/or structural issues. • The committee received an update on the Trust’s financial improvement programmes, noting that although c.£80m of the £110m CIP was currently viewed as ‘high risk’, this was expected to improve as schemes became more mature. • The committee noted the Trust’s response to a request to consider proposed workforce targets based on removing 50% of reported increases in corporate services expenditure since 2018/19. It was noted that the Trust expected to deliver this target through its existing plans. • The committee received an update in respect of the national and local contracting process, noting that most areas had now been agreed. The potential changes in Elective Recovery Funding posed a risk to the Trust. In addition, it was likely that £20-30m of activity would remain unfunded. N/A Any Other Matters: The committee received the Always Improving – Transformation End of Year Report, noting progress made. Page 1 of 2 Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. No Assurance There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Not Applicable Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.2 ii) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 15 July 2025 Committee: Finance and Investment Committee Meeting Date: 23 June 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 2 (see below). The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s cash position, noting that the position continued to deteriorate. It was further noted that discussions were underway with local providers, as some providers have cash whilst at the same time others risked running out. The committee received an update on the Urgent and Emergency Care Transformation Programme, noting that the Trust was targeting a reduction in length of stay by a further 5%. The committee noted an update from UHS Estates Limited and progress on a number of programmes. The committee considered a summary of the Spending Review presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 June 2025. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 5.8 Finance Report for Month 2 Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust had recorded an in-month deficit of £3.8m, which was in line with its plan to reach a breakeven position by year end. • The Trust had achieved its planned Cost Improvement Programme delivery level, although much of this was due to non-recurrent savings, which creates a challenge later in the year. • The Trust’s underlying deficit remained at £7.2m, consistent with Month 1. • Income had been lower than expected with reductions in income from pathology and the Channel Islands. Non-pay costs for drugs and clinical supplies also remained a challenge. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s workforce trajectory for 2025/26, noting that even if all ‘red’ CIP schemes were to deliver, this would still result in a shortfall. 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial N/A • Risks 5a, 5b and 5c have been updated, following discussions with the respective Executive Director(s). Any Other N/A Matters: Page 1 of 2 Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. No Assurance There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Not Applicable Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.3 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 15 July 2025 Committee: People and Organisational Development Committee Meeting Date: 25 June 2025 Key Messages: • The committee reviewed the People Report for Month 2 including progress on the Workforce Plan for 2025/26 (see below). • The committee noted that the plans for the Divisional restructure are now underway with the intention of implementing these on 01 July 2025. It is understood that whilst not all people plans have been finalised at a granular level, it is anticipated that most issues will be resolved through natural attrition and through the Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme (MARS). • The MARS application window has now closed and there has been significant interest with 220+ applications submitted. These are currently being assessed for suitability and it is planned that the outcomes will be shared with applicants by 04 July 2025. Not all applications will be accepted as some posts cannot be surrendered, and the organisation cannot afford to accept them all. Whilst each resignation will represent a long-term saving there is a very real risk to in year cost pressures as all successful MARS applications will need to be funded locally, as there is no national funding to support this. • Additional recruitment controls also remain in place including a freeze on non-clinical recruitment, and a hold on 30% of clinical recruitment. • The committee noted that the scale of organisational change is significant and this is likely to be unsettling for staff. A number of support mechanisms have been implemented focussed on wellbeing, and this includes specific organisational change workshops targeted at leaders across the Trust to support them in supporting the wider workforce. The committee reflected that this is a positive step and that once the organisational restructure has completed, this should be used as a foundation for implementing change and leadership training as business as usual. • The committee received an update on the organisation’s education position and the current challenges and opportunities related to this. The committee acknowledged the significant risk to future workforce as a result of the current challenges across the NHS, in combination with the restricted and reduced funding streams which facilitate staff access to education and development. The committee noted the need to review education capacity again at UHS once the long-term workforce plan is published later in the year. Page 1 of 2 Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Any Other Matters: 5.10 People Report for Month 12 Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust’s overall workforce grew by 19 WTE in May 2025 however it is still below the NHSE plan by 107 WTE. It was noted that turnover remains lower than average and it is suspected that this will be due to system wide recruitment controls limiting roles UHS staff may move into, in addition to a wider lack of opportunity in the jobs market as general employer confidence reduces. • Additionally, whilst both remain below plan, there has been an increase in temporary staffing bank and agency usage noting that April was a very low month. • The committee noted that the workforce plan is ambitious and sets out a reduction in headcount of c.750. All schemes to deliver this have been assessed for maturity and continue to be worked up, although even if it were to be assumed that all are followed through to completion, there is still a shortfall which needs to be addressed. Significant work has been undertaken to forward plan the trajectory. • It was noted that consideration had been given to the recruitment controls and whether these needed to be taken further, however as it will take several months to fully implement and see the benefit of those in place currently, this was decided against. The improvements in forecasting, and monthly review, will support this decision so that it can be reviewed again later in the year, probably September. • The committee discussed the need to track indicators related to people, money, performance and quality and consideration will be given to a balanced scorecard. • The committee received a further update in respect of the Band 2/3 pay dispute and in respect of the portering department. • The committee also received a series of updates on recent national letters to Trusts including a required review of job evaluation processes and analysis work on non-frontline nursing roles. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.4 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 15 July 2025 Committee: Quality Committee Meeting Date: 2 June 2025 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Any Other Matters: • It was n
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2025-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-15-July-2025.pdf

Annual-report-2018-19

Description: ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2018/19 incorporating the quality account 2018/19 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25 (4) (a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual report and accounts 2018/19 incorporating the quality account 2018/19 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25 (4) (a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 3 ©2019 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview and performance report Welcome from our Chair 7 A word from the chief executive 8 Overview of the Trust Statement of purpose and activities 9 History of UHS 9 Our executive team structure 10 Structure of our services 11 Our vision and values 12 Our priorities, key issues and risks 13 Performance report Going concern disclosure 16 Reporting structure 16 Key performance indicators 17 How we monitor performance 18 Detailed analysis and explanation of the development and performance of UHS 18 Regulatory body ratings 23 Environmental matters 24 Social, community, anti-bribery and human rights issues 25 Accountability report Members of the Trust Board 27 Trust Board purpose and structure 31 Board meeting attendance record 2018/19 32 Well-led framework 33 Strategy and finance committee 34 Quality committee 34 Audit and risk committee 35 External auditors 36 Governance code 36 Performance evaluation of Trust Board and its committees 36 Remuneration 36 Countering fraud and corruption 36 Independence of external auditor 37 Internal audit service 37 Better payment practice code 37 Statement as to the disclosures to auditors 37 Disclosures 37 Income disclosures 38 Governance disclosures 38 Approach to quality governance 38 Council of Governors 40 Annual remuneration statement 49 Remuneration and appointments committee 52 Governors’ nomination committee 54 Staffing report 58 Staff survey results 62 Trade union facility time 66 Statement of chief executive’s responsibilities as the accounting officer 69 Annual governance statement 70 Voluntary disclosures Equality, diversity and inclusion 78 Environmental sustainability and climate change 80 Southampton Hospital Charity 84 Developments in informatics 85 Leading research into better care 85 Investing for the future 86 Quality account and quality report 2018/19 Chief executive’s welcome 88 Our approach to quality assurance 90 Our commitment to safety 90 Duty of candour 91 Our commitment to staff 91 Freedom to speak up 94 Our commitment to education and training 95 Our commitment to staffing rota gaps 96 Our commitment to technology to support quality 97 Our commitment to the Care Quality Commission 98 Our commitment to improving the environment for our patients 100 Review of quality performance 101 Clinical research 101 Review of services 102 CQUIN payment framework 103 Data quality 103 Participation in national clinical audits and confidential enquiries 104 How we are implementing the priority clinical standards for seven day hospital services 105 Learning from deaths 106 Progress against 2018/19 priorities 109 Priorities for improvement 2019/20 128 Conclusion 132 Responses to our quality account 133 Statement of directors’ responsibilities 138 Independent auditor’s report 139 Quality account appendix Appendix 1: Our quality priorities 2019/20 143 Appendix 2: Quality performance data 144 Appendix 3: CQUIN data 151 Appendix 4: Clinical audit and confidential enquiries data 154 Appendix 5: British Society of Urogynaecology 156 Appendix 6: National clinical audit: actions to improve quality 157 Appendix 7: Local clinical audit: actions to improve quality 161 Appendix 8: Shared decision making 173 Appendix 9: Registration with the Care Quality Commission 174 Annual accounts Statement from the chief financial officer 177 Foreword to the accounts 178 Independent auditor’s report 179 Financial accounts and notes 186 5 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Welcome from our chair 2018/19 was a year of change in the leadership of UHS. Following the departure of Fiona Dalton in March 2018 to run a hospital group in Canada, David French took on the role of interim chief executive officer. On behalf of the Trust Board I would like to thank David for agreeing to do so and also for doing such an outstanding job. During the year we welcomed three new non-executive directors to the Trust; Jane Bailey, Professor Cyrus Cooper and Catherine Mason. Catherine’s talents were also recognised by Solent NHS Trust and she has since left to help lead their organisation as chair. We were delighted to welcome Paula Head as chief executive in September after a rigorous and robust recruitment process. Paula’s experience as chief executive of Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust and, prior to that of Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust, shone through and we were confident that under her leadership UHS would continue to develop, grow and improve. Demand for our services continues to rise rapidly as the result of a changing demographic and other factors, and at a rate far greater than our income. Despite this our staff continue to deliver exceptional care. I was delighted that this was recognised by the Care Quality Commission in their recent inspection when they again rated us as Good. The revised NHS Long Term Plan will inevitably require us to adapt to the changing pattern of healthcare, but we do so with enthusiasm. This year has shown just how adept we are as an organisation at responding positively to change, not only rising to the challenges it presents, but thriving with it. This is evident in the significant investments we have made in the Trust’s estate this year. Phase one of our new children’s emergency department is complete thanks to the continued support of the Murray Parish Trust. We also approved one of the largest capital investments in our history with the updating and expansion of our general intensive care unit. We recognised that it was as crucial to invest, not just in the physical environment within which we provide healthcare, but within the digital environment too, acknowledging that UHS is an NHS digital exemplar. We have invested significantly in information technology to enhance accessibility and improve both patient and staff experience. We look forward with confidence to helping lead the NHS into a new phase of delivering health and care for the United Kingdom into 2019/20. Peter Hollins Chair 7 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT A word from the chief executive Since arriving at UHS to take up my position as chief executive officer, I have heard and witnessed some incredible achievements by staff at the Trust. Dr Joanne Horne was named biomedical scientist of the year at the Advancing Healthcare Awards for her work in histopathology; Dr Beth McCausland, quality improvement fellow in dementia care, was named foundation doctor of the year by Royal College of Psychiatrists; Sarah Charters, consultant nurse and mental health lead for the emergency department was awarded an MBE for services to vulnerable adults and her vulnerable adult support team were also winners of a Nursing Times Award in the emergency and critical care category. The medicine for older people therapy team led by Hannah Wood was named most inspiring team at the national #EndPJParalysis awards while Marie Nelson, matron in research and development, and senior research sisters Jane Forbes and Kirsty Gladas won the silver award for clinical research site of the year at the PharmaTimes International Clinical Researcher of the Year Awards. Jean Piernicki, senior nurse manager in occupational health, was awarded the title of Queen’s Nurse in recognition of her high level of commitment to patient care and nursing practice. Fiona Chaâbane, a senior clinical nurse in neurosciences was named winner of the nursing and midwifery award at the BBC’s The One Show Patients Awards. The medicines advice service, led by Dr Simon Wills, picked up the HSJ Value Award for training and development for its medicines learning portal and Matthew Watts, head of news, was named operational services support worker of the year for the south of England at the Our Health Heroes Awards 2018. We were also delighted that the energy and sustainability team collected the clinical NHS Sustainability Award for its green wards project. These are just a few of the individual and team successes achieved this year. Our entire organisation can also be incredibly pleased and encouraged by the outcome of the recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection, which rated UHS ‘good’ overall, with many individual areas being recognised as outstanding by the CQC. You can find full details of the inspection on page 98 of the quality account. Such positive inspection results link to equally positive staff survey results which saw UHS ranked as the second highest acute trust for staff satisfaction and fifth highest for staff recommending the Trust as a place to work and receive treatment. It’s made me incredibly proud to be able to say that I am part of such a driven team and it’s clear that the UHS team share my drive and determination to improve things for patients and staff every day. This is evident in both the successes I have already mentioned, but also in the pioneering work that is taking place across every department. Informatics has been pioneering new digital initiatives which they recently shared with Hadley Beeman, chief technology adviser to the secretary of state and social care. Surgeons Bhaskar Somani and Stephen Griffin have created a ‘twin surgeon’ model that has revolutionised the treatment of kidney stones in children. Dr John Paisey, consultant cardiologist, and his team were among the first in the world to implant and programme a pacemaker using Bluetooth technology. They performed four of the first five procedures in the world. While Professor Mike Grocott and his team created ‘surgery school’ which is transforming the fitness of patients prior to their operations and thereby reducing length of stay. These are by no means the entirety of our achievements this year and I would like to take the opportunity to thank every single member of staff at the Trust who continues to make UHS one of the leading trust’s in the UK. Paula Head Chief executive officer 8 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Overview of the Trust Statement of purpose and activities UHS is a large teaching hospital located on the south coast of England. We have a tripartite mission to provide clinical care, educate current and future healthcare professionals, and undertake research to improve healthcare for the future. Our clinical care encompasses local acute and elective care for 680,000 people who live in Southampton, the New Forest, Eastleigh and Test Valley. We also provide care for the residents of the Isle of Wight for many services. As the major university hospital on the south coast, UHS provides the full range of tertiary medical and surgical specialities (with the exception of transplantation, renal services and burns) to over 3.7 million people in central southern England and the Channel Islands. UHS is a centre of excellence for training the doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals of the future. We work with the University of Southampton and Solent University to educate and develop staff at all levels, including a large apprenticeship programme, undergraduate and post-graduate education. Our role in research, developed in active partnership with the University of Southampton, is to contribute to the development of treatments for tomorrow’s patients. This work distinguishes us as a hospital that works at the leading edge of healthcare developments in the NHS and internationally. In particular we have nationally-leading research into cancer, respiratory disease, nutrition, cardiovascular disease, bone and joint conditions and complex immune system problems. We are one of the largest recruiters of patients into clinical trials in the country. Over 11,900 people work at the Trust, making it one of the area’s biggest employers. We also benefit from the contributions of over 1,000 volunteers. Our turnover in 2018/19 was more than £878m. History of UHS The Trust has its origins in the 1900s when the Shirley Warren Poor Law Infirmary was built on the site of what is now Southampton General Hospital. In the early half of the century, the site began to expand, including the opening of the school of nursing and the creation of the Wessex Neurological Unit. In 1971 a new medical school was opened in Southampton and the 1970s and 1980s saw a significant building programme encompassing the current footprint of Southampton General Hospital, Princess Anne Hospital and Countess Mountbatten House. During the 1990s, services were increasingly centralised at the general hospital, with the eye hospital and cancer services being relocated from elsewhere in the city. The Wellcome Trust funded a clinical research facility at the hospital in 2001 and this unit remains the foundation for much of the Trust’s groundbreaking medical research. In the last decade, development has continued with the opening of the North Wing Cardiac Centre in 2006, the creation of a major trauma centre with on-site helipad and the opening in 2014 of Ronald McDonald House for the relatives of sick children. Organisationally, Southampton University Hospitals Trust was formed in 1993, creating a single management board for acute services in Southampton. Eighteen years later, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) was formed (1 October 2011) when Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust was licensed as a foundation trust by the then regulator, Monitor (now known as NHS Improvement (NHSI)). 9 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our executive team structure Associate director of corporate affairs (interim) Charlie Helps Constitution; Council of governors; legal services; insurance; risk management; policy management; freedom of information (FOI) general data protection regulations (GDPR) Chief executive Paula Head Director of HR Steven Harris Employee relations; pay and reward; resourcing and temporary staffing; staff engagement; staff performance and appraisal; occupational health and wellbeing; childcare services; communications Medical director Dr Derek Sandeman MD for research & development; clinical effectiveness; clinical practices and outcomes; professional regulation & standards; GP relationships Director of nursing & organisational development Gail Byrne Chief financial officer & deputy chief executive David French Clinical governance & patient safety; education; patient experience; clinical practice & outcomes; professional regulation & standards; complaints/PALS; HR/workforce; voluntary services; fundraising Caldicott Guardian Financial management; financial strategy; investment & ROI; audit; procurement; capital programme management; estates; Commercial development Division A Surgery Cancer care Critical care & theatres Chief operating officer Caroline Marshall Major incident planning; security Division B Division C Emergency medicine Women & newborn Specialist medicine/ ophthalmology Pathology Child health Support services Director of transformation & improvement Jane Hayward Division D Cardiovascular & thoracic Neurosciences Trauma & orthopaedics Cost improvement & transformation; information technology; information governance; core platform systems; informatics development; strategy; commissioning; business & capacity planning Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) Radiology 10 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Structure of our services Our organisation is split into five areas, with our clinical services grouped into four divisions. Within each division there are care groups. Each division, with the exception of Trust headquarters, is led by a divisional management team consisting of: • divisional clinical director (DCD) • divisional director of operations (DDO) • divisional head of nursing/professions (DHN) • divisional research and development lead • divisional finance manager • divisional planning and business development (or strategy) manager • divisional education lead • division HR business partner • divisional governance manager (DGM) The diagram below outlines the five divisions and care groups/services within each. Each care group has a clinical lead, care group manager and matron/s for specific services as a minimum. Division A Surgery Cancer care Critical care Theatres Division B Emergency medicine Medicine for older people Pathology Specialist medicine and ophthalmology Genetics Division C Child health Women and newborn Support services Division D Cardiovascular and thoracic Neurosciences Trauma and orthopaedics Major trauma centre Radiology TRUST HQ Corporate affairs Communications Finance Human resources Informatics Patient support services Claims and litigation Cost improvement and transformation Estates and capital developments Research and development 11 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our vision and values Our Forward vision outlines who we are and what we stand for, as well as describing the current challenges we face and our priorities for the future. It also provides an in-depth review of our three Trust values, which are summarised below: putting patien putting patien putting patien putting patien putting patien putting patien putting patien putting patien putting patien king together king together king together king together king together king together king together king together king together ts first ts firwsotr ts firwsotr wor ts first ts firwsotr ts firwsotr wor ts first ts firwsotr ts firwsotr wor always imparlwovaiynsg imparlwovaiynsg improving always imparlwovaiynsg imparlwovaiynsg improving always imparlwovaiynsg imparlwovaiynsg improving ts first ts first ts first wor wor wor putting patien putting patien putting patien king together king together king together always imparlwovaiynsg imparlwovaiynsg improving Patients and families will be at Our clinical teams will provide the heart of what we do and services to patients and are their experience within the crucial to our success. hospital, and their perception We have launched a leadership ofmtheeasTurruensgtop,aftwiesnuitlslcfbcnigreesptsaosti.euntrs fnigrsptatients first clsintrrikacintageltgomgyetahtnherkraianggtteoegmnetsehuernkrrintegstteoogaeumthresr are engaged in the day-to-day management and governance of the Trust. alw alw alw Our growing reputation in research and development and our approach to education and training will continue ays improtvoinagiyns icmoprropvionagrysaitmeprnoveinwg ideas, technologies and greater efficiencies in the services we provide tients first tients first tients first together together together mproving mproving mproving putti putting pa putti putting pa putti putting pa wo working wo working wo working always i always i always i 12 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our priorities, key issues and risks Our top eight priorities 1 Promote and live our values. We will: • be clearer about the behaviours we expect from our staff • recruit, train and promote people who demonstrably share our values in everything they do 2 Improve safety, quality and productivity. We will: • Sign up to safety and deliver on our promises to patients as part of this campaign • Focus on improving outcomes by measuring and publishing clinical outcomes for all specialties • Focus on improving the whole patient experience, so that patients feel treated with compassion by all staff in every contact • Develop the concept of excellent administrative care, organising our services well so that the patient journey runs smoothly • Commit to productivity improvement across all areas • Develop innovative solutions that allow us to deliver services more efficiently while making better use of our capacity 3 Our staff and education mission. We will: • Attract the best staff by offering them a better deal and the best place to work • Continue to invest in education and training opportunities for our staff including leadership development • Ensure that our leaders and staff understand and deliver our equality and diversity agenda • Prioritise excellent communication that allows the voice of our staff to be heard and acted on • Focus on the staff of the future by developing our education and training capability for clinical and non-clinical staff • Work with our local education providers to offer excellent education opportunities and bring high calibre people into healthcare roles in our hospitals 4 Become a hospital without walls. We will: • Increase the number of patients we care for who are not inpatients within the hospital. Some of these will be cared for in another residential location or at home in partnership between ourselves and other organisations • Be clear about services where we wish to provide end-to-end integrated care, and those where we wish to work with partners to integrate care across organisations • Work with health and social care partners (public, private and third sector), where necessary using new organisational models, to ensure that patients are always cared for in the right setting • Work more closely with general practices and support innovation being led by primary care 13 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT 5 Specialised services. We will: • Engage with commissioners to plan changes in service models according to national service specifications • Continue to plan and manage the ongoing drift of sub-specialist work particularly in paediatrics and complex surgical services • Maintain and develop the critical mass that is increasingly required to care for complex and specialist patients • Work with Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, the University of Southampton and other partners to play our part in the genomic revolution, building on the Genomic Medicine Centre and seeking to become a Genomics Central Laboratory Hub for the region • Develop our clinical informatics ability to ensure that we can take advantage of new information available for the benefit of patients 6 Preventative care. We will: • Continue to expand our screening programmes as national policy and commissioning intentions develop • Take every opportunity to further support and improve the health of our staff • Ensure that our clinical translational research programme, much of which is directly relevant to health promotion, accelerates translation of research into benefit for the local population 7 Discovery. We will: • Develop a detailed plan to continue increasing the number of UHS patients who are offered access to clinical trials and maximise the impact of the research we undertake • Work with the University of Southampton to submit a strong bid for the next round of Biomedical Research Centre / Biomedical Research Unit funding opportunities • Support the University of Southampton to create an international centre for cancer immunology to accelerate the development of new immune therapies to treat cancer 8 All stages of life. We will: • Continue to expand our paediatric services in partnership with community and local acute paediatrics and develop the physical infrastructure of a modern children’s hospital as quickly as finances allow • Continue to improve transition and the care of teenagers and young adults • Develop elderly care services that are integrated across the acute and community sectors • Continue to develop our end of life care 14 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Key issues and risks 1 Failure to deliver national access targets, which impacts patient experience and patient safety. Whilst we are meeting some of the national constitutional standards in waiting times, we are not meeting them all. A number of actions have been taken in relation to improving responsiveness and working with local health and social care partners to reduce delayed transfers of care. The Trust will continue to work to reduce delayed transfers of care, as well as reviewing the efficiency of discharge processes during 2019/20. 2 Capacity and occupancy, which impacts on patient flow and the quality and timeliness of care. Operational risks have been identified across a number of services/specialties linking to issues around increasing referrals, system capacity and delayed transfers of care. We have mitigated this by implementing daily reviews to assess system capacity and escalation requirements aligning capacity plans with the wider system, developing plans to reduce length of stay with strong clinical leadership and oversight and working with local health and social care partners to reduce delayed transfers of care. 3 Staffing, both in terms of recruitment and retention. To mitigate this risk we will continue to focus on making UHS an attractive employer by: • developing band four posts and apprentices • leveraging the ‘Think UHS’ recruitment brand • continuing to recruit within Europe and further afield • working with universities to increase student nurses • enhancing medical overseas fellows posts • reviewing all junior doctor rotas in light of the new contract • using flexible and temporary staff when needed • creating different roles linked to our research agenda • reviewing training and education to enhance retention. 15 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Performance report Going concern disclosure After making enquiries, the directors have a reasonable expectation that the Trust has adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future. For this reason, they continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing the accounts. Reporting structure As a large NHS university hospital foundation trust, UHS monitors performance within individual teams throughout the year with feedback processes in place to escalate issues to more senior management teams. At a corporate level we have an established executive reporting structure. Monthly Trust Board Public meeting where executive directors present high level summary to chairman and non-executive directors. For further information see page 31. Audit and risk committee Strategy and finance committee Quality committee Trust executive committee (TEC) Review performance/issues/risks in greater depth For further detail on role of these committees please refer to the annual governance statement section on page 70. Trust Board study sessions Trust Board members meet to focus on a specific issue. Performance meetings Operational management team (led by chief operating officer) and division and care group management teams focus on individual patient and service pathways to develop improvement plans. 16 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Key performance indicators (KPIs) The Trust publishes a monthly integrated KPI Board report on our website which provides both the Board and the public with an overview of our performance. This report is constantly evolving as new areas of monitoring are developed and new areas of national focus become apparent. For 2018/19 the format of the monthly report followed the five key Care Quality Commission (CQC) questions: • Are we safe? • Are we effective? • Are we caring? • Are we responsive? • Are we well-led? The monthly report features the following sections: • Overview – Aggregation of commentary supporting all sections of the report • Safe • Effective • Caring • Activity • Emergency access • Referral to treatment and diagnostics • Cancer waiting times • Flow • Staffing • Research and development • Estates • Digital This report also includes summary versions of quarterly reports submitted to the Trust executive committee, which go into greater detail about patient experience, patient safety, clinical effectiveness outcomes, and infection prevention. In addition, a separate finance Board report is submitted to Trust Board on a monthly basis. The Emergency Access, Activity and Flow section have several KPI’s that are relevant to the key risk of delivering the national access target. Some of the KPI’s are: • Number of attendances • Time to initial assessment • Hospital red/black alerts • Delayed transfers of care • Non-elective length of stay The Activity and Flow section have several KPI’s that are relevant to the key risk of capacity and occupancy. Some of the KPI’s are: • Length of stay • New referrals • Number of attendances • Bed occupancy • Hospital red/black alerts The Staffing (HR) section has several KPI’s that are relevant to the key risk of Staffing. Some of the KPI’s are: • Staff turnover • Nursing vacancies • Friends and Family Test – percentage of staff who recommend UHS as a place to work You can see full copies of the monthly report by visiting www.uhs.nhs.uk 17 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT How we monitor performance In addition to reviewing the data submitted to the Trust Board in these papers, we have a suite of tools available to compare UHS performance to that of comparable trusts around the country. Depending on the measures being monitored, UHS has a number of peer groups to benchmark against including other local providers, major trauma centres and university hospital teaching trusts. Each NHS trust will service a different size and type of population and will offer a slightly different range of services so it is important to understand that this benchmarking provides an initial indication of performance rather than an absolute guide to our position nationally. In 2018/19 we continue to review the National Model Hospital data as it is published from NHS Improvement. The data and ability to compare our performance has helped to highlight areas of excellent practice and areas where there is potential to improve. The Trust is engaging with the model hospital team and has a member of staff on the ‘model hospital ambassador program’, as well as reviewing areas highlighted as having potential opportunities alongside finance and operational teams. Detailed analysis and explanation of the development and performance of UHS Activity, capacity and occupancy Over the past three years we have seen significant increases in all types of activity. This is linked to demographic growth, new specialist techniques and services transferring from other providers, including vascular services from Portsmouth. In addition, UHS now has responsibility for surgical services at Lymington. The graph and table below demonstrate this increase in activity. UHS growth in activity – 2016/17 to 2018/19 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Inpatient spells (inc. day cases) 2013/14 2016/17 Outpatient appointments 2017/18 2018/19 ED attendances (type one) Referrals (excl March) Inpatient spells (inc. day cases Outpatient appointments ED attendances (type one) Referrals (excl March) 2016/17 160,000 630,045 99,273 189,194 2017/18 157,993 658,147 104,616 197,522 2018/19 168,791 695,343 110,771 207,209 Increase 2016/17 to 2018/19 5.5% 10.4% 11.6% 9.5% 18 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Hospital alert status The hospital alert status is decided by the operations centre after assessing the bed and staffing position, and is recorded twice daily at the Trust bed meetings (though the status may change at any time). Black alert is the highest level of alert and is issued when there are no empty beds available across the Trust with no expected discharges, the emergency department is full, and if actions are not taken several ambulances are likely to be delayed for long periods of time, stopping them from responding to 999 calls (this is based on a national definition of escalation). Red alert is when the majority of the hospital is under significant operational pressure and is likely to include a mismatch between supply and demand of beds and/or there are no beds available, with patients waiting more than three hours in the emergency department, and patients with a clinical decision for admission but no bed identified for them to move to. The Trust will undertake a wide range of actions in response to this, including the opening of additional overnight beds (usually within day wards), the redistribution of staff or bed capacity to support areas under most pressure, Trust-wide communication to request a focus on actions which will enable patients to be discharged or the admission avoided and the potential review of less urgent elective operations to maintain bed availability for patients with more urgent needs. In 2015/16 a black alert was recorded seven times at the twice daily bed meetings. In 2016/17 this was increased to eleven, in 2017/18 this increased to twenty, however in 2018/19 there were no black alerts. The chart below shows red alerts logged during 2018/19. Red alerts 2018/19 60 Number of AM and PM alerts 45 30 15 0 4/1/18 6/1/18 8/1/18 10/1/18 12/1/18 2/1/19 Contributing to this change has been an increase in day cases and an increase in length of stay (LoS) for elective patients linked to a more complex case mix. UHS delayed transfers of care 2018/19 The chart below shows the total bed days attributable to delayed transfers of care at UHS in 2018/19. 3,600 Percentage of bed days lost 3,200 2,800 2,400 2,000 April 2018 June 2018 August 2018 October 2018 December 2018 February 2019 19 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Referral to treatment (18 weeks) performance National target: 92% of all patients on 18 week pathway and not yet treated should have waited 18 weeks or less at the end of the month (incomplete pathways target). How did we do? UHS did not meet the target this year. Achievement of this target in 2018/19 should be set against a rise in patient referrals, which highlights the increased demands being placed on the Trust. The Trust has finished the financial year with no patients waiting greater than 52 weeks, and a total referral to treatment waiting list lower than in March 2018. Emergency department (ED) performance There are three types of emergency departments: Type Type Type ONE TWO THREE 3 24 hour with full resuscitation facilities 3 Consultant-led 3 Designated accommodation for patients admitted via ED 3 Single specialty emergencies (eye or dental) 3 Consultant-led 3 Designated accommodation 3 Minor injuries/walk-in centres 3 Doctor or nurse-led 3 Can be routinely accessed without appointment 3 May be co-located within an ED or sited in the community We run all three types of departments and all three types are subject to the national target and are therefore reflected in our figures. National target: The constitutional standard states that 95% of patients should be treated and either admitted or discharged within fours of arrival into ED. However, NHS Improvement set local targets for all NHS organisations with an ambition that the NHS would return to meet the 95% target by March 2019. The local targets set by quarter (to allow for seasonal variations) for UHS were: Quarter 1 - 90% Quarter 2 - 91.4% Quarter 3 - 90% Quarter 4 - 90-95% How did we do? 2018/19 was another challenging year for emergency patients for the whole Hampshire and Isle of Wight area. Whilst we had a positive start to the year achieving quarter 1 and 2 targets, we did not meet quarter 3 or 4 targets. We did, however, meet out local delivery system targets. 20 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT The graph below shows our performance against the four hour target over the last year (including all UHS types and Lymington). National 4 hour access target – UHS performance 100% 95% 90% 87.1% 85% 80% 82.1% 82.3% 87.4% 87.4% 93.0% 90.5% 84.7% 82.9% 85.7% 90.7% 88.9% 84.8% 77.9% 81.1% 75% Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec 2018 Jan 2019 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 The graph below shows our local delivery system performance against the four hour target over the last year (including all SGH types, Lymington and Southampton Treatment Centre). National 4 hour access target – Local delivery system 100% 95% 91.0% 90% 91.1% 95.1% 92.8% 88.7% 87.1% 89.2% 91.5% 85% 92.9% 88.4% 83.3% 85.9% 80% 75% Apr 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec 2018 Jan 2019 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 21 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Cancer waiting times There are nine separate cancer waiting times standards (below), each of which can then be split into tumour site specific performance groups. Measures Urgent GP referrals seen in two weeks Breast symptoms referral seen in two weeks Treatment started within 62 days of urgent GP referral Treatment started within 62 days of referral (breast, cervical and bowel screening) 62 day consultant upgrades Treatment started within 31 days of decision to treat Second or subsequent treatment (surgery) started within 31 days of decision to treat Second or subsequent treatment (anti-cancer drugs) started within 31 days of decision to treat Second or subsequent treatment (radiotherapy) started within 31 days of decision to treat Target > 93% > 93% > 85% > 90% > 86% > 96% > 94% > 98% > 98% 18/19 YTD (up to and including Feb 19) 86% 50% 74% 80% Achieved 8 8 8 8 86% 3 93% 8 85% 8 100% 3 100% 3 The number of patients referred under the two week wait urgent suspected cancer protocol seen within two weeks of their referral, rose by 7.7% in 2018/19. The chart below shows the rise in demand for UHS cancer services over the past three years UHS growth in cancer actvity – 2016/17 to 2018/19 (up to and including month 11) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Two week waits 2016/17 up to and incl Feb 62 day target patients 31 day target patients 2017/18 up to and incl Feb 2018/19 up to and incl Feb For staffing performance, please refer to page 58. For financial performance please see page 177. Paula Head, chief executive officer 28 May 2019 22 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Regulatory body ratings Single Oversight Framework NHS Improvement’s Single Oversight Framework provides the framework for overseeing providers and identifying potential support needs. The framework looks at five themes: 1. Quality of care 2. Finance and use of resources 3. Operational performance 4. Strategic change 5. Leadership and improvement capability (well-led) Based on information from these themes, providers are segmented from one to four where ‘4’ reflects providers receiving the most support, and ‘1’ reflects providers with maximum autonomy. A foundation trust will only be in segments three or four where it has been found to be in breach or suspected breach of its licence. Segmentation During 2018/19 the Trust was confirmed as being placed within segment ‘2’. This segmentation information is the Trust’s position as at 31 March 2019. Current segmentation information for NHS trusts and foundation trusts is published on the NHS Improvement website. Finance and use of resources The finance and use of resources theme is based on the scoring of five measures from ‘1’ to ‘4’, where ‘1’ reflects the strongest performance. These scores are then weighted to give an overall score. Given that finance and use of resources is only one of the five themes feeding into the Single Oversight Framework, the segmentation of the Trust disclosed above might not be the same as the overall finance score here. Area Financial sustainability Financial sustainability Financial sustainability Overall scoring Care Quality Commission ratings: Metric Capital service cover Liquidity Income and expenditure margin Distance from financial plan Agency spend Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Overall rating for this trust Are services at this trust safe? Are services at this trust effective? Are services at this trust caring? Are services at this trust responsive? Are services at this trust well-led? Good Requires improvement Outstanding Good Requires improvement Good 23 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT In December 2018, the CQC inspected four core services; urgent and emergency care, medicine, maternity and outpatients. It also looked at management and leadership, and effective and efficient use of resources. The CQC report (published on the 17 April 2019) rated the Trust as ‘good’ overall and ‘outstanding’ for providing effective services. “Our inspectors found a strong patient-centred culture with staff committed to keeping their people safe, and encouraging them to be independent. Patients’ needs came first and staff worked hard to deliver the best possible care with compassion and respect. Inspectors saw many areas of outstanding practice, with care delivered by compassionate and knowledgeable staff. Several teams led by example with a continuous focus on quality improvement. The Trust did face some challenges especially with the ageing estates. Some patient environments were showing significant signs of wear and tear – but again staff were doing their utmost to deliver compassionate care”. Dr Nigel Acheson Deputy chief inspector of hospitals (South) Environmental matters We recognise that the Trust’s business has an impact on the environment. As a large hospital we undertake a wide range of activities and use a large amount of resources, for example: • The Trust generates approximately 3,000 tonnes of waste yearly, half of which is clinical waste. If not properly treated this huge amount of waste can cause soil, water and air pollution depending on the disposal route. • Due to the large number of visitors and deliveries we attract every day, traffic congestion is regularly experienced on and around the site, which impacts the air quality around the hospital. We are committed to environmental sustainability and consider it as part of the business culture. We acknowledge that reducing waste and minimising the consumption of scarce resources is consistent with financial sustainability. Our sustainability disclosure section on page 80 provides greater detail on the steps we are taking to reduce our activities’ impact on the environment. 24 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Social, community, anti-bribery and human rights issues We recognise our responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights (included in the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK), which are relevant to health and social care. These rights include the: • right to life • right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment • right to liberty • right to respect for private and family life The Trust is committed to ensuring it fully takes into account all aspects of human rights in our work. At University Hospital Southampton we value our reputation for top quality care and financial probity and conduct our business in an ethical manner. The Bribery Act 2010 was introduced to make it easier to tackle the issue of bribery which is a damaging practice. Bribery can be defined as ‘giving someone a financial or other advantage to encourage them to perform their duties improperly or reward them for having done so’. To limit our exposure to bribery we have in place an Anti-Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy, a Standards of Business Conduct Policy and a Freedom to Speak Up (formerly Raising Concerns) Policy. These apply to all staff and to individuals and organisations who act on behalf of UHS. We also employ a local counter fraud specialist who will investigate, as appropriate, any allegations of fraud, bribery or corruption. The success of our anti-bribery approach depends on our staff playing their part in helping to detect and eradicate bribery. Therefore, we encourage staff, service users and others associated with UHS to report any suspicions of bribery and we will rigorously investigate any allegations. In addition, we hold a register of interest for directors, staff, and governors and ask staff not to accept gifts or hospitality that will compromise them or the Trust. The Board of Directors carries out its business in an open and transparent way. We are committed to the prevention of bribery as well as to combating fraud and expect the organisations we work with to do the same. Doing business in this way enables us to reassure our patients, members and stakeholders that public funds are properly safeguarded. There are no important events since the year end affecting the foundation trust. No political donations have been made. The Trust has no overseas branches. 25 FR STAND BODY ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Members of the Trust Board Board member Name Title Paula Head Chief executive officer David French Deputy chief executive officer and chief financial officer Gail Byrne Director of nursing and organisational development Jane Hayward Director of transformation and improvement Biography Declarations Paula joined the Trust as chief executive in September 2018, having been chief executive at the Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust in Guildford and before that at Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust. She began her career as a pharmacist working in the community, hospitals and at health authorities before moving into general management and her first board position at Kingston Hospital. Since then she has spent time on the boards of commissioners and providers, including director of transformation at Frimley Park Hospital NHS FT. Paula lives in Hampshire and has a daughter studying medicine at the University of Southampton. Daughter is a medical student at University of Southampton; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Executive Delivery Group David joined the Trust in February 2016 and led on finance, procurement, estates and commercial development until March 2018, when he became interim chief executive officer. He read Economics and Social Policy at the University of London before joining ICI plc, where he qualified as a chartered management accountant. David has extensive healthcare experience from the pharmaceutical industry, mostly Eli Lilly and Company where he held many commercial and financial roles in the UK and overseas. He joined the NHS in 2010 as chief financial officer of Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. He also serves as a non-executive director for Vivid Housing Limited, a social housing provider across Hampshire and the Solent. Non-executive director and chair of audit and risk committee, Vivid Housing Limited; Director, UHS Estates Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UHSFT; Director, Southampton Commercial Estates Development Partnership (CEDP) Project Company Limited, a whollyowned subsidiary of UHSFT; Member of Solent Acute Alliance; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Counter Fraud Board; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Capital Planning Panel (from May 2018) Gail joined the Trust in 2010 as deputy director of nursing and head of patient safety. Prior to this, she has worked at the Strategic Health Authority as head of patient safety, and director of clinical services at Portsmouth Hospital. Gail has also worked in Brisbane, Australia as a hospital Macmillan nurse, and as general manager of a special purpose vehicle company for the private finance initiative at South Manchester Hospitals. Husband is a consultant surgeon in the Trust; Daughter is a midwife at UHS (from March 2019) Jane joined the Trust in 2000 as a clinical services manager for the cardiothoracic directorate after spending two years in Hertfordshire as director of performance and 11 years at Barts and the London Hospitals in various roles including planning, finance and commissioning. Jane has led on human resources, information management and technology, improvement and modernisation and has been chief operating officer. Jane joined the Trust Board in February 2008 and became director of transformation and improvement in January 2014. Director, UHS Estates Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UHSFT; Father and mother are UHSFT simulated patients (voluntary position) Dr Derek Medical Sandeman director Dr Caroline Marshall Chief operating officer Derek was appointed to the Trust as a consultant physician in 1993 and went on to develop a regional endocrine service. Throughout his career he has had extensive clinical leadership experience, most recently serving eight years as clinical director. Derek’s leadership roles have also included programme director for postgraduate education and the Wessex Endocrine Royal College representative. He has a strong history of wider system engagement, working collaboratively with partners to improve systems resilience and pathways. Caroline joined the Trust in 1997 as a consultant hepatobiliary and neuroanaesthetist. She has held the posts of college tutor for the Royal College of Anaesthetists and UHS mentoring and coaching lead. In 2008, she became clinical service director for critical care, and then divisional clinical director for division A between 2010 and 2013. Caroline served as interim chief operating officer between January to December 2014, and was then appointed to the substantive post. Her portfolio includes the executive lead for cancer and the executive lead for major trauma. Director of UHS Pharmacy Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UHSFT; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Clinical Executive Group Daughter is employed within the emergency department at UHS (from 1 August 2018) 27 ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Non-executive directors Name Title Peter Hollins Chair Simon Porter Senior independent director and deputy chair Dr Mike Non-executive Sadler director Biography Declarations Peter graduated in chemistry from Hertford College, Oxford. Joining Imperial Chemical Industries in 1973, he undertook a series of increasingly senior roles in marketing and then general management. Following three years in the Netherlands as general manager of ICI Resins BV, he was appointed in 1992 as chief operating officer of EVC in Brussels – a joint venture between ICI and Enichem of Italy. He played a key role in the flotation of the company in 1994, returning in 1998 to the UK as chief executive officer of
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/annual-report-2018-19.pdf

Annual report 2021-2022

Description: 2021/22 Incorporating the quality report University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2021/22 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25(4)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 © 2022 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Table of contents Welcome from our chair and chief executive 6 Overview and performance 8 Performance report 9 Overview 10 Accountability report 36 Directors’ report 37 Remuneration report 59 Staff report 72 Annual governance statement 94 Quality report 105 Statement on quality from the chief executive 106 Priorities for improvement and statements of assurance from the board 109 Other information 182 Annual accounts 210 Statement from the chief financial officer 211 Auditor’s report 212 Auditor’s report including audit certificate 218 Foreword to the accounts 220 Statement of Comprehensive Income 221 Statement of Financial Position 222 Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity 223 Statement of Cash Flows 224 Notes to the accounts 225 5 Welcome from our chair and chief executive As we emerged from the most severe phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, 2021/22 was another challenging year for everyone at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS). It was also a year on which we can look back with pride at what we achieved together in unprecedented circumstances. Amongst many notable achievements over the past twelve months, we have: • Led on globally ground-breaking research trials to inform the country’s COVID-19 vaccine booster strategy, including the world’s first COVID-19 vaccine booster study of mixed schedules. • Successfully managed infection prevention and control, putting us amongst the best in the country for minimising nosocomial spread. This was against a backdrop of, at times, R-rates in our local community that were amongst the highest in the country. • Published new strategies for digital and sustainability, which respectively set out how we are revolutionising our technical capability to meet changing patient needs and responding to the growing threat posed by climate change as part of the NHS-wide commitment to reaching carbon net zero by 2045. The pandemic also highlighted the vital importance of our staff’s wellbeing so we could continue to meet the needs of the most vulnerable and sick within our community and beyond. In response, we launched and have sustained a comprehensive programme of support to help our staff recognise and address the physical and emotional burden of the last two years. In financial terms, the Trust achieved its forecast breakeven position in 2021/22 on a turnover of £1.15 billion. Our strong, long-term financial performance meant we could continue investing in the capacity and condition of our estate. During the last year we have welcomed patients into our new ophthalmology outpatients area, expanded the majors area of our emergency department, built Hamwic House for treating cancer patients and opened four new operating theatres. Our ambition remains to increase capacity and improve facilities so that we can meet rising demand for our services, treating more people in improved settings than ever before. The momentum we are building is informed and driven by our five-year strategic plan, which describes our collective ambitions on our journey to becoming a world-class organisation. Our successes over the last twelve months were set against a backdrop of exceptional pressure on our services, unlike anything we have seen before. Like most hospital trusts, the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions in the wider community saw significant increases in attendances at our emergency department and increased referrals for treatments including surgery and cancer care. Everyone at UHS is working hard to restore services and bring waiting times down, although there are headwinds impacting our elective recovery. As we write this report, we have more than 200 patients in the hospital who no longer need our care but are waiting for discharge, either to a care home or to their own home with domiciliary care packages. Like many sectors, our local authority partners are struggling to buy or directly provide the capacity that is needed due primarily to workforce shortages. On occasion, the number of patients stranded in our hospitals means we have had to cancel scheduled surgery patients due to a lack of beds. Despite this, we are making good progress on recovering our elective performance, for example the number of elective surgery procedures in May 2022 was over 8% higher than in May 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. 6 Looking back over the year, our achievements would not have been possible without every single one of our 13,000 staff, who have gone above and beyond to put patients first. As a Trust Board we recognise that our people are our greatest asset. The results of this year’s NHS annual staff survey are encouraging, with the percentage of staff recommending UHS as a place to work being the sixth highest across all NHS trusts in England. However, we know we can do even better and our new people strategy will help us achieve this by introducing programmes which enable our people to thrive, excel and belong in a diverse and inclusive environment. We ended the year by saying farewell to Peter Hollins, who completed his second and final term as chair on 31 March 2022. In the six years of his leadership, the Trust has undergone a huge transformation to the benefit of both patients and staff. Peter has been a trusted and respected colleague whose outstanding leadership has set UHS on course to be a world-class organisation with world-class people delivering worldclass care. We welcome the formation of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care system on 1 July 2022, which will facilitate increased integration and collaboration across health and social care partners. We look forward to continuing strong relationships with all our partners as we work to develop an NHS of which all the communities we serve can be proud. Jane Bailey Interim Chair June 2022 David French Chief Executive Officer June 2022 7 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Performance report Introduction from our chief executive 2021/22 is the second year that the ways in which the Trust has worked, and the performance it has achieved, have been strongly influenced the COVID-19 pandemic. Our circumstances varied significantly through the year, however, by March 2022: • COVID-19 related restrictions had been removed across the wider community, but remained necessary within healthcare settings; • a combination of partial immunity and improved treatments had reduced the numbers of patients experiencing the most severe symptoms of COVID-19, but the total numbers of people being infected remained very high; and • the numbers of patients attending, or being referred to, healthcare services for other conditions had returned to pre-pandemic levels or higher. Our challenges and priorities have varied through the year in a similar manner, and have included: • providing sufficient urgent care capacity for patients with COVID-19 alongside those with other illnesses or injuries; • running our services with significantly increased levels of COVID-19 related absence amongst our staff, as infection rates have increased in the wider community; and • increasing the numbers of elective treatments provided, back to pre-pandemic levels and higher, to start to reduce patient waiting times and reverse the increases in waiting list sizes caused by COVID-19. Our performance this year has often been impacted by the adversity of the circumstances. We have not always been able to achieve the targets established prior to the pandemic, nor to deliver the standard of service that we would aspire to for our patients. The Trust is proud to have performed well in comparison to other hospital trusts across many performance measures, however, I would like to thank our patients for their understanding and patience, and all our staff for their resilience, commitment and dedication to care for patients and their colleagues. As we begin to emerge from the pandemic, and consider the year ahead, we look forward to working with patients, hospital colleagues, and partners across health and social care to: • continue the recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; • improve our performance against key measures, continuing to perform well in comparison with other hospitals and moving closer to the national targets; and • continue to adapt and improve services such that the outcomes and results achieved for patients will be better than ever before. 9 Overview About the Trust Our services University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust is one of the largest acute teaching trusts in England with a turnover of more than £1 billion in 2021/22. It is based on the coast in south east England and provides services to over 1.9 million people living in Southampton and south Hampshire and specialist services, including neurosciences, respiratory medicine, cancer care, cardiovascular, obstetrics and specialist children’s services, to more than 3.7 million people in central southern England and the Channel Islands. The Trust is also a designated major trauma centre, one of only two places in the south of England to offer adults and children full major trauma care provision. As a leading centre for teaching and research, the Trust has close working relationships with the University of Southampton, the Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. The Trust is consistently one of the UK’s highest recruiting trusts of patients to clinical trials and in the top ten nationally for research study volumes as ranked by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. 12,000 Every year over staff at UHS: treat around 160,000 inpatients and day patients, including about 75,000 emergency admissions see over 650,000 people at outpatient appointments deal with around 150,000 cases in our emergency department deliver more than 100 outpatient clinics across the south of England, keeping services local for patients The Trust provides most of its services from the following locations: • Southampton General Hospital – the Trust’s largest location, where a great number of specialist services are based alongside emergency and critical care and which includes Southampton Children’s Hospital. • Princess Anne Hospital – located across the road from Southampton General Hospital and providing maternity care and specialist care for women with medical problems during pregnancy and babies who need extra care around birth across the region. • Royal South Hants Hospital – although the Trust does not operate this site near the centre of Southampton it provides a smaller number of services from this location. • New Forest Birth Centre – located at Ashurst on the edge of the New Forest and run by experienced midwives and support staff it offers a safe, ‘home away from home’ environment for women having a healthy pregnancy and expecting a straightforward birth. The NHS patient services provided by the Trust are commissioned and paid for by local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and, in the case of more specialised services (such as treatments for rare conditions), by NHS England. Just under half of the Trust’s NHS patient services are paid for by CCGs and just over half are paid for by NHS England. We provide these under a standard NHS contract, which incorporates ongoing monitoring of the Trust and the quality of the services provided. 10 Our structure UHS gained foundation trust status on 1 October 2011. A foundation trust is a public benefit corporation providing NHS services in line with the core NHS principles: that care should be universal, comprehensive and free at the point of need. The Trust is licensed as a foundation trust to provide these services by Monitor (the independent regulator, now part of NHS England and NHS Improvement) and the healthcare services we provide are regulated by the Care Quality Commission. Being a foundation trust has enabled greater local accountability and greater financial freedom and has supported the delivery of the Trust’s mission and strategy over a number of years. The Trust has been a university teaching hospital since 1971. The diagram below provides an overview of the overall organisational structure of the Trust. Division A Surgery Critical Care Opthalmology Theatres and Anaesthetics Public and foundation trust members Council of Governors Board of Directors Executive Directors Division B Division C Division D Cancer Care Emergency Medicine Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Medicine and Medicine for Older People Pathology Specialist Medicine Women and Newborn Maternity Child Health Clinical Support Cardiovascular and Thoracic Neurosciences Trauma and Orthopaedics Radiology 11 Trust Headquarters Division Always Improving Central Operations Clinical Outcomes Commercial Development Communications Contracting Corporate Affairs Data and Analytics Education and Workforce Estates, Facilities and Capital Development Finance Health and Safety Human Resources Informatics Medical Examinerss Service Occupational Health Organisational Development Quality Patient Safety Planning and Productivity Procurement and Supply Research and Development Safeguarding Strategy and Partnerships The Trust is also part of an integrated care system in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, which is a partnership of NHS and local government organisations working together to improve the health and wellbeing of the population across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Our values Our values describe how we do things at UHS and act as a guide to all staff working with colleagues to deliver high quality patient care and a great patient experience every day. Our values are: Patients, their families and carers are at the heart of what we do. Their experience of our services will be our measure of success. Partnership between clinicians, patients and carers is critical to achieving our vision, both within hospital teams and extending across organisational boundaries in the NHS, social care and the third sector. We will ensure we are always improving services for patients through research, education, clinical effectiveness and quality improvement. We will continue to incorporate new ideas, technologies and create greater efficiencies in the services we provide. 12 Our strategy 2021-25 The Trust’s strategy was updated during 2020/21 to take account of everything our staff had experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and what we had learnt from this. The vision for UHS is to continue on its journey to become an organisation of world class people delivering world class care. Our strategy is organised around five themes and for each of these it describes a number of ambitions we aim to achieve by 2025. Theme Ambitions Outstanding patient outcomes, • We will monitor clinical outcomes, safety and experience of our experience and safety patients regularly to ensure they are amongst the best in the UK By 2025 we will strengthen our and the world. national reputation for outstanding • We will reduce harm, learning from all incidents through our patient outcomes, experience and proactive patient safety culture. safety, providing high quality care • We will ensure all patients and relatives have a positive experience and treatment across an extensive of our care, as a result of the environment created by our people range of services from foetal and our facilities. medicine, through all life stages and conditions, to end-of-life care Pioneering research • We will recruit and enable people to deliver pioneering research in and innovation Southampton. We will continue to be a leading teaching hospital with a growing, reputable and innovative research and development portfolio • We will optimise access to clinical research studies for our patients. • We will enable innovation in everything we do, and ensure that ‘cutting edge’ investigations and treatments are delivered in Southampton. that attracts the best staff and efficiently delivers the best possible treatments and care for our patients. World class people • We will recruit and develop enough people with the right Supporting and nurturing our knowledge and skills to meet the needs of our patients. people through a culture that values • We will provide satisfying and fulfilling roles, growing our talent diversity and builds knowledge and through development and opportunity for progression. skills to ensure everyone reaches • We will empower our people, embracing diversity and embedding their full potential. We must provide compassion, inclusion and equity of opportunity. rewarding career paths within empowered, compassionate, and motivated teams. Integrated networks and collaboration We will deliver our services with partners through clinical networks, collaboration and integration across geographical and organisational boundaries. • We will work in partnership with key stakeholders across the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care system. • We will strengthen our acute clinical networks across the region, centralising when necessary and supporting local care when appropriate. • We will foster local integration with primary and community care as well as mental health and social care services for seamless delivery across boundaries. • We will build on our successful partnership with University of Southampton (UoS), growing our reputation as a national leading university teaching hospital. 13 Theme Foundations for the future Making our enabling infrastructure (finance, digital, estate) fit for the future to support a leading university teaching hospital in the 21st century and recognising our responsibility as a major employer in the community of Southampton and our role in broader environmental sustainability. Ambitions • We will deliver best value to the tax payer as a financially efficient and sustainable organisation. • We will support patient self-management and seamless care across organisational boundaries through our ambitious digital programme, including real time data reporting, to inform our care. • We will expand and improve our estate, increasing capacity where needed and providing modern facilities for our patients and our people. • We will strengthen our role in the community as an employer of choice, a partner in delivery of services to our population and by leading the Greener NHS agenda locally. During each year of the strategy the Trust sets out a more detailed series of objectives to achieve and progress towards the delivery of its ambitions. In 2021/22 these objectives included: • Recovery restoration and improvement of clinical services • Introducing a robust and proactive safety culture • Empowering and developing staff to improve services for patients • Implementing the ‘Always Improving’ strategy • Delivering the first year of the research and investment plan • Restoring a full research portfolio and preparing for future growth • Delivering joint research and innovation infrastructure with UoS and Wessex partners • Increasing our people capacity (recruitment, retention, education) • Great place to work including focus on wellbeing • Building an inclusive and compassionate culture • Working in partnership with the integrated care system and primary care networks • Integrated networks and collaboration • Creating a sustainable financial infrastructure • Making our corporate infrastructure (digital, estate) fit for the future to support a leading university teaching hospital in the 21st century • Recognising our responsibility as a major employer in the community of Southampton and our role in delivering a greener NHS. Performance against these objectives will be monitored and reported to the Trust’s board of directors on a quarterly basis. Principal risks to our strategy and objectives The board of directors has identified and manages the principal risks to the delivery of its strategy and objectives through its board assurance framework. The principal risks to the delivery of its strategy and objectives identified by the Trust during 2021/22 were that: • It would have insufficient capacity to respond to emergency demand, reduce waiting lists for planned activity and provide diagnostics results in avoidable harm to patients • It would not be able to provide service users with a safe, high quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes • It would not effectively plan for and implement infection prevention and control measures that reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections and limit the number of nosocomial outbreaks of infection • It would not secure the required ongoing investment to support our pioneering research and innovation, driving clinical services of the future 14 • It would not realise the full benefits of being a University teaching hospital through working with regional partners to accelerate research, innovation and adoption; increasing the number of studies initiated and the patients recruited to participate in these studies and the delivery of new treatments and treatments that would not otherwise be available to patients • It would not be able to increase the UHS workforce to meet current and planned service requirements through recruitment to vacancies and maintaining annual staff turnover below 12% and develop a longerterm workforce plan linked to the delivery of the Trust’s corporate strategy • It would not develop a diverse, compassionate and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive staff experience for all staff • It would not create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs • It would not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in suboptimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. • It would be unable to deliver a financial breakeven position and support prioritised investment as identified in the Trust’s capital plan within locally available limits (CDEL). • It would not adequately maintain, improve and develop our estate to deliver our clinical services and increase capacity. • It would fail to introduce and implement new technology and expand the use of existing technology to transform our delivery of care through the funding and delivery of the digital strategy. • It would fail to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce our direct and indirect carbon footprint and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045 While the COVID-19 pandemic presented the Trust with new risks as it introduced more stringent infection control processes, stopped certain types of activity and responded quickly to care for large numbers of seriously ill patients who had tested positive for COVID-19, it also prompted innovation across a wide range of areas. However the ongoing impact of the pandemic on both our staff, patients who have had COVID-19 and patients who have waited longer than expected for treatment as a result, have added to the risks facing the Trust. This risk has continued into 2021/22 and has been coupled with increases in referrals for cancer and increased attendances to our emergency department and non-elective activity. National targets for performance have not been amended as a result of the pandemic, although the national plan has focussed on the recovery of activity levels as the first stage in a restoration of elective services. Capacity – The initial and subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic have led to increases in the waiting times for patients and the number of patients waiting more than 52, 78 and 104 weeks has increased significantly. While there was a significant reduction in the number of patients waiting over 104 weeks in 2021/22, with the Trust expecting that no patients will be waiting more than 104 weeks by July 2022, its ability to reduce the overall waiting list and the length of time patients are waiting for treatment remains one of the key risks for the Trust. This may be compounded by future waves of the COVID-19, a continuation of the sustained demand for urgent non-elective activity and an ongoing number of referrals, often requiring more complex treatment due to delays in people visiting their GPs for the first time and presenting with more advanced disease. The Trust utilised the support available from the independent sector to continue cancer treatment and surgery for those patients at highest risk and continues to make use of independent capacity for cardiac surgery. It also increased the number of outpatient attendances which took place by telephone or video call. The Trust developed a clinical assurance framework during the year to better assess the risk of harm to patients as a result of delays in treatment and this has been utilised in decision-making around the allocation of resources to those areas where there is the greatest risk of potential harm to patients. In addition to opening additional capacity during 2021/22 (described in the Estates section below), the Trust also committed expenditure in 2021/22 to open further wards and operating theatres during 2022/23 and 2023/24. These initiatives will contribute to further improvements in elective waiting times in coming years. 15 Quality and compliance – The Trust continued to monitor the quality of care delivered throughout 2021/22. During the COVID-19 pandemic the primary focus became infection prevention and control, with the launch of an award-winning COVID ZERO campaign that saw the Trust reduce the transmission of the virus in hospital (nosocomial transmission). While the Trust continued to perform well overall, the Trust exceeded its annual threshold for Clostridium difficile infections and there was one MRSA bacteraemia during March 2022, the only such event in 2021/22. The Trust continued to develop its proactive patient safety culture during 2021/22 with changes to the way in which patient safety incidents are investigated and the launch of its Always Improving strategy and transformation initiatives in theatre efficiency, patient flow and outpatients. Reporting and investigation of incidents continued during 2021/22. The Trust continues to prepare for the implementation of the new patient safety incident response framework in June 2022/23. Partnerships – During 2021/22, the Trust and its partners continued to work together to discharge patients safely, to ensure patients requiring urgent cancer treatment and surgery were able to continue their treatment in the independent sector and to develop the regional COVID-19 saliva testing programme for local schools, hospitals and other employers. The new arrangements for integrated care systems will be implemented in July 2022. This is expected to reinvigorate work with partners at a system, place and provider level in Hampshire and Isle of Wight. The Trust is already part of an acute provider collaborative with other acute trusts in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and is progressing a number of projects including the development of an elective hub at Winchester Hospital, diagnostics, pathology, endoscopy and imaging networks. The Trust also continued to progress research activity and opportunities with the University of Southampton and Wessex health partners. Workforce – The Trust continued to recruit nurses from overseas and through targeted recruitment campaigns during 2021/22 meaning that the number of nursing vacancies has remained relatively stable. Vacancies in other areas have increased reflecting a more competitive job market, particularly for lower band roles. The Trust also continued to work with its staff networks and specific focus groups to increase diversity in leadership roles. Staff turnover remained above the 12% target during 2021/22 and retention is a key element of the people strategy. While workforce capacity continues to be one of the biggest challenges faced by the Trust, during 2021/22 we have also focused on supporting our staff to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and operational pressures by providing both the tools and time to help staff recovery. We are incredibly proud of the way that staff responded to the pandemic and continue to recognise this in whatever ways we can, however, we also want to ensure that staff continue to be able to contribute to patient care at their best and want to stay and develop with the Trust. Technology was also used at levels not previously achieved to continue to deliver training to staff and enable staff to work from home where possible, ensuring a safer environment for patients and staff in the hospitals. Estate – The Trust continued to invest in and develop its estate during 2021/22 including opening a new ophthalmology outpatient area, expansion of the majors area of the emergency department and four new operating theatres. These were part of £65 million of capital expenditure in 2021/22 that also included equipment, digital and the backlog maintenance programme. Innovation and technology – There have been exceptional levels of achievement in relation to COVID-19 related research activity, including in partnership with the universities. You can read more about these in part three of the quality account. The board of directors has also supported the funding of an expansion of research and innovation activity to allow the continued delivery of the Trust’s ambitions to innovate and improve and transform its services. 16 The Trust and its partners also been successful in securing external funding including one of only four successful NHSX awards to test the concept of federated trusted research environments with its Wessex health partners and core funding of £10.5 million for the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Southampton Clinical Research Facility (CRF) for the period between September 2022 and August 2027. Sustainable financial model –The Trust achieved its forecast breakeven position in 2021/22. Income was more predictable in 2021/22 as block contract arrangements remained in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and ensured that costs were covered, however, funding from the elective recovery fund, particularly, in the first half of 2021/22 introduced a degree of income volatility as did changes to the framework for the elective recovery fund half way through the year. The Trust continues to maintain a strong cash position and to implement improvements and efficiency savings, allowing it to continue to invest in its services. The financial outlook across the NHS looks extremely challenging going into 2022/23 due to the reductions in non-recurrent funding and efficiency targets. The Trust currently has an underlying deficit, with pressures on energy prices and drugs cost growth within block contract arrangements, which had been supported with non-recurrent funding in previous years. While specific funding has been provided to address inflationary pressures there is a risk that inflation could exceed this funding and raw material and supply shortages could also impact on costs. Performance overview The Trust monitors a very wide range of key performance indicators within its departments, divisions, directorates and executive committee. Assurance for our board of directors and executive committee includes an integrated performance report which is reviewed monthly and contains a variety of indicators intended to provide assurance regarding implementation of our strategy and that the care we provide is safe, caring, effective, responsive and wellled. The integrated performance report also includes a monthly ‘spotlight’ section, to enable more detailed consideration of any topics that are of particular interest or concern. The selection of topics is informed by a rolling schedule, any performance concerns and requests from the board of directors. Assurance for our council of governors includes a quarterly Chief executive’s performance report, which includes a range of non-financial and financial performance information. 17 Performance analysis COVID-19 Impacts In 2021/22, the most prominent impacts of COVID-19 have been in relation to occupancy of inpatient beds by patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis and increased levels of staff sickness absence associated with COVID-19, in addition to normal levels of absence due to other causes. The impact of COVID-19 has varied significantly through the year, linked primarily to the prevalence of the disease within the wider community. In comparison to 2020/21: • bed occupancy (all types) did not reach the same exceptional peaks, however, it exceeded 50 patients between August 2021 and March 2022 and reached an average of 83 in March 2022; • the number of patients requiring treatment in intensive care and high care were much reduced, though still significant; • fewer patients were admitted requiring hospital treatment for COVID-19 alone, and greater numbers were admitted requiring treatment for other medical conditions who were also infected with COVID-19 at the same time; • staff sickness absence levels were typically higher, particularly in the second half of the year when national restrictions had been removed and COVID-19 infections in the community increased – the sickness absence rate (from all causes) peaked at 6% in March 2022 All bed types Intensive care/higher care beds 18 Staff sickness absence Emergency access through our emergency department Following a reduction during the first year of the pandemic, the numbers of patients who presented to receive care at our emergency department increased exponentially in 2021/22. Attendance levels exceeded the higher levels seen prior to the pandemic by approximately 10%. All patients presenting to the emergency department This exceptional increase in the clinical demand upon our department has had a significant adverse impact upon the timeliness of care, particularly for those patients who have a less urgent condition. The department has also continued to deliver services separately for those patients who have respiratory symptoms and those who do not, and to implement additional infection control measures. Emergency access performance is measured as the percentage of patients discharged from emergency department care or admitted to a hospital bed within four hours of arrival to the department. The national target of 95% was not achieved and the Trust experienced a large deterioration in our own performance to 64% (main ED/Type 1 attendances) by March 2022. Our performance compared favourably with other acute trusts in England despite this, however. 19 Emergency access four hour performance The number and duration of any ambulance handover delays are another important performance indicator. Ensuring that ambulance staff can ‘hand over’ the patients they convey to our emergency department without delay is important because this releases the staff and their vehicle to meet the needs of other medical emergencies in the community. We are very proud to have an exceptionally good record in this regard, working with colleagues in ambulance services to transfer arriving patients into our emergency department and the care of our staff even when the hospital is already fully occupied. 20 Elective Waiting times Demand 2021/22 has seen a continuation of the trend of increasing elective referrals, following a major reduction which occurred at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Referral rates to our services are now typically at, or above, the levels seen before the pandemic. Feedback from clinicians is that they are also seeing more patients with advanced disease than they would normally, because of delays in referral to the service/diagnosis. Accepted referrals The number of patients referred to hospital with suspected cancer increased exceptionally during 2021/22; the number of patients seen for a first consultant-led appointment was 27% higher than in 2020/21 and 18% higher than in 2019/20. Performance remained below the national target of 93% throughout the year, with a deterioration to 74% in December 2021 prior to a recovery to 90% in March 2022. Our performance also declined in comparison with other acute trusts in England. Most of the patients who waited longer than two weeks for their first appointment were within our breast service, which sees a very large number of referrals for suspected cancer and experienced a 22% increase in the number of patients seen compared to 2019/20. Additional consultants who specialise in breast cancer have now been recruited and performance in this service returned to target in April 2022. 21 Performance following ‘Two week wait’ urgent referral for suspected cancer 22 Activity The number of UHS hospital appointments, diagnostic tests and elective admissions all increased significantly during 2021/22. The number of appointments undertaken, and diagnostic tests performed, exceeded activity levels in both 2019/20 and 2020/21. The number of elective and day case admissions increased significantly compared to 2020/21 (the first year of the pandemic) yet remained approximately 10% below the levels achieved between April 2019 and February 2020 (prior to COVID-19). There were a wide range of factors influencing these activity levels, and the lower levels of admitted activity specifically, including: • the availability of beds for the admission of elective patients after emergency patients with COVID-19 and other conditions had been accommodated; • the availability of staff to deliver elective care, during periods of increased COVID-19 bed occupancy, and during periods of increased staff absence related to COVID-19; • additional infection prevention measures which were maintained, particularly within inpatient treatment settings where risks of COVID-19 transmission are otherwise increased. Most of the activity has been delivered within NHS hospitals in 2021/22 (local independent sector hospitals were used to replace NHS elective capacity in 2020/21), and we have recruited additional staff and invested in an additional ward, theatres and outpatient rooms in order to be able increase our treatment activity. The graphs below show 2021/22 activity levels as a percentage of those achieved prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Elective admissions (including day case) 23 Outpatient attendances Diagnostics Our performance measures for diagnostics report on a total of 15 different frequently used tests. At the end of March 2022, 20% of patients were waiting more than six weeks to receive their investigation. This is a significant improvement compared to 28% of patients waiting more than six weeks at the end of March 2021, yet still significantly worse than the national target (1%) and UHS performance prior to pandemic. At the end of March 2022, the total waiting list size (including patients waiting less than six weeks) had increased by 14% compared to March 2021 and was 34% larger than before the pandemic. These trends reflect a combination of large reductions in diagnostic activity in the first year of the pandemic, followed by record levels of diagnostic tests being performed during 2021/22 (7% higher than before the pandemic) combined with very high levels of referrals for diagnostic testing over the same period. 24 The tests with largest numbers of longer waiting patients are non-obstetric ultrasound, peripheral neurophysiology, MRI and CT. Initiatives to improve performance include the recruitment of additional staff in the relevant professions and investment in additional equipment, in the context of NHS forecasts that diagnostic demand will continue to increase over the longer term. Patients waiting for a diagnostic test to be performed (sum of 15 different frequently used tests) Percentage of patients waiting over 6 weeks for a diagnostic test to be performed 25 Referral to Treatment Our waiting list from referral to treatment increased in size by 27% (9,768 patients) during 2021/22 and is now 36% larger than before the pandemic. Both referrals and hospital activity declined steeply at the start of the pandemic, but referral levels increased more quickly than hospital activity following this. The rate at which the waiting list is increasing has however reduced in the most recent six months. Number of patients waiting between referral and commencement of a treatment for their condition The national target is that at least 92% of patients should be waiting for treatment no more than 18 weeks from their referral to hospital. Our performance has deteriorated from 80% immediately before the pandemic, to 68% at the end of March 2022. Our performance continues to be typical of the major teaching hospital trusts that we benchmark with, and the trend has been similar to that experienced across trusts in England. Percentage of patients waiting up to 18 weeks between referral and treatment 26 The fact that some patients wait significantly longer than the 18 week target is a particular concern. In 2020/21 NHS England targeted the stabilisation of the numbers of patients waiting more than 52 weeks and the elimination of waiting times more than 104 weeks (except when patients choose to wait longer). The percentage of patients waiting more than 52 weeks at UHS reduced from 9% to 4%. The number of patients waiting more than 104 weeks reduced, from a maximum of 171, to 59 at the end of March 2022 (of whom only five were wishing to proceed with treatment at that time). The patients who typically wait longest for treatment continue to be those who require admission for surgical procedures in specialities such as ear nose and throat, orthopaedics and oral surgery. The Trust opened four additional operating theatres during 2020/21 and is working in collaboration with partners in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care system to implement further elective recovery plans. Percentage of patients waiting more than 52 weeks, between referral and commencement of a treatment for their condition 27 Cancer Waiting Times The timeliness of urgent services for patients with suspected cancer has unfortunately declined during 2021/22. The Trust continues to perform well in comparison with the teaching hospitals that we benchmark with and deliver a similar range of services, however. We have faced a range of challenges including: • a large increase in the number of new patients referred for investigation; • delays in the onward referral (for specialist investigation or treatment) of patients from other trusts which have also experienced increases in referrals; • the need to provide capacity to investigate and treat the full range of other conditions, alongside those patients with suspected cancer; and • an increase in the complexity of treatment required by new and existing patients, potentially because of delays in referral or treatment during the first year of the pandemic The national target is to provide the first definitive treatment to at least 85% of patients with cancer with 62 days of referral to hospital. UHS exceeded this level of performance in April 2021 but has not done so since then, performance deteriorated to 66% in January 2022 before recovering somewhat to 72% by March 2022. Treatment for Cancer within 62 days of an urgent GP referral to hospital The national target is to provide the first definitive treatment to at least 96% of patients within 31 days of a decision to treat being made and agreed with the patients. Trust performance has been very variable in 2021/22, ranging from 89% to 98% in individual months. Likewise, performance has ranged from below average in some months, to amongst the best in the group of teaching hospitals that we benchmark with. 28 First definitive treatment for cancer within 31 days of a decision to treat A range of initiatives are being pursued to maintain and improve the timeliness of our cancer services including: • changes to some of the processes for the referral and initial assessment of patients with suspected cancer, for example the inclusion of high quality photographs within referrals for suspected skin cancer; • projects to refine processes and procedures for the investigation of suspected gynaecological and urological cancers; • an operating services improvement programme designed to improve the flow of patients, and the numbers of patients treated, through our existing theatre facilities; and • staffing level increases and recruitment to clinical roles in specialities where the increases in demand require this. Quality priorities The Trust set four quality priorities in 2021/22, which were aimed at ensuring we continued to deliver the highest quality of care. The quality priorities were shaped by a range of national and regional factors as well as local and Trust‐wide considerations. We recognised the overriding issues of significant operational pressures being felt right across the health and social care system, including those associated with the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, by limiting the number of priorities to four. We also acknowledged the risk that the delivery of our priorities could be disrupted by the ongoing pandemic and that we needed to be flexible in adapting the priorities to changing circumstances. The Trust set the following four priorities: 1. Introduction of midwifery continuity of carer for women at risk of complications in pregnancy. 2. To support staff wellbeing and recovery. 3. Managing risks to patients delayed for treatment and restoring elective programmes. 4. Reducing healthcare associated infection (HCAI) 29 The Trust achieved three of the quality priorities and partially achieved one priority. In relation to midwifery continuity of carer, the Trust’s performance exceeded the ambition that had been set by NHS England in 2020/21 following its national review of maternity services in 2015 as shown below. NHS England ambition set in 2020/21 35% of women will be booked to receive care in a continuity of carer team 35% of black and minority ethnic women booked to receive care in a continuity of carer team 35% of women living in an IMD-1 area (most deprived areas measured using indices of deprivation) Percentage achieved 41.7% 75% 80% The Trust continued to introduce programmes, interventions and wider support offerings to promote staff wellbeing and recovery in 2021/22. Our 2021/22 annual NHS staff survey results are positive with our scores relating to wellbeing above the benchmark average. Contributing factors to wellbeing such as staff engagement, morale, staff experience in areas such as kindness and respect, feeling valued and trusted to do their job were all above the benchmark average. More information about staff health and wellbeing is included in the staff report below. The Trust only partially achieved the priority relating to managing the risks to patients delayed for treatment and restoring elective programmes. The Trust’s performance against elective waiting time standards are described in more detail above. While the Trust focused on prioritising all patients waiting for surgery to ensure we continued to treat people based on need and urgency, we continue to recognise the impact of delays on people’s quality of life and, at times, outcomes. COVID-19 remained a key area of focus for the Trust in 2021/22 in terms of infection prevention. The Trust implemented a number of awareness campaigns, including its award-winning COVID ZERO campaign, and strategies to reduce in-hospital transmission of COVID-19 and kept these under review throughout the year. The chart below shows the trend of hospital-onset cases of COVID-19, which has broadly followed local and national prevalence of the virus, and the Trust’s performance compared very favourably with its local and national peers. 30 The table below provides an overview of the Trust’s performance against national and other infection prevention standards and limits to minimise infections, the majority of which have been achieved by the Trust. Category National Objectives: MRSA bacteraemia Clostridium difficile infection E coli Bacteraemia End of year RAG Action /Comment R One MRSA bloodstream infection attributable to UHS 2021/22 in March 2022. R 74 cases against a threshold of 64 for the year. G 138 cases in 2021/22 against a threshold of 151. Klebsiella Bacteraemia A 64 cases in 2021/22 against a threshold of 64. Pseudomonas Bacteraemia MSSA G 30 cases in 2021/22 against a threshold of 34. 43 cases in 2021/22 after 48 hours in hospital. Other: Hospital onset, healthcare associated COVID-19 103 hospital-onset probable healthcareassociated cases in 2021/22. 125 hospital onset definite healthcare associated cases in 2021/22. Prudent antibiotic Antimicrobial prescribing Stewardship G The standard contract requirement for reduction in antibiotic usage for 2021/22 was waived, as in 2020/21. Had it been applied as anticipated, the Trust would very likely have met this. Provide Assurance of Infection G The annual infection prevention audit assurance of Prevention Practice programme was reinstated in April 2021 for basic infection Standards the monitoring and assurance of infection prevention prevention and control practices but practice: subsequently suspended in September 2021. You can find more information about how the Trust delivered and measured its quality priorities, including feedback from patients and staff and improvement aims and quality priorities for 2022/23, in the Trust’s quality account for 2021/22, incorporated in the Trust’s annual report and accounts. 31 Financial performance The Trust delivered a surplus of £0.048 million from a revenue position of over £1.2 billion, once items deemed as “below the line” by NHS England and NHS Improvement, su
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/Annual-report-2021-2022.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 29 November 2022

Description: Date Time Location Chair Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 29/11/2022 9:00 - 13:20 Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 2 Staff Story The staff story provides an opportunity for the Board to reflect on the experiences of patients and staff within the Trust and understand what the Trust could do better. 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 29 September 2022 9:20 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 29 September 2022 4 Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions To discuss any matters arising from the minutes, and to agree on the status of any actions assigned at the previous meeting. 5 QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE Quality includes: clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Charitable Funds Committee (Oral) 9:30 Dave Bennett, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee (Oral) 9:35 Jane Bailey, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee (Oral) 9:40 Tim Peachey, Chair 5.4 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:45 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.5 Integrated Performance Report for Month 7 10:05 Review and discuss the Trust's performance as reported in the Integrated Performance Report. Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Finance Report for Month 7 10:35 Review and discuss the finance report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.7 People Report for Month 7 10:45 Review and discuss the people report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 6 Break 10:55 7 Infection Prevention and Control 2022-23 Q2 Report 11:05 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Julian Sutton, Interim Lead Infection Control Director/Julie Brooks, Head of Infection Prevention Unit 8 Medicines Management Annual Report 2021-22 11:15 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: James Allen, Chief Pharmacist 9 Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) Update including Workforce Race 11:25 Equality Standard (WRES) and Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES) Results 2022 Receive and discuss the reports Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer Attendee: Ceri Connor, Director of OD and Inclusion 10 Annual Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 11:35 Discuss and approve the review Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Rosemary Chable, Head of Nursing for Education, Practice and Staffing 11 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 11:45 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant 12 Learning from Deaths 2022/23 Quarter 2 Report 11:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Ellis Banfield, Associate Director of Patient Experience 13 Freedom to Speak Up Report 12:05 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Christine Mbabazi, Equality & Inclusion Adviser/Freedom to Speak Up Guardian Page 2 14 Annual Assurance Process and Self-assessment against the NHS 12:15 England Core Standards for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer Attendee: John Mcgonigle, Emergency Planning & Resilience Manager 15 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 15.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 12:25 Review and discuss the update Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary 16 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 16.1 Register of Seals and Chair's Actions Report 12:35 Receive and ratify In compliance with the Trust Standing Orders, Financial Instructions, and the Scheme of Reservation and Delegation. Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 16.2 Review of Standing Financial Instructions 2022-23 12:40 Review and approve the SFIs Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer Attendee: Phil Bunting, Director of Operational Finance 16.3 Corporate Governance Update 12:50 Receive and discuss the update Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary 17 Any other business 13:00 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 18 Note the date of the next meeting: 31 January 2023 19 Items circulated to the Board for reading 19.1 CRN: Wessex 2022-23 Q2 Performance Report Note the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Page 3 20 Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair To agree, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust's Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. 21 Follow-up discussion with governors 13:05 Page 4 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 29 September 2022 1 Draft Minutes TB 29 Sept 22 OS v2 Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date Time Location Chair Present 29/09/2022 9:00 – 13:00 Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Jane Bailey (JB), Non-Executive Director (NED) Gail Byrne (GB), Chief Nursing Officer Cyrus Cooper (CC), NED (from item 5.4 part two) Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T), Chair Keith Evans (KE), NED David French (DAF), Chief Executive Officer Paul Grundy (PG), Chief Medical Officer Steve Harris (SH), Chief People Officer Jane Harwood (JH), NED Ian Howard (IH), Chief Financial Officer Tim Peachey (TP), NED Joe Teape (JT), Chief Operating Officer In attendance Jane Fisher, Head of Health and Safety Services (JF) (for item 7.3) Sarah Herbert, Deputy Chief Nursing Officer (SHe) (for item 5.7) Femi Macaulay (FM), Associate NED Corinne Miller, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Adults (CM) (for item 5.8) Karen McGarthy, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Children (KMcG) (for item 5.8) Christine McGrath (CMcG), Director of Strategy and Partnerships Helen Potton, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (Interim) (HP) Helen Ralph, Manager, Transformation Team (HR) (for item 6.1) Annabel Shawcroft, Clinical Programme Officer, Transformation Team (AS) (for item 6.1) Jason Teoh, Director of Data and Analytics (JTe) (for item 5.11) Diana Ward, Clinical Outcomes Manager (DW) (for item 5.10) One member of the public (observing) 3 governors (observing) 5 members of staff (observing) 1 members of the public (observing) Apologies Dave Bennett (DB), NED 1. Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest JD-T welcomed all those attending the meeting which was being held by Microsoft Teams. Apologies were received from DB. CC would be joining the meeting later. 2. Patient Story HP introduced the Patient Story which focused on the experience of a mother and daughter who had used the Trust’s services. Mum advised that during the pandemic, her daughter had been diagnosed with cancer in her abdomen at the age of nine years old. Page 1 Her daughter had surgery followed by nine rounds of chemotherapy at the Trust followed by radiotherapy in London. Whilst on maintenance chemotherapy her daughter had relapsed and sadly a decision was made that further treatment would not be beneficial. Her daughter’s response was to write a “bucket list”. Some of the items were for herself but some related to changes that she wanted for other people including wanting parents to be fed. Her daughter could not understand why, when she was asked what she wanted to eat, that this did not extend to her mum, when her mum was in the hospital supporting her. Her daughter had not wanted mum to leave to go and eat, and no one else could come to sit with her because of the COVID restrictions. Her daughter was scared and going through gruelling treatment and that made it very difficult for mum to leave her. In addition, her treatment had affected her smell, making her feel unwell which resulted in her mum eating in the ensuite toilet as there was nowhere else to sit and eat. After her daughter died, mum had been working on items from her daughter’s bucket list, with senior representatives of the NHS. Work focused on putting in place a national programme to feed parents, improve food for children and also the provision of play specialists. In terms of food, mum had been working with UHS’ Patient Support Hub since January. Initially snack and toiletry boxes were put into every parent room but now, every children’s ward across Portsmouth and Southampton, a total of 17 wards, received food and drink every week. A charity, Sophie’s Legacy, had been set up and a trial had started that provided parents with a £4 food voucher for the restaurant, which was in addition to the support provided by the Patient Support Hub. The initiative had been well received by parents. The hope is to roll this out across the Country as looking after parents was important to enable them to support the care of their children. JD-T thanked mum for sharing noting how devastating it must have been to lose her daughter and how amazing it was that she and her daughter had wanted to support others in this difficult time. GB also thanked mum for sharing the experience and the work that was being done in her daughter’s name, which was important to continue. DAF noted how extraordinary that at the age of nine her daughter was considering the future of others. DAF asked whether mum had good links with the hospital charity and SH confirmed that he would make contact to ensure that this happened. Action: SH JT noted the importance of good facilities being available including good quality, affordable food. It was important for the Board to look at this and also to look at the estate to ensure that there was appropriate spaces provided for parents. 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 28 July 2022 The minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2022 were approved as an accurate record of the meeting save for the following amendments: Page 2 • Page 3 – Correct spelling of Beachcroft • Page 3 – 5.3 third bullet – should read compliant not complaint. 4. Maters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions Actions that were due had been completed. Action 763 – The complaint data was being compiled and would be sent out shortly. The remaining actions were not yet due but were being taken forward. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee KE provided a briefing following the meeting on 12 September. The External Auditors had signed off their opinion on the financial statements with a clean opinion being given. From the Internal Auditors three reviews had been completed. The incident management review had focused on smaller incidents, noting that major incidents would normally be highlighted quickly. A large number had been tested and the conclusion was that the Trust needed to work on turning the reports around within the ten-day period. The Cyber Security review was one of significant assurance. However, the report highlighted that the Trust did not have formal documentation in terms of a Cyber Security Strategy and that not much training was provided for staff. Finally, in terms of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and personal information, the Trust was required to have a “record of processing activities” (ROPA). The Trust undertook hundreds of activities but did not have a ROPA for every activity and the recommendation was to review and put in place an appropriate policy to enable a more general approach for wider coverage. The final review was stage 2 of how the Trust managed and governed IT projects. The report had focused on three areas: • The initial assessment of the benefits of the IT project which had been found to be thorough and well thought out and documented. • More guidance was recommended on how to evaluate benefits particularly in terms of non financial benefits including safety benefits. • There were very few post benefit assessments being completed which would help with learning. Plans were in place to put additional controls in place by March 2023 and a review would take place as part of their follow up procedures. JT reminded members that he had arranged for Cyber training for the Board and had agreed to provide further assurance around some of the arrangements and the Internal Audit was aligned to this. JT noted that staffing arrangements would need to be reviewed as currently there was only one colleague within the digital team that worked on cyber security issues. HP informed the Board that work was already underway in terms of the work around ROPAs. Action: JT Page 3 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee JB provided an update from the last meeting noting that discussions had taken place around the current financial position and the operational plan, both of which were due to be discussed in the closed board meeting. There was significant challenge particularly around the deficit position but overall there was a really good grip on exactly where the Trust currently was, with appropriate decisions being made to reflect the balance between managing the financial position, whilst continuing to support our people and activity. A number of ongoing actions around productivity were being addressed together with a clearer view of the future cash position of the Trust. Finally, JB noted that Model Hospital data had been reviewed to enable the Trust to drive efficiencies compared to other hospitals and to facilitate learning. 5.3 Chief Executive Officer’s Report DAF noted that this was the first time that the Board had met since the death of Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and wanted to formally recognise the fantastic public service that she had given. The state funeral, which gave an additional bank holiday, provided the Trust with some challenging operational issues, with little guidance being provided in terms of what the best approach should be. Where staff were not involved in urgent or emergency care, such as within outpatients, electives and day case procedures, they were given the choice that if they wanted to work that would be gratefully received, but similarly if they wanted to take the day off to pay their respects, they were able to. Some staff wanted to work and others wanted to take the day. More than two thirds of the scheduled activity had been undertaken. DAF thanked all staff for all of their hard work and dedication. He also noted that: • The pilot of the care village had been very successful and would be discussed further in the next item. • Junior doctor pay rates had been quite challenging and was symptomatic of where the Trust was with many members of the workforce. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) had notified the Trust of an intended ballot for strike action. Also, the British Medical Association (BMA) had published a rate card that they wanted trusts to pay, which was in many cases, significantly above current ratees. DAF noted that there were groups of staff who had indicated that they would not work for the Trust unless paid the new rates. It was a period of instability and people were understandably wanting to protect their income which was manifesting in the behaviours that we were seeing. • The HR team had been recognised by the Chartered Institute of Professional Management (CIPD), for a National awards which was a testament to the good work that SH and his team did. • The number of COVID positive cases was increasing with around 70 currently in the hospital. Mask wearing had been re-introduced in clinical areas in an attempt to limit the number of nosocomial transmissions. Care homes were not willing to accept patients with COVID which would impact potential discharges. In terms of staff Page 4 absence from COVID this was also increasing and staff were being encouraged to have both COVID and influenza vaccinations. • UHS was in the process of finalising an IT contract which, at first glance looked like it could be a replacement for our Emergency Department (ED) IT system. The initial contract was small but included from a strategic perspective, as the Trust had recognised the potential for having a longer-term development partner. UHS remained committed to its “Best of Breed” strategy but had been struggling to recruit and retain the people needed to develop the systems and this could be a step to delivering this by working together in partnership. Ultimately this could result in UHS not only being able to bring to develop our systems but also had the potential to bring to the market a number of our IT products that we had developed. • At the previous month’s board, the Trust had been aware of its segmentation under the Single Oversight Framework (SOF) review, but had omitted to formally advise the board. The Trust remained in segment 2, with 1 being good and 4 being bad. Trusts in segments 3 and 4 received more dedicated support and oversight. This was a vote of confidence from the regulators in the Trust despite the challenges it was facing. TP noted that the BMA pay card had received much criticism and should be resisted unless there was a proper negotiation about the rates. In terms of the IT partnership this was excellent news. PG noted that the Trust had been very clear through the Local Medical Councils (LMC), and individual conversations with teams, that the Trust would not be entering into negotiations about the BMA rates. It was growing as an issue but was an untenable position to hold in front of the rest of the workforce. Meetings were taking place with teams noting that it was not just about money. PG had been clear with his medical consultant colleagues that he was not able to recommend that consultants were paid as much in one day for an overtime operating list, which was greater than the amount some staff received in a month. In a cost-of-living crisis this was wrong. Many colleagues had understood this approach but there was still many who were very unhappy. JH congratulated SH for the award noting that this was a very difficult award to achieve, with tough competition, and that to achieve it during the pandemic was outstanding. Decision: The Board noted the report. 5.4 Integrated Performance Report for Month 5 (part one) JT noted the challenges that the Trust was currently under and in particular highlighted: • The previous day had been particularly tough with every space in the hospital full and lots of patients in the ED waiting for beds. This was replicated nationally with many organisations had declared critical incidents due to the pressures being faced. It was caused by increased numbers of COVID positive patients and a big spike in the number of delayed patients in the hospital which had hit 245 patients at the start of the week, with almost a quarter of the bed base who could be treated elsewhere. Page 5 • There was a record number of cancer referrals with the waiting list being the highest it had ever been. The Trust continued to deliver more diagnostic capacity than it had ever delivered but continued to struggle with capacity in view of the increased demand. This was a very difficult position alongside a time where staff morale was low and staff were tired due to the pressures over the last couple of years. • One of the two spotlights related to cancer and the Board had a study session the following week with a deep dive. Referrals had grown by about 25% per month from around 1600 two-week referrals to consistently above 2000 per month. The backlog of patients who had breached 62 days had gone up three-fold in the last two years from around 100 to 370 patients. The overall number of patients on the cancer pathway had also doubled in this period. This was challenging for a group of patients that the Trust wanted to prioritise in terms of access to services and care. • Across the Wessex Alliance footprint the backlog remained better than the rest of the Country but it was not where we would want to be in terms of cancer services. It was likely that our performance would dip as we started to treat those patients which would impact the 62 day target, despite the levels of activity and delivering relatively well in terms of our peer groups. • There were some excellent new pathways being developed including the dermatology dream pathway which would make a significant impact on the skin pathway once implemented. Work was also being done with the cancer allowance to map what we had, against what we needed to understand better the gaps. DAF noted that the cancer performance metrics were a measure of the patients that had been treated. Once you had a number of patients above the 62 days, if you did not treat them and let them remain on the waiting list. your measure would remain strong. However, this was not the right thing to do but once you had treated them this would impact that metric which was likely to be poor over the coming months. TP noted that the waiting had continued to get bigger which would suggest that either the Trust was not coping with the numbers coming through and people were therefore waiting longer and longer or that there was a higher rate of cancer in the population. Was this as a result of COVID reducing the body’s ability to fight small cancers that would normally disappear. JD-T also noted the highest number of referrals happening in August and wondered whether there was any national modelling being done around this. JT informed members that Professor Peter Johnson would be one of the presenters at the board study session and this would be a good opportunity to explore this. Anecdotally we appeared to be seeing more sicker patients who had a number of co-morbidities presenting as more complex patients and work was underway to investigate this further particularly from an inequality lens in terms of the demographics that were being referred on the two week wait referrals. PG noted that during COVID people tended to not present which was part of the reason for a backlog of presentations but that diagnosis appeared to also be increasing. Understanding why was not yet known and a discussion in the study session would be helpful to understand that particularly better. In terms of the appraisals spotlight SH noted: Page 6 • That a key element from the People Strategy was the Trust’s ability to provide meaningful progression for our staff. From the feedback given in the staff survey many staff believed that during the pandemic they had not received the development, training or the appraisal focus that they would have wanted. • Work to address that included a multi disciplinary team who had focused on refreshing the appraisal paperwork which had been well received. The team had a wide breadth of staff including clinical, operational and trade union representatives. Previously the number of appraisals carried out had been good but the quality had been low so training for appraisals had been reviewed to improve the quality of the appraisal discussion. Whilst the Trust was better than its peers, this simply highlighted that the NHS was not particularly good at appraisals. • A pilot had been implemented to better align appraisals with objective setting to enable them to cascade down to staff better which would conclude shortly and would feed into the process. JD-T noted that Division D consistently outperformed the other Divisions in terms of completed appraisals. In addition the staff survey showed that they were the only division that achieved a green in terms of an appraisal helping staff to undertake their job. This showed a correlation between the two and wondered what was the learning was. SH noted that Division D had historically had good rates of completion and had been involved in the refresh and had highlighted the need to focus at every level of the team. JH asked whether those within Division D had better promotion and development opportunities which could link back into the value of conducting a good appraisal. SH advised that there was nothing obvious but Division D had some good engagement scores overall but this could be looked at further. GB noted that the new appraisal paperwork had removed the need to consider how an individual contributed to the values of the organisation, and although the values were still referenced, questioned how through appraisal the behaviours and values continued to sit within the process. SH noted that the review of the values work was important and it would be good to look at how that could be brought back into the appraisal process to add value. Decision: The Board noted the report. 5.5 Finance Report for Month 5 IH presented the report and highlighted: • The Trust continued to focus on the underlying deficit, which for months 1 – 4 had been around £3m which had slightly worsened to £3,5m as energy costs started to grow. A deep dive had taken place at the Finance & Investment (F&I) Committee looking at some of the actions being undertaken and some of the future forecasts before the energy cap would come in and whether this would help or otherwise. There would still be a small increase in run rate into the latter half of the year which would deteriorate the Trust’s underlying position as we entered the winter months. • The key drivers were consistent. As well as energy prices, there were some drug costs pressures as we were on a block contract, cost associated with COVID including backfill of staff together with all of the operational pressures that had already been discussed. Page 7 • Cost Improvement Programme (CIP) performance had improved following the introduction of the Cost Savings Group. The Trust was currently achieving more than 80% identified which should increase going forward. In month delivery had also been strong. Everything was being done to try and improve the financial position but there were a number of pressures that were outside our control that would impact this. • Elective recovery framework performance had dipped in line with the operational pressures discussed, but UHS continued to achieve 106%, above the required 104%. UHS was in the top Trusts both in the region and nationally in terms of activity levels compared to 2019/20 levels. However, this was not resolving the waiting list issue that continued to grow. UHS continued to do well in terms of 2019/20 levels compared to other Trusts but this did create a financial pressure. • The Trust had reported a £12m deficit. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight deficit was £53m. This was an outlier within the region, and the region was an outlier nationally. This had resulted in the system becoming an outlier in terms of financial performance which might have adverse consequences going forward including upon the SOF rating. • The underlying deficit reduced the Trust’s cash balance and that may put pressure on our future capital investment programme. KE referred to the financial risks table and asked what the difference was between the original worst case of £57m and the forecast assessments which showed, best, intermediate and worst case? IH noted that the original worstcase scenario had been presented to the Board as part of the planning submissions, to show the range of possible financial outcomes with everything that was known at the time. The current best, intermediate and worst case were the current assessments. KE noted that UHS could not control COVID costs, energy costs and inflationary measures and that this would need Treasury to provide support. IH reminded members that nationally there was a drive to find efficiencies. It was likely that many Trusts would go into deficit this year but it was not clear what the response would be to that. KE commended the work on the CIP which was a fantastic achievement. He questioned whether the position could improve further with more CIP savings. IH advised that a target date of Month 6 had been agreed in terms of everything being identified 100% and the position might improve next month. IH noted that UHS was at 106% activity levels with the national average being around 94%. The 12% from the Elective Recovery Fund (ERF) would be worth about £20m to the Trust. If the Trust had undertaken less activity the Trust’s financial position would be a lot less stark but UHS continued to put patients first and try and balance performance, money and quality. In response to a question from JD-T IH confirmed that as of today and what was currently known, UHS could still achieve the best-case scenario. DAF suggested that in view of what had happened in markets over the recent days it was unlikely that the NHS would want to approach the Treasury. UHS should proceed on the basis that there would be no financial support being provided. In those circumstances the Board would need to consider at what point more significant interventions would need to be made. Page 8 5.6 People Report for Month 5 JD-T noted that this was a new report for the board. Previously the report had been presented to the Trust Executive Committee (TEC) and following discussion in that forum a decision was made that it should be presented to the open board for discussion. SH presented the report and noted that the version before the Board was the detailed report presented to TEC. Going forward a more streamlined report, with key highlights, would be developed for the Board discussion. SH highlighted: • Some of the key actions that had been taken in relation to recruitment and retention and also the cost-of-living crisis. There had been discussions at a previous closed board meeting around concerns in relation to the recruitment and retention of certain staff groups and some actions had been put in place to mitigate those concerns. • SH highlighted the challenges around Advanced Clinical Practitioners (ACPs) and pay rates. A few local organisations including GP practices were providing a differential rate of pay with a higher pay band. In the short term this was being addressed by a recruitment and retention premium to bridge the gap, together with conducting a workforce review that would seek to understand the banding and whether there was a need for a permanent band change. However, it would be important to consider the possible impact on the change to other bands across the Trust and manage that appropriately. • UHS continued to undertake Health Care Assistant (HCA) recruitment well, but the challenge was retention. There were good pathways in place but work was needed to strengthen landing boards and increase the support available in the hubs and implement some band 2 to band 3 progression roles for those who did not want to utilise the nursing apprenticeship route. • Demand on the recruitment team had significantly increased with a 25% increase of requested support. Some additional resource had been agreed to support them both within the organisation but also to increase engagement outside of the organisation. • In terms of cost of living, SH had been undertaking a lot of work with partners across the Trust including trade unions and listening to staff voices. There were a number of elements that were not under the Trust’s control including the national pay award and the rising energy crisis so the approach being taking was to take a balanced and fair approach. A number of things would be implemented which would be highlighted to all staff. A substantial discount was being negotiated in the restaurant to help people to eat a broad range of foods at competitive prices. The cycle to work scheme was being expanded, and there was some targeted support for those with high mileage within the organisation. For the 200 or so families who used the nursery the price was being rolled back to April this year. • The Trust already has a range of general support which would be expanded to make sure that we were targeting the right people. Through a partnership with the ICS we were linking up with the Citizens Advice Bureau to provide really high quality financial advice to our staff. We were focusing on crisis, and working with the Charity, had set up a hardship fund of £20,000 which would be distributed to the most challenging cases where staff had been identified as a particular Page 9 hardship case they would be able to eat free at the restaurant. Arrangements had also been made with a local charity to provide vouchers and food parcels. Discussion had taken place as to whether a food bank should be set up on site which logistically would have been difficult, so the decision to work with the charity was agreed to be the best approach to deliver that service for us. • Discussions had taken place at the Trust Executive Committee (TEC) who had fully supported the measures noting the impact on the nonrecurrent spend. KE suggested that this was a very sensible, targeted group of things to support our people. However, asked if the cost of £2.3m was currently included in the financial reports. IH advised that it was not included although some of the nonrecurrent elements had a funding source so would not hit the underlying position. In terms of annual leave buy out there were accruals from previous years. However, there were some recurrent costs. The measures were targeted, proportionate and in line with the Trust’s values for the current pressures being faced and if the Trust did not do anything it would likely increase costs or consequences elsewhere. DAF noted that the report was the same as presented to the TEC at which there had been a more detailed conversation. It would be helpful to understand which areas of the report were more relevant and appropriate for the Board conversation which could be discussed at the next People and OD POD) Committee meeting. Action: SH. JH supported the proposals within the paper and noted that they had also been presented to the People and OD Committee (POD). POD would be tracking the progress of each of the initiatives to ensure that they were delivering as anticipated. JH asked if the Trust had looked at what others were doing to ensure that we were doing everything possible for our staff. SH confirmed that discussions had taken place locally and that the Trust was one of the first to implement the range of measures which were similar to those of others. Nationally, there had been a push to have a collective response, noting that the NHS employed 1.5m people and that there would be national support that would be available shortly. TP noted the importance of having a people report at the Board and whilst the contents were good suggested that they could be presented in a more accessible way. FM also noted the importance of the report and discussion but wondered what staff morale was. If the finance, performance and people report were considered as a whole it was clear that staff were facing a lot of pressure and there was insufficient staff due to high turnover. The volume of patients was increasing which meant that the staff that the Trust did have, had to work harder and longer with pay that was not great and a cost-of-living crisis to deal with. This must have an impact on staff morale and was there also an impact on patient care? SH noted that morale was challenged which was recognised in the executive updates. The Trust undertook a quarterly staff survey alongside the current national annual staff survey and those results have been included within the report. The recent results discussed motivation, engagement and advocacy in Page 10 the organisation and UHS scores were still consistently in the top 10 of the NHS. However, the entirety of that engagement score was deteriorating. Morale was challenged and how that impacted on care was discussed in other forums. GB chaired the Quality Governance Steering Group (QGSG) which fed into the Quality Committee and focused on quality whether that be from the engagement of our staff or other challenges. GB suggested that it was a mixed picture. People enjoyed working as a team and we can see them pull together and work as a team through the challenges. There were a number of different pockets in the organisation who believed that they were in a worst situation following the pandemic and it was important to move out of that space and recognise this as a whole. In terms of quality, it was important to retain a close focus on quality and in some other Trusts they were starting to experience a significant challenge with regards to their quality indicators. At UHS there were some potential early indications that were being closely monitored. Without a doubt staffing levels, and the way in which we looked at the wards, impacted on patient experience and outcome. JD-T noted that one of the proposals was for staff to be able to sell back annual leave and being able to easily access the bank but if this was considered in the wider context, we had staff who were tired and not able to take leave as they had sold it, and were looking to work extra hours on the bank. How did the Trust manage and balance this? How should we look at the overarching risks for the workforce, and consequently patient care and performance, and what were the things that we needed to do to balance that. It would be helpful if the report could address some of those challenges to help the Board’s understanding. In addition JD-T asked NEDs to feedback what they would want to see within the report to enable an effective discussion. Action: SH and All NEDs JH asked about exit surveys and wondered if there was any information from them that could support our approach. SH advised that approximately 30% of staff completed exit surveys which needed to be increased. Pay for the lower paid staff had become an issue. SH reminded members that he chaired the ICS people officers group and that group had been looking at how collectively they could support retention and were looking to purchase better exit surveys for the system pulling together their collective buying power. Decision: The Board noted the report. 5.4 Integrated Performance Report for Month 5 (part two) Having noted the previous discussions under items 5.5 and 5.6 JD-T suggested that a discussion on the remaining of the IPR would be helpful and the following questions and comments were made: • JB noted that on pages 31 and 35, F1 – F5 this suggested that in terms of digital we believed that this was going to transform our efficiencies but it was not clear what the metrics indicated nor were some of them very high. PG suggested that there was an amazing resource in my medical record which we were not really making the most of. Work was needed to raise awareness with both patients and clinicians. Having used it as a patient it had been really helpful and enabled him to go paperless. JT noted that there was a business case that was overdue Page 11 for my medical record around how we industrialised it across the Trust which should provide some huge benefits and would bring a timeline back as to when this would happen. Action: JT JT noted that there was some big digital change happening with the rolling out of speech recognition and some E tools. In addition it would be helpful to look at the indicators to understand whether they were the right ones and review them as part of the digital updates which could be discussed at F&I. Action: JT The Board discussed the importance of giving people an overwhelming reason to access my medical record noting that the NHS App had initially been used for COVID vaccinations but could now enable people to order prescriptions and book appointments. JD-T noted the Serious Incident reports and the number of harm falls which looked higher than previously and wondered in terms of the pressures we were seeing and the issues around workforce should the Board be concerned about this? GB advised that it had recently been falls awareness week. There had been a number of successful programmes in the Trust including bay watch, but with reduced staffing numbers that had became a challenge and some more deliberate high impact actions were needed to reduce those falls. A deep dive into this would be brought to a future meeting. Action: GB GB confirmed that COVID numbers were rising. There were 66 patients with COVID some of whom were both asymptomatic and symptomatic. 5.7 Break The break took place prior to the Safeguarding Annual Report. 5.8 Safeguarding Annual Report 2021-22 and Strategy 2022-25 JDT suggested that the strategy should be discussed first noting that both had been discussed at the Quality Committee. KMcG presented the strategy which had previously been presented to the Trust Board two years ago before Covid. The strategy had been reviewed and updated in line with new legislation and aligned to UHS values and now included maternity services. Some of the strategy linked to children and adult reviews and making safeguarding personal together with our partners and developing stronger links within maternity, the emergency department and the wider hospital. Joining this up with the domestic abuse strategy and ensuring that we were always improving particularly around training and education including level 3 requirements. In terms of the Annual Report from a children’s perspective there were three main highlights: Page 12 • A significant increase, from 3700 to 6004, in the number of information sharing forms (ICF) which come through the ED where a child may possibly be at risk. In particular numbers had increased in the number of children presenting with mental health problems, particularly the 0 – 4 age group. This had been discussed at the Health Safeguarding Looked After Children Partnership who were looking at the 0 – 19 service provision which had changed significantly with COVID and a possible pattern of children of parents accessing through ED rather than going via their GP. • In terms of mental health, for any child who presented in the ED with a mental health condition an ICF would be completed. The number of presentations remained high. Alongside this the number of deliberate harm incidents had risen from 676 to 898, drugs and alcohol referrals had risen as had assaults over the preceding year. • Level 3 safeguarding training was at about 61%. There were two main reasons for this which was capacity and demand for the service and also a change of reporting requirements impacting just over 2000 staff. Training was on the Integrated Care Board (ICB) Risk Register as it was a wider system issue. In terms of the Annual Report for adults CM highlighted the following: • A 31% increase in safeguarding activity from the previous year with a 162% increase in Section 42 inquiries. This was due to a number of reasons including the impact of COVID including the removal of social distancing rules. • A 35% increase in the number of allegations made against people in a position of trust which was something that was being seen across other local provider organisations. These were highly sensitive cases and required significant safeguarding oversight and management alongside collaboration with HR colleagues and the relevant clinical areas, which had a significant impact on the team. • The creation of a new Mental Capacity Act (MCA), Deprivation of Liberty (DoL) and Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) team who supported people over the age of 16. Both locally and nationally this was one of the first teams that had been established. The team had worked to embed MCA as every day business which was key to the preparation for when LPS become law later next year or early the following year. • In terms of Learning Disability and Autism there was a lack of local provision which had been acknowledged by the ICS and work was underway in relation to service review and what this needed to look like going forward. GB thanked the team noting how hard they worked to safeguard vulnerable adults and children. GB referenced the Panorama programme that had aired the previous night in terms of a number of safeguarding issues against a Mental Health Trust. Whilst often allegations against staff were not grounded they were taken very seriously and investigated thoroughly. JB noted the 35% increase against staff and wanted to understand what the outcomes of the investigations were and whether they were justified and whether allegations were being made against different groups. CM advised that one of the key areas of allegations focused on restraint and that the level Page 13 of restraint applied was disproportionate. These would always be reviewed. Security staff worked in pairs and wore body cameras which would always be reviewed. There had not been any cases recently where that had proved to be an issue. Although there had been a big increase the total number of cases was 38 so not large numbers. The previous year there had been 23 cases. CC questioned what element of this sat within the Trust and what sat with the ICS? SH noted the importance of remembering the broader picture. Nationally there had been a rise of safeguarding incidents, but it was important to remember that our workforce formed part of that population and had struggled with lockdown and were experiencing hardship. JD-T noted the need for a system approach to manage the increased mental health demand. However, safeguarding was a key focus for the Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections post COVID, and a local provider had recently been deemed to be inadequate due to safeguarding issues and was an issue for UHS to pay particular attention to. KMcG noted that through legislation children had the Local Area Designated Officer (LADO) which was lacking in adults, which provided a really strong link with that external partner. TP noted that there had been a detailed presentation on this in the Quality Committee. This was a national trend in increased safeguarding problems. Whatever pressure we are put under it was important not to let our safeguarding procedures slip and it needed to be protected to ensure that it worked well. Decision: The Board received the report. 5.9 Medical Appraisal and Revalidation Annual Report including Board Statement of Compliance PG presented the report which was a statement of compliance with the medical regulations and had a robust and strong process in place. PG noted that a new appraisal system had been introduced which had been well received and enabled the ability for medical staff to collect all of their appraisal information within one system instead of the previous three systems. This was beneficial for not only staff but also for those managing the process as it provided real time feedback and information both from a quality assurance perspective but also would enable better management of the process and improve appraisal rates in the future. JD-T asked whether the doctor appraisal information was included within the IPR information that the Board received and SH confirmed that it was reported separately but included in the report and currently stood at 76.7%. CC suggested that the system was good but asked whether everyone was using it. PG confirmed that the system was a mandatory one and would be the only system going forward in the future. In terms of how many staff had undertaken the process this was a little ahead of the rest of the staff. However, the system enabled us to keep better track as people would need to have completed four appraisals within the previous five years to go forward with revalidation which provided a good incentive to keep on top of this. Page 14 JD-T asked for Board members to confirm that they approved the statement of compliance. Decision: The Board noted the report and approved the statement of compliance. 5.10 Clinical Outcomes Summary PG introduced the comprehensive summary noting that the clinical lead who had ran the service for a number of years, had now left UHS and a process of recruitment was currently underway which would provide an opportunity to refresh and review. DW presented the paper and focused on the outcome programme which was unique to UHS, with 64 services out of 86 reporting their outcomes. A total of 484 outcomes had been reported all of which had been reviewed by TP via the Quality Committee. There was a thriving clinical audit programme in place. The outcomes reported per care group covered a large proportion of patients and dealt with both national and international work. In particular DW highlighted: • The Research and Development (R&D) team and the work that they had undertaken internationally on the COVID booster trial. • The Bone Marrow Transparent unit. • Maternity and the nest support teams who focused on women who may need additional support because of serious mental illness, or they were from socially challenging situations, or were non-English speaking, addiction, were homeless or were suffering from domestic abuse and other difficult situations. 12% of patients that were being seen in maternity required nest care. KE asked why 18 services were not reported and DW advised that it was because they did not have the mechanisms in place to know what their outcomes were and work was underway to support them to develop those processes. KE asked whether any of the reds within the report were really poor and JD-T noted that the data used was for 2020 and did not understand why it was so out of date. TP advised that data was provided from national audits was often two years behind, because there was a year of collection, a year of analysis and then it would be published. Within his experience he had never come across a hospital that had measured nearly 500 clinical outcomes let alone p
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2022-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-29-November-2022.pdf

UHS AR 22-23-6

Description: 2022/23 Incorporating the quality account University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25(4)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 © 2023 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Contents Welcome from our chair and chief executive 6 Overview and performance 8 Performance report 9 Overview 10 Accountability report 33 Directors’ report 34 Remuneration report 57 Staff report 71 Annual governance statement 91 Quality account 106 Statement on quality from the chief executive 107 Priorities for improvement and statements of assurance from the board 110 Other information 188 Annual accounts 222 Statement from the chief financial officer 223 Auditor’s report 224 Foreword to the accounts 230 Statement of Comprehensive Income 231 Statement of Financial Position 232 Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity 233 Statement of Cash Flows 234 Notes to the accounts 235 5 Welcome from the Chair and Chief Executive Officer University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (‘UHS’ or the ‘Trust’) experienced another challenging year during 2022/23. Nonetheless, the Trust and its staff have continued to deliver for patients and the wider system in which it operates. Trust highlights from 2022/23 include: • Delivering an 8% increase in activity (compared to 2019/20) under the elective recovery programme, which places us as one of the top performing trusts in England. • Being recognised in the NHS staff survey as the seventh highest trust for recommendation as a place to work nationally and the best performing trust in opportunities for career development. • Celebrating 50 years as a medical school with the University of Southampton and continuing to pioneer UK and world-first research studies. • Enhancing the reputation of our specialist care – for example our bone marrow transplant team at UHS have the best patient outcomes in Europe. However, as was the picture across the country, UHS had an extremely challenging winter with attendances at our emergency department often in excess of 400 a day. This was driven in part by high prevalence of streptococcus A (strep A) in the community along with other seasonal illnesses such as influenza and high incidences of COVID-19 at times. Moreover, the lack of availability of care home beds and other care packages in the community has resulted in challenges in discharging patients who are ready to leave hospital and therefore we have been operating at or near to capacity throughout the year. At the time of writing, there continues to be operational pressures due to industrial action by the Royal College of Nursing and British Medical Association. Throughout the disputes, we have attempted to balance the right of our staff to strike with the need to minimise the impact on the Trust’s operations and patients and ensure that safety was not compromised. Our leadership team has engaged proactively with the unions to agree, where possible, derogations (i.e. services that will continue to be staffed during strikes) to ensure that the running of our hospitals can continue and that patients remain safe. We would like to express our thanks to all staff who have gone over and above during these periods of industrial action by being willing to do different work to usual, often at anti-social times of the day. While we cannot influence national negotiations, we are focusing on what we can control within UHS. Our people strategy published last year sets out how we will grow and deploy our workforce of today and the future as part of a thriving community to deliver world-class patient care. Building on this, we have recently launched our inclusion and belonging strategy so that as a leadership team we can deliver what is required for all our workforce to feel they can belong and thrive at UHS. The Trust achieved its Cost Improvement Plan (CIP) target of £45.6m for 2022/23, the highest in our history but despite this, ended the year with a deficit of £11m. The deficit was driven by a combination of factors including a substantial increase in energy prices, higher costs of medicines and equipment and temporary staffing costs as well as changes in recent years in respect of the NHS funding infrastructure, which adversely impacted the Trust relative to others during the year. In terms of the broader context, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System, in which the Trust operates, reported an overall deficit for 2022/23 driven in part by a significant increase in staffing numbers when compared to 2019/20 as well as structural factors. 6 We have continued to make progress on our estates strategy, building new theatres and carrying out improvements to existing facilities, as well as opening a new park and ride for staff at Adanac Park and progressing plans for a new innovation campus there. During 2022/23 we invested over £88m of capital expenditure to meet our ambition of increasing capacity and improving services in order to manage the increasing demand. All development is underpinned by our green plan, which sets out areas of focus for decarbonising UHS and achieving the net zero target set by the NHS. The Trust has continued to support the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System, which was formed on 1 July 2022 to facilitate integration and collaboration across health and social care partners in the region. In particular, UHS has worked closely with the Integrated Care Board and other providers in the development of the operating plan for 2023/24. We have also continued to work with other partners in the region, including local authorities and the University of Southampton. The 13,000 staff of UHS are our greatest asset and we would like to express our gratitude to them for continuing to go above and beyond to put patients first under very challenging circumstances. Without our staff, we would be unable to fulfil our ambition to be a world-class organisation with world-class people delivering world-class care. Jenni Douglas-Todd Chair 26 June 2023 David French Chief Executive Officer 26 June 2023 7 PERFORMANCE REPORT Performance report Introduction from the Chief Executive Officer The Trust experienced another challenging year with the need to balance the delivery of quality patient care with a significant increase in demand for the Trust’s resources and the need to do so whilst maintaining a sustainable financial position. The Trust saw the number of patients on a waiting list under the 18-week referral to treatment pathway increase to just over 55,000 patients at the end of the year. Despite this, however, the Trust was successful in reducing the number of patients waiting more than 104 weeks to nil and in reducing the number of patients waiting more than 78 weeks to 14 by the end of the year. In addition, the Trust’s performance under the elective recovery programme placed it as one of the topperforming trusts in the country. Demand for non-elective care also significantly increased during the year with the emergency department seeing more than 400 attendances per day at some points, especially during the winter months. The industrial action seen in the latter part of 2022/23 placed further pressure on the Trust and resulted in a need to cancel elective procedures and outpatients appointments. However, on balance, the Trust was able to manage these events through effective planning and the engagement and support of its staff. Although the Trust was successful in recruiting to substantive roles, especially in terms of reducing the number of Health Care Assistant vacancies, the anticipated reduction in use of bank and agency staff was not seen. This, among other factors, such as the substantial increase in energy costs and the rate of inflation, posed a significant challenge in terms of the Trust’s financial position. Despite achieving savings of £45.6m, the Trust reported a deficit of £11m for 2022/23. 9 Overview About the Trust Our services University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust is one of the largest acute teaching trusts in England with a turnover of more than £1 billion in 2022/23. It is based on the coast in southeast England and provides services to over 1.9 million people living in Southampton and south Hampshire and specialist services, including neurosciences, respiratory medicine, cancer care, cardiovascular, obstetrics and specialist children’s services, to more than 3.7 million people in central southern England and the Channel Islands. The Trust is also a designated major trauma centre, one of only two places in the south of England to offer adults and children full major trauma care provision. As a leading centre for teaching and research, the Trust has close working relationships with the University of Southampton, the Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. The Trust is consistently one of the UK’s highest recruiting trusts of patients to clinical trials and one of the top nationally for research study volumes as ranked by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. Every year the Trust: treats around 160,000 inpatients and day patients, including about 75,000 emergency admissions sees over 650,000 people at outpatient appointments deals with around 150,000 cases in our emergency department delivers more than 100 outpatient clinics across the south of England, keeping services local for patients The Trust provides most of its services from the following locations: • Southampton General Hospital – the Trust’s largest location, where a great number of specialist services are based alongside emergency and critical care and which includes Southampton Children’s Hospital. • Princess Anne Hospital – located across the road from Southampton General Hospital and providing maternity care and specialist care for women with medical problems during pregnancy and babies who need extra care around birth across the region. • Royal South Hants Hospital – although the Trust does not operate this site near the centre of Southampton it provides a smaller number of services from this location. • New Forest Birth Centre – located at Ashurst on the edge of the New Forest and run by experienced midwives and support staff it acts as a community midwifery hub. The services provided by the Trust are commissioned and paid for by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System (ICS) and, in the case of more specialised services (such as treatments for rare conditions), by NHS England. Trust services are supported by clinical income, of which 55% is paid for by NHS England and 43% by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board. These are provided under a standard NHS contract, which incorporates ongoing monitoring of the Trust and the quality of the services provided. 10 Our structure UHS gained foundation trust status on 1 October 2011. A foundation trust is a public benefit corporation providing NHS services in line with the core NHS principles: that care should be universal, comprehensive and free at the point of need. The Trust is licensed as a foundation trust to provide these services by NHS England and the healthcare services we provide are regulated by the Care Quality Commission. Since 1 July 2022, the Trust has been part of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System (ICS) when this was established through the Health and Social Care Act 2022. Each ICS has two statutory elements: an integrated care partnership (ICP) and an integrated care board (ICB). The ICP is a statutory committee jointly formed between the NHS integrated care board and all uppertier local authorities that fall within the ICS area. The ICP will bring together a broad alliance of partners concerned with improving the care, health and wellbeing of the population, with membership determined locally. The ICP is responsible for producing an integrated care strategy on how to meet the health and wellbeing needs of the population in the ICS area. The ICB is a statutory NHS organisation responsible for developing a plan for meeting the health needs of the population, managing the NHS budget and arranging for the provision of health services in the ICS area. The establishment of ICBs resulted in clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) being closed down. The Trust has been a university teaching hospital since 1971. The diagram below provides an overview of the overall organisational structure of the Trust. Division A Surgery Critical Care Opthalmology Theatres and Anaesthetics Public and foundation trust members Council of Governors Board of Directors Executive Directors Division B Division C Division D Cancer Care Emergency Medicine Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Medicine and Medicine for Older People Pathology Specialist Medicine Women and Newborn Maternity Child Health Clinical Support Cardiovascular and Thoracic Neurosciences Trauma and Orthopaedics Radiology Trust Headquarters Division 11 Our values Our values describe how we do things at UHS and act as a guide to all staff working with colleagues to deliver high quality patient care and a great patient experience every day. Our values are: Patients, their families and carers are at the heart of what we do. Their experience of our services will be our measure of success. Partnership between clinicians, patients and carers is critical to achieving our vision, both within hospital teams and extending across organisational boundaries in the NHS, social care and the third sector. We will ensure we are always improving services for patients through research, education, clinical effectiveness and quality improvement. We will continue to incorporate new ideas, technologies and create greater efficiencies in the services we provide. 12 Our strategy 2021-25 The Trust’s strategy was updated during 2020/21 to take account of everything our staff had experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and what we had learnt from this. The vision for UHS is to become an organisation of world class people delivering world class care. Our strategy is organised around five themes and for each of these it describes a number of ambitions we aim to achieve by 2025. Theme Ambitions Outstanding patient outcomes, • We will monitor clinical outcomes, safety and experience of our experience and safety patients regularly to ensure they are amongst the best in the UK By 2025 we will strengthen our and the world. national reputation for outstanding • We will reduce harm, learning from all incidents through our patient outcomes, experience and proactive patient safety culture. safety, providing high quality care • We will ensure all patients and relatives have a positive experience and treatment across an extensive of our care, as a result of the environment created by our people range of services from foetal and our facilities. medicine, through all life stages and conditions, to end-of-life care Pioneering research • We will recruit and enable people to deliver pioneering research in and innovation Southampton. We will continue to be a leading teaching hospital with a growing, reputable and innovative research and development portfolio • We will optimise access to clinical research studies for our patients. • We will enable innovation in everything we do, and ensure that ‘cutting edge’ investigations and treatments are delivered in Southampton. that attracts the best staff and efficiently delivers the best possible treatments and care for our patients. World class people • We will recruit and develop enough people with the right Supporting and nurturing our knowledge and skills to meet the needs of our patients. people through a culture that values • We will provide satisfying and fulfilling roles, growing our talent diversity and builds knowledge and through development and opportunity for progression. skills to ensure everyone reaches • We will empower our people, embracing diversity and embedding their full potential. We must provide compassion, inclusion and equity of opportunity. rewarding career paths within empowered, compassionate, and motivated teams. Integrated networks and collaboration We will deliver our services with partners through clinical networks, collaboration and integration across geographical and organisational boundaries. • We will work in partnership with key stakeholders across the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care system. • We will strengthen our acute clinical networks across the region, centralising when necessary and supporting local care when appropriate. • We will foster local integration with primary and community care as well as mental health and social care services for seamless delivery across boundaries. • We will build on our successful partnership with University of Southampton (UoS), growing our reputation as a national leading university teaching hospital. 13 Theme Foundations for the future Making our enabling infrastructure (finance, digital, estate) fit for the future to support a leading university teaching hospital in the 21st century and recognising our responsibility as a major employer in the community of Southampton and our role in broader environmental sustainability. Ambitions • We will deliver best value to the taxpayer as a financially efficient and sustainable organisation. • We will support patient self-management and seamless care across organisational boundaries through our ambitious digital programme, including real time data reporting, to inform our care. • We will expand and improve our estate, increasing capacity where needed and providing modern facilities for our patients and our people. • We will strengthen our role in the community as an employer of choice, a partner in delivery of services to our population and by leading the Greener NHS agenda locally. During each year of the strategy the Trust sets out a more detailed series of objectives to achieve and progress towards the delivery of its ambitions. In 2022/23 these objectives included: Outstanding patient outcomes, experience and safety Pioneering research and innovation World class people Integrated networks and collaboration Foundations for the future • Recovery, restoration and improvement of clinical services • Introducing a robust and proactive safety culture • Empowering and developing staff to improve services for patients • Always Improving strategy • Delivering a high-quality experience of care for all • Delivery of year two of the research and innovation investment plan • Strategy and partnership working • Growing, developing and innovating our workforce • A great place to work, develop and achieve • Compassionate and inclusive workplace for all • We Work in partnership with Integrated Care System and Primary Care Networks • Integrated Networks and Collaborations • Establishing Southern Counties Pathology Network • Establishing the Wessex Imaging Network • Develop Collaborations strategy • Creating a sustainable financial infrastructure • Making our corporate infrastructure fit for the future to support a leading university teaching hospital in the 21st century • Recognising our responsibility as a major employer in the community of Southampton and our role in delivering a greener NHS Performance against these objectives will be monitored and reported to the Trust’s Board on a quarterly basis. 14 Principal risks to our strategy and objectives The Board has identified and manages the principal risks to the delivery of its strategy and objectives through its board assurance framework. The principal risks to the delivery of its strategy and objectives identified by the Trust during 2022/23 were that: • There would be a lack of capacity to appropriately respond to emergency demand, manage the increasing waiting lists for elective demand, and provide timely diagnostics, that results in avoidable harm to patients. • Due to the current challenges, the Trust fails to provide patients and their families with a high-quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes. • The Trust would not effectively plan for and implement infection prevention and control measures that reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections and limit the number of nosocomial outbreaks of infection. • The Trust is unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to unavailability of qualified staff to fulfil key roles. • The Trust fails to develop a diverse, compassionate and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive experience for all staff. • The Trust fails to create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs identified in the Trust’s longer-term workforce plan. • The Trust does not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in sub-optimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. • The Trust is unable to deliver a financial breakeven position and support prioritised investment as identified in the Trust’s capital plan within locally available limits (capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL)). • The Trust does not adequately maintain, improve and develop its estate to deliver its clinical services and increase capacity. • The Trust fails to introduce and implement new technology and expand the use of existing technology to transform its delivery of care through the funding and delivery of the digital strategy. • The Trust fails to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce its direct and indirect carbon footprint by 80% by 2028-2032 (compared with a 1990 baseline) and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045. During 2022/23, the Trust continued to experience the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The need to ensure a safe environment for patients through stringent infection control processes impacted the Trust’s capacity due to the need to isolate patients with COVID-19 in separate areas of the hospital. In addition, outbreaks of norovirus during the winter months placed further pressure on hospital capacity. The impact of the pandemic continued to be felt in terms of staff absence due to becoming infected with COVID-19 as well as the significant impact on staff mental health. The higher than normal (i.e. pre-COVID) levels of staff absence placed additional strain on the Trust’s operations and led to increased expenditure due to the requirement to enlist bank and/or agency staff to maintain safe staffing levels. 15 Performance overview The Trust monitors a broad range of key performance indicators within its departments, divisions, directorates and through Trust executive committees. On a monthly basis, the Board and executive committee receives a performance report containing a variety of indicators intended to provide assurance in respect of the Trust’s strategy and that the care provided is safe, caring, effective, responsive and well-led. This report also includes the Trust’s performance against the national targets set by NHS England. The performance reports include a ‘spotlight’ section, which provides more detailed analysis of a particular area. Typically, this is one of either the national targets or the Trust’s performance against the expectations set out in the NHS Constitution. The monthly performance report is also published on the Trust’s website. The Chief Executive Officer provides a regular report on performance to the Council of Governors, which includes a range of non-financial and financial performance information. Capacity The pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic led to increases in the waiting times for patients and the number of patients waiting for more than a year increased significantly. During the year, the Trust achieved its goal of no patients waiting more than 104 weeks by July 2022 and finished the year with only 14 patients waiting for more than 78 weeks. However, the length of time patients are waiting for treatment remains one of the key risks for the Trust. This situation was compounded by the sustained demand for non-elective activity, which saw attendances at the emergency department rise to over 400 patients per day during some periods of 2022/23 and was consistently higher than previously was the case. The significant increase in referrals, often requiring more complex treatment, has seen the number of patients on a waiting list under the 18-week referral to treatment pathway increase to just over 55,000 patients at the end of the year. In addition, the industrial action during the year placed further strain on the Trust’s ability to both provide urgent care and manage its elective recovery programme. Quality and compliance Furthermore, difficulties in obtaining care home beds and other care packages in the community has resulted in challenges in discharging patients who are ready to leave hospital and therefore the Trust has been operating at or near to capacity throughout the year. The Trust continued to monitor the quality of care delivered throughout 2022/23. The Trust continued its focus on infection prevention and control, which had proven successful during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Trust progressed its Always Improving strategy and successfully supported the identification and implementation of 84 quality improvement projects. In addition, the Trust continued to implement the patient safety incident response framework as well as taking other steps to drive a safety culture within the organisation. Furthermore, the Trust conducted further trials of shared decision making between clinicians and patients and is a leading site nationally for shared decision-making principles. Further information can be found in the Quality Account. 16 Partnerships The new arrangements for integrated care systems were implemented in July 2022 with the Trust becoming part of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System. As such, the Trust’s senior management frequently meets with peers from across the system to consider and agree matters of wider concern across the system. In addition, the Trust worked with the Integrated Care Board in order to develop its financial and capital plans for 2023/24 and beyond. The Trust also attends the Southampton Health and Wellbeing Board at Southampton City Council and in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Acute Provider Partnership Board. During 2022/23, the Trust continued to progress research activities and opportunities with the University of Southampton and Wessex Health Partners. Workforce In addition, work continued in the development of an elective hub at Winchester with Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which will provide the Trust with additional capacity to carry out its elective programme. The Trust’s key areas of focus during 2022/23 were in respect of increasing the substantive workforce and reducing staff turnover. Although the Trust was successful in recruiting to substantive posts, the expected reduction in reliance on bank and agency staff did not materialise, which meant that the Trust was 1,068 whole-time equivalents above its plan for 2022/23. Included in this figure is the TUPE transfer of genomics staff from Salisbury. A particular area of focus was the recruitment of Health Care Assistants where the Trust was successful in reducing the number of vacancies from 27% to 18%. Whilst the Trust was successful in reducing staff turnover from 14.9% in 2021/22 to 13.5%, it remained above the 12% target. However, the Trust did experience a reduction in staff absence from 4.7% in April 2022 to 4.3% in March 2023, and initiatives to improve staff wellbeing were an area of focus during the year. Estate Innovation and technology The industrial action in late 2022 and early 2023 posed significant challenges for the Trust, including in terms of the need to engage additional temporary staff to ensure patient safety. The Trust continued to invest in and develop its estate during 2022/23 including successful completion of the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit project, which delivered single rooms and specialist accent lighting alongside delivery of a ‘twin care’ room. There were a number of other significant projects during the year, including refurbishments of wards and work on creating new theatres as well as projects to improve staff wellbeing. These were part of over £88m of capital expenditure in 2022/23 that also included equipment, digital and the backlog maintenance programme. The Trust continued to promote research and development during 2022/23, including through partnerships with the University of Southampton and Wessex Health Partners. Furthermore, the Trust continued to examine ways to make use of technology to improve its service delivery. In particular, the Trust has promoted the use of MyMedicalRecord, which gives patients the ability to co-manage their healthcare online and through an app. 17 Sustainable financial model The Trust did not achieve breakeven status at the end of 2022/23 and reported a deficit of £11.037m at year-end. This was due to a number of factors, including the Trust’s underlying deficit as well as the increase in energy prices. The Trust was more exposed than most to fluctuations in the wholesale price of gas due to its reliance on a gas-powered energy supply. In addition, the Trust’s 8% uplift in elective activity when compared to 2019/20 was not fullyfunded, which placed further pressure on the Trust’s existing financial resources, which had been used to ensure a breakeven position in 2021/22. The continued use of bank and agency staff as well as the costs of industrial action in late 2022 and early 2023 further eroded the Trust’s financial position. Notwithstanding the above, the Trust did succeed in obtaining a number of sources of nonrecurrent funding during the year, including a successful bid for £29.4m of funding through the Public Sector De-Carbonisation Fund, which will be used to fund green initiatives as part of the Trust’s capital programme. The financial outlook across the NHS continues to appear very challenging during 2023/24 and the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System is forecasting one of the highest deficits in England. 18 Performance analysis COVID-19 Impacts Although the pandemic has ended and serious cases of COVID-19 have reduced significantly, the Trust continued to be impacted by COVID-19 during 2022/23. Heightened infection prevention control measures in respect of patients with COVID-19 placed additional stress on the Trust’s capacity due to the need to isolate those patients and there was a consequential reduction in the Trust’s ability to make most efficient use of its available spaces. Furthermore, the ongoing impact on the Trust’s staff has led to higher staff absence than was the case prior to the pandemic, particularly due anxiety, infectious diseases and colds and flu. • The Trust experienced an average number of 98.7 patients per day who tested positive for COVID-19. During the winter months, this number increased substantially to nearly 200. • During the year, an average of 3.6 intensive care/high-dependency beds per day were occupied by COVID-19 patients. However, at times this increased to as much as ten. • Although staff sickness rates remained higher than pre-pandemic, the Trust saw a decrease in the absence rate from 4.7% at the beginning of 2022/23 to 4.3% by the end of the period. COVID-19 Cases UHS average number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in bed (08:00 census) 250 200 150 100 50 0 4/1/20225/1/2022 6/1/20227/1/2022 8/1/2022 9/1/202210/1/202211/1/202212/1/2022 1/1/2023 2/1/20233/1/2023 Intensive care/higher care beds UHS average number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in an ICU/HDU bed (08:00 census) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 4/1/20225/1/2022 6/1/20227/1/2022 8/1/2022 9/1/202210/1/202211/1/202212/1/2022 1/1/2023 2/1/20233/1/2023 19 Number of patients Emergency access through the emergency department The Trust continued to experience high demand from patients presenting to receive care in the emergency department throughout the year above that seen prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, during the period between January and March 2023, the Trust averaged 352 attendances per day compared to 301 during the same period in 2019/20, an increase of 17%. The Trust also saw a significant increase in attendances during December due to both seasonal illnesses, but also due to the prevalence of streptococcus A in the community with attendances sometimes over 400 per day. Furthermore, the industrial action during the latter part of 2022 and early 2023 placed further pressure on the Trust’s ability to deliver services. In addition, the difficulties in discharging patients in need of care either at home or in another setting resulted in reduced flow from the emergency department to the relevant ward(s), which placed further strain on the Trust’s performance. During the year, in order to reduce emergency department attendances, the Trust trialled using General Practitioners to triage and see more straightforward patients who would otherwise have presented to the emergency department. Although this trial did result in a slight reduction in terms of number of patients and waiting times in ambulatory majors and majors, the affordability and value for money of this scheme is under review. Number of patients presenting to the emergency department 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 As a result of the increase in demand upon the emergency department, there continued to be a significant adverse impact on timeliness of care. The Trust failed to meet the national target of 95% of main emergency department/type 1 attendances seen within four hours, achieving 64.5% in March 2023, although this performance was above average in England. 20 % standard met Emergency access 4hr standard UHS vs NHSE average Type 1 performance 70% 0 10 60% 20 50% 30 40 40% 50 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-2 2 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-2 3 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts Rank Ambulance handovers are an area of focus for NHS England, with a target of all handovers having to take place within 15 minutes and none waiting more than 30 minutes. The Trust performed well in this area with an average handover time of 17 minutes, having made the conscious decision to ensure that patients did not queue in ambulances at the expense of patients being queued within emergency department majors – thus impacting the Trust’s four-hour target, but meaning that ambulances were not queued outside the hospital as was seen in other areas of the country. Elective Waiting times Demand The year saw a continuation of the trend of increasing elective referrals experienced in 2021/22 following the pandemic, and referral rates continued to be above those seen prior to the pandemic. UHS Accepted Referrals 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-2 2 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-2 3 Mar-23 Number of accepted referrals 21 Activity The Trust experienced significant increases in terms of the number of hospital appointments, diagnostic tests and elective admissions during the year, exceeding levels in previous years. The Trust was one of the top performing trusts in terms of its elective recovery programme, achieving an 8% increase in its elective activity during the year when compared to 2019/20. However, performance in this area and in terms of outpatients appointments was negatively affected by the industrial action by nurses, junior doctors and other members of staff, which took place in late 2022 and early 2023 due to the need to cancel non-urgent procedures and appointments in favour of maintaining safe staffing levels in areas such as the emergency department. In addition, the continued presence of COVID-19 as well as other illnesses such as influenza and norovirus placed significant pressure at times on the Trust’s capacity due to the need to implement appropriate infection prevention control measures. Furthermore, difficulties in discharging patients fit to be discharged, but in need of a care package, placed additional strain on the Trust’s capacity. Elective admissions (including day case) Post-COVID-19 pandemic Elective (including day case) recovery (% of same month compared between March 2019 – February 2020) 105% 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 % recovery Outpatient attendances Post-COVID-19 pandemic outpatient seen recovery (% of same month compared between March 2019 – February 2020) 140% 0 90% 10 20 40% 30 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 UH S UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts % recovery Rank 22 Diagnostics The Trust measures performance on a total of 15 frequently used diagnostic tests. In March 2023, 22% of patients were waiting more than six weeks for diagnostics compared with the national target of less than 1%. Patients waiting for a diagnostic test to be performed (sum of 15 different frequently used tests) UHS diagnostic waiting list volume 12,000 11,500 11,000 10,500 10,000 9,500 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-2 2 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-2 3 Mar-23 Diagnostic waiting list volume Percentage of patients waiting over 6 weeks for a diagnostic test to be performed Diagnostic 6 week wait performance UHS vs. NHSE average 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average % standard met 23 Referral to Treatment The Trust continued to see an increase in the number of patients being referred for treatment during 2022/23 with just over 55,000 patients on a waiting list under the 18-week referral to treatment pathway at the end of the year. Averaged across the year, the volume of referrals exceeded the Trust’s theoretical capacity by around 3.5%. Due to this significant demand, the Trust only achieved 63.2% of patients being treated within 18 weeks of referral in March 2023 compared with the monthly target of more than 92%. However, despite this, the Trust remained in the top quartile when compared to other teaching hospitals, reflecting that this growth in demand continues to be a national challenge. During 2022/23, the national target was to ensure that there were no patients waiting over two years for treatment by July 2022, and that there were no patients waiting more than 78 weeks by the end of March 2023. Long-waiting patients were an area of particular focus for the Trust during the year with no reported two-year waits since November 2022 and only two between the period June-November due to patients choosing to delay their treatment. This was a significant improvement compared to the peak of 171 patients reported in December 2021. Similarly, the Trust made progress in reducing the number of patients waiting over 78 weeks for treatment. In February 2023, the Trust reported 84 patients in this category compared to the peak of over 900 patients in September 2021. By the end of March 2023, the Trust had managed to further reduce this number of patients to 14, with those in breach of the target all due to the complexity of the cases. UHS referral to treatment waiting list 56,000 54,000 52,000 50,000 48,000 46,000 44,000 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 24 Number on waiting list % standard met Percentage of patients waiting up to 18 weeks between referral and treatment RTT 18 week performance UHS vs. NHSE average 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average Percentage of patients waiting more than 52 weeks between referral and commencement of a treatment for their condition Number of patients Rank UHS Referral to treatment patients waiting more than 52 weeks 3,000 0 2,500 10 2,000 20 1,500 30 1,000 40 500 50 0 60 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts % of RTT patients RTT % of patients waiting more than 52 weeks UHS vs. NHSE average 5.0% 0 4.5% 20 40 4.0% 60 3.5% 80 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts Rank 25 % standard met Cancer Waiting Times The Trust is one of 12 regional cancer centres in the UK offering treatment for rare and complex cancers as well as cancer in children and brain cancer. The Trust has historically been in the upper quartile, relative to teaching hospital peers. Due to loss of key members of staff and industrial action, the Trust’s performance has slipped over the year with 72.5% of patients seen within two weeks in March 2023 following referral by a General Practitioner for suspected cancer (national target: > 93% per month). Cancer waiting times - 2 week wait performance UHS vs NHSE average 100% 0 80% 50 60% 100 40% 150 Apr-22May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23Mar-23 UH S NHSE average UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts Rank Referrals for January to March 2023 were at the highest for that month for the past five years and overall referral volumes in 2022/23 averaged 2,049 patients per month, 8% higher than in 2021/22 and 28% higher than in 2019/20. The national target was for 96% of patients to commence treatment within 31 days of diagnosis. However, in March 2023, the Trust only achieved 87.9%, but this figure hides considerable variation dependent on the tumour site and type of cancer with a range of 100% for haematology and children’s cancers to 71% for skin. The high rate of referrals led to a significant backlog in terms of patients waiting longer than 62 days for treatment. However, the Trust took steps to reduce this backlog by more than 50% through a dedicated recovery programme. In March 2023, the Trust treated 54.8% of patients within 62 days of referral compared to the target of more than 85%. Treatment for Cancer within 62 days of an urgent GP referral to hospital Cancer waiting times 62 day RTT performance UHS vs. NHSE average 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average % standard met 26 First definitive treatment for cancer within 31 days of a decision to treat % standard met Cancer waiting times 31 day RTT performance UHS vs. NHSE average 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average Quality priorities The Trust set eight quality priorities in 2022/23, which were aimed at ensuring it continued to deliver the highest quality of care. The quality priorities were shaped by a range of national and regional factors as well as local and Trust‐wide considerations. The Trust recognised the overriding issues of significant operational pressures being felt right across the health and social care system, including those associated with the previous two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenge was to deliver the best quality care in the context of these operational pressures, and the Trust set its quality priorities accordingly. Out of the eight priories set, the Trust achieved five and partially achieved three. Priority One: Enhancing capability in Quality Improvement (QI) through our Always Improving strategy The transformation team has grown to over thirty team members including project support officers, project managers, benefit realisation managers. This has allowed the Trust to develop that systematic organisational approach to guide and support its staff in their QI projects. The Trust originally set a target of delivering fifty quality improvement projects but have successfully supported a total of 84 (55 local and 29 flow improvements). These are local change projects which were identified, proposed, led, and delivered by the people who do the work. To date over 1500 people have been trained in the Trust’s improvement approach, which exceeds the original target of 500. The Trust also developed a QI project register and held an Always Improving conference. Priority Two: Developing a culture of kindness and compassion to drive a safety culture The Trust only partially achieved this priority as plans to fully deliver training were affected by operational pressures. However, during the year a variety of communication platforms were used to make sure staff understood the Trust’s vision and were kept up to date with plans and progress. The Trust worked to develop and embed a ‘just culture’ allowing staff to speak up and ask, “what happened and how do we learn?” and developed ‘stop for safety’ staff huddles. Priority Three: We will improve mental health care across the Trust including support for staff delivering care The Trust only partially achieved this priority as several key quality improvement projects have not yet been delivered, and the mental health strategy not yet been finalised. However, a training needs analysis was completed and significant staff training and an education scheme were introduced in response to the findings of the analysis. Mental health champion training has been delivered to 153 staff and IT systems have been improved to help capture vital data to help shape the Trust’s service. 27 Priority Four: Recognising and responding to deterioration in patients During 2021/22 the Trust successfully introduced national Paediatric Early Warning System (nPEWS) into its Southampton Children’s Hospital and UHS is now part of the national test and trial of nPEWS which is assessing the usability of the scoring system. The Trust has also explored how nPEWS can be adapted for children with complex medical conditions requiring interventions (including non-invasive ventilation) as part of their normal care. A daily heat map of escalation times over a 24-hour period was piloted in 2022 and will be rolled out across all adult’s inpatient areas during 2023. The Trust has also performed well with its cardiac arrest audits, and training and education programmes have consistently been delivered. September 2022 saw the implementation of a 24-hour paediatric outreach service. There is a deteriorating patient group and several successful QI projects have been introduced. Priority Five: Improving how the organisation learns from deaths The Trust only partially achieved this priority as it has been unable to establish a learning from deaths steering group. The Trust has introduced a mortality governance coordinator/analyst and grown its bereavement care service. Priority Six: Shared Decision Making (SDM) The shared decision models started at UHS in 2021/22 and have continued to grow with investment in pilot roles to expand these models, which include several advanced nurse practitioner roles, models in paediatrics bringing Shared Decision Making to patients who are transitioning from paediatric to adult services, while in maternity we have introduced SDM in birth planning. When assessing delivery of SDM against NICE guidelines, UHS performs well, especially in targets related to Trust buy-in, governance and practices of pilot areas. This year the Trust has implemented training through key platforms and expanded patient involvement in the project. As a leading site nationally for SDM principles, UHS have worked with NHS England on creating materials for others to learn from. Priority Seven: Working with our local community to expose and address health inequalities During the year the Trust refocused its efforts on making sure that its involvement and participation activities support the health inequalities agenda, while also working to deliver responsive information and advice to patients, carers, and families. Priority Eight: Ensure patients are involved, supported, and appropriately communicated with on discharge During the year the Trust has focused on improved patient, carer and family involvement, and improved communication during the discharge process as well as prompting a more collaborative working between social and health care staff. Strong partnership working with external agencies has been developed to support a system approach to hospital discharge, develop digital solutions, develop the patient hub to support discharge and delivered education to UHS staff. More information can be found about how the Trust delivered and measured its quality priorities, including feedback from patients and staff and improvement aims and quality priorities for 2023/24, in the Trust’s Quality Account for 2022/23. 28 Financial performance The Trust delivered a deficit of £11 million from a revenue position of over £1.2 billion, once items deemed as “below the line” by NHS England, such as the financial position of the Southampton Hospitals Charity, were removed. The Trust was unable to deliver the planned breakeven position. Several material cost pressures were incurred, including unfunded high-cost drugs costs and energy prices. These were unable to be off set in full by a savings programme, despite delivery of £45.6m of efficiencies (2021/22: £15m). Trust operating income rose by £64m from the previous financial year, most notably funding the NHS pay award, as well as additional elective recovery funding. Income reduced from the prior year in relation to ending a nationally funded project regarding testing for COVID-19. The Trust has however been successful in increasing funding for research and development. Trust operating expenditure rose by £78m, incorporating funded inflationary costs as well as the cost pressures outlined above. The Trust has also continued its reinvestment of surplus cash into infrastructure for the Trust, with capital investmen
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/UHS-AR-22-23-6.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 5 November 2024

Description: Date Time Location Chair Apologies Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 05/11/2024 9:00 - 11:30 The Ark Conference Centre, HHFT/Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd Diana Eccles 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 10 September 2024 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 10 September 2024 3 Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions To discuss any matters arising from the minutes, and to agree on the status of any actions assigned at the previous meeting. 4 QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 9:10 Quality includes: clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience 4.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee Keith Evans, Chair 4.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee Dave Bennett, Chair 4.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee Jane Harwood, Chair 4.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee Tim Peachey, Chair 4.5 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:25 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 4.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 9:35 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 4.7 Finance Report for Month 6 9:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 4.8 ICB Finance Report for Month 6 10:10 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 4.9 Recovery Support Programme (RSP) Undertakings - Self Assessment 10:20 Review and discuss the self-assessment Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 4.10 10:30 People Report for Month 6 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 4.11 Cancer Patient Experience Survey Results 2023 10:45 To receive and discuss the results Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Ali Keen, Head of Cancer Nursing 5 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 5.1 Corporate Objectives 2024-25 Quarter 2 Review 11:00 Review and feedback on the corporate objectives Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendees: Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships/Kelly Kent, Head of Strategy and Partnerships 5.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 11:10 Review and discuss the update Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary 6 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 6.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors' (CoG) Meeting 23 October 2024 11:15 (Oral) Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 6.2 Register of Seals and Chair's Actions Report 11:20 Receive and ratify In compliance with the Trust Standing Orders, Financial Instructions, and the Scheme of Reservation and Delegation. Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 7 Any other business 11:25 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda Page 2 8 Note the date of the next meeting: 7 January 2025 9 Items circulated to the Board for reading 9.1 CRN: Wessex 2024-25 Q2 Performance Report Note the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer 10 Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair To agree, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust's Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. Page 3 Agenda links to the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) 5 November 2024 – Open Session Overview of the BAF Risk 1a: Lack of capacity to appropriately respond to emergency demand, manage the increasing waiting lists for elective demand, and provide timely diagnostics, that results in avoidable harm to patients. 1b: Due to the current challenges, we fail to provide patients and their families / carers with a high-quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes. 1c: We do not effectively plan for and implement infection prevention and control measures that reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections and limit the number of nosocomial outbreaks of infection. 2a: We do not take full advantage of our position as a leading University teaching hospital with a growing, reputable, and innovative research and development portfolio, attracting the best staff and efficiently delivering the best possible treatments and care for our patients. 3a: We are unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to the unavailability of staff to fulfil key roles. 3b: We fail to develop a diverse, compassionate, and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive staff experience for all staff. 3c: We fail to create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs identified in the Trust’s longer-term workforce plan. 4a: We do not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in sub-optimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. 5a: We are unable to deliver a financial breakeven position, resulting in: inability to move out of the NHS England Recovery Support Programme, NHS England imposing additional controls/undertakings, and a reducing cash balance impacting the Trust’s ability to invest in line with its capital plan, estates/digital strategies, and in transformation initiatives. 5b: We do not adequately maintain, improve and develop our estate to deliver our clinical services and increase capacity. 5c: Our digital technology or infrastructure fails to the extent that it impacts our ability to deliver care effectively and safely within the organisation, 5d: We fail to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce our direct and indirect carbon footprint by 80% by 2028-2032 (compared with a 1990 baseline) and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045. Appetite (Category) Minimal (Safety) Cautious (Experience) Minimal (Safety) Open (Technology & Innovation) Open (workforce) Open (workforce) Open (workforce) Cautious (Effectiveness) Cautious (Finance) Cautious (Effectiveness) Open (Technology & Innovation) Open (Technology & Innovation) Current risk rating 4x5 20 3x3 9 4x4 16 3x3 9 4x5 20 4 x3 12 4x3 12 3x3 9 3x5 15 4x5 20 3x4 12 2x3 6 Target risk rating 4 x 2 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 26 2 x 3 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 25 4 x 3 Mar 12 26 4 x 2 Mar 8 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 25 3 x 2 Apr 6 25 3 x 3 Apr 9 25 4 x 2 Apr 8 27 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 2 Dec 4 24 Agenda links to the BAF No Item 4.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 4.7 Finance Report for Month 6 4.8 ICB Finance Report for Month 6 4.9 Recovery Support Programme (RSP) Undertakings – Self Assessment 4.10 People Report for Month 6 4.11 Cancer Patient Experience Survey Results 5.1 Corporate Objectives 2024-25 Quarter 2 Review Linked BAF risk(s) 1a, 1b, 1c 5a 5a 5a 3a, 3b, 3c 1b All Does this item facilitate movement towards or away from the intended target risk score and appetite? Towards Away Neither x x x x x x x Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date Time 10/09/2024 9:00 – 13:00 Location Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Dave Bennett, NED (DB) Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer (GB) Jenni Douglas-Todd, Chair (JD-T) Diana Eccles, NED (DE) (9:00-10:00 and 12:00-13:00) Keith Evans, Deputy Chair and NED (KE) David French, Chief Executive Officer (DAF) Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer (PG) Steve Harris, Chief People Officer (SH) Jane Harwood, NED/Senior Independent Director (JH) Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer (IH) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer (JT) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) In attendance Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships (MDeS) Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (LA) (item 6.1) Jane Fisher, Head of Health and Safety Services (JF) (item 7.2) Danielle Honey, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Children (DH) (item 5.13) Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant (DHu) (item 5.10) Duncan Linning-Karp, Deputy Chief Operating Officer (DLK) (item 5.5) Corinne Miller, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Adults (CMi) (item 5.13) Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience (JM) (item 5.11) Jessica Bown, Midwifery Quality Assurance and Safety Matron (shadowing Gail Byrne) 1 member of the public (item 2) 5 governors (observing) 1 members of staff (observing) 2 members of the public (observing) Apologies Diana Eccles, NED (DE) (from 10:00-12:00) 1. Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting. There were no interests to declare in the business to be transacted at the meeting. 2. Patient Story Allan Peters was invited to relate his experience as a cancer patient, who had been diagnosed with stage 4 lymphoma, and, in particular, his experience of CAR-T cell therapy, which had been successful, with no reappearance of the cancer for more than a year. It was noted that the patient had had a positive experience with staff, and, when he collapsed, had been impressed by the reaction of a student nurse. Page 1 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 25 July 2024 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 25 July 2024. 4. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions It was noted that action 1165 could be closed, and the relevant paper had been updated with the correct information. There were no other matters arising or actions overdue. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee The chair of the Finance and Investment Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 19 August 2024. It was noted that: • The committee had reviewed the Finance Report for Month 4 (item 5.7), noting that whilst the Trust was slightly off-plan, it was maintaining its trajectory in terms of an improved position. • The Trust was making progress in terms of its Always Improving programme with some reduction in length of stay. • There were a number of risks to the Trust’s achievement of its 2024/25 plan, including costs incurred from industrial action, insufficient funding for the pay award, and non-delivery of system transformation programmes. The Trust was also delivering £10m of unpaid activity. • The committee received a report from Estates, noting that there had been an improvement in the Trust’s ability to recruit staff. 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee The chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 21 August 2024. It was noted that: • The committee had reviewed the People Report for Month 4 (item 5.9), noting that the Trust was below its target workforce level, although there had been an increase in use of bank staff due to the holiday period. The Trust was benefitting by £1.5m a month from these savings in staff numbers. • It was expected that the Trust would go above its planned staff numbers in September 2024 due to factors such as higher than assumed numbers of patients having no criteria to reside. • The committee received an update on violence and aggression in the context of the recent riots. 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee The chair of the Quality Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 19 August 2024. It was noted that: • The committee reviewed the Trust’s main quality indicators and noted that the indicators in respect of infection prevention were of concern. However, there had been a reduction in Emergency Department waiting times. • The Trust’s progress in implementing the measures under ‘Martha’s Rule’ was noted. • The committee received the annual medical safety report and reviewed consultant job planning. • There had been difficulties with porting over documents to a new IT system in Ophthalmology. Page 2 5.4 Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The 2024/25 pay award for Agenda for Change staff was due to be paid in October. In addition, the Government had made an offer to junior doctors, which appeared likely to be acceptable. There were concerns about the extent to which these pay awards would be fully funded. • The Trust had been formally notified of a collective pay grievance for healthcare support workers, which potentially impacted over 1,000 staff and was for up to six years of back pay. • The civil unrest in late July 2024 had had a significant impact on staff, especially from those from black and minority ethnic communities. • The New Hospitals programme had been paused, and the situation regarding the proposed new hospital near Basingstoke was unclear. Separately, the ‘Save Winchester Action Group’ had written to board members of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (HIOW ICB) expressing concerns about the proposed downgrade of Winchester hospital. • The Care Quality Commission had published its adult inpatient survey for 2023, which showed a deterioration in people’s experiences since 2020. • The Trust’s aseptic unit had received a positive audit report and had been assessed as being ‘low risk’. • An inspection of the Trust’s mortuary arrangements had been carried out by the Human Tissue Authority in August 2024. The outcome was awaited. • The NHS’s long-term plan process had commenced, with an expected emphasis on digital and moving away from hospitals to focus on the community and prevention. • The report by Lord Darzi on the NHS had been published. This indicated a variation in both quality of and access to NHS services across the country. • A workshop was scheduled in October 2024 regarding violence and aggression, with the focus now being on there needing to be a limit on what the Trust will tolerate and there being consequences, including exclusion of individuals. 5.5 Patient Safety and Quality of Care in Pressured Services Joe Teape was invited to present the paper ‘Patient Safety and Quality of Care in Pressured Services’, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • NHS England had sent all integrated care boards, integrated care partnerships, regional directors and NHS trusts and foundation trusts a letter on 26 June 2024 regarding urgent and emergency care, and requiring boards to assure themselves that the Trust is doing all it can to provide alternatives to Emergency Department attendance and admission, and to maximise in- hospital flow. • The Trust chose to queue patients in the Emergency Department, rather than in ambulances in order to be able to release ambulances. It was considered that this approach was safer than having patients remain in ambulances. • The Trust was able to provide good assurance based on its performance against the standards. • The HIOW ICB was proposing to introduce an initiative to reduce ambulance delays whereby patients would be released to the Emergency Department after 45 minutes. Page 3 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 4 Joe Teape was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust was in the top quartile for seven out of nine measures. Of those where the Trust was below top quartile, one was 78-week waits due to the shortage of corneal transplant material, and the other was the 31-day standard, although improvement was expected. • The Trust was aiming to reduce its 65-week waiters to single digits by the end of September 2024. • There had been an increase in the relative mortality rate, the causes of which were being investigated. • The Trust had not had to open surge capacity. • Ward D4 had been closed for deep-cleaning to tackle candida auris. In terms of the spotlight on waiting lists, it was noted that: • The Trust’s waiting list had increased slightly in year by c.1,500, although the growth was in outpatients waits, not patients waiting for a procedure. • There was an opportunity to triage referrals, with use of advice and guidance for General Practitioners in particular. However, it was noted that GPs were not obliged to accept advice and guidance as an alternative to a referral, and the expected industrial action by GPs was seen as a risk. • The Trust had been successful in stabilising its waiting list, it would now be necessary to reduce it from c.60k to c.40k in order to meet the 18-week Referral To Treatment standard. Action: Gail Byrne agreed to look into the increase in ‘red flag’ staffing incidents in July 2024. 5.7 Finance Report for Month 4 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had recorded an in-month deficit of £3.9m and £16.9m year-to-date. The monthly position continued to improve month-on-month, and the Trust’s cost base remained relatively stable. • The Trust’s Elective Recovery performance would be key to achievement of its 2024/25 plan. There remained significant uncertainties in respect of the costs of industrial action, pay award funding, payments for 2023/24 Elective Recovery Funding (ERF), and 2024/25 ERF. • The reasons for the Trust’s variance to plan were largely driven by costs of industrial action, pay awards, unidentified Cost Improvement Programme (CIP), and non-delivery of system mental health and non-criteria to reside programmes. • Identification of CIP and pay controls were working well, and the Trust had delivered 126% ERF performance. • The Trust was anticipating a deficit of £3.8m and 128.5% ERF performance in Month 5. 5.8 Break 5.9 People Report for Month 4 Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: Page 4 • At the end of July 2024, the Trust was 288 Whole Time Equivalents (WTE) below its overall workforce plan. However, over the following months a significant increase in workforce numbers was expected due, largely, to the onboarding of newly-qualified nurses. • The Trust’s plan was predicated on the delivery of system programmes to reduce the number of patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients. The assumed improvements in mental health patient numbers represented approximately 160 WTE. • There was a dispute with the Trust’s porters, with Unite threatening industrial action. 5.10 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report Diana Hulbert was invited to present the Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The previous year had been a difficult one for foundation year doctors due to the industrial action and associated press around this. • Changes in the structure of doctors’ postings and training had resulted in a loss of the previously firm structure and had generated uncertainty for those impacted. It was necessary to ensure that F1 and F2 doctors felt part of the UHS family. • Improvements in the induction process for F1 doctors were required. A twoweek shadowing period had been received positively. 5.11 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 1 Report Jenny Milner was invited to present the Learning from Deaths report for Quarter 1 of 2024/25, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Nationally, the Trust continues to benchmark lower than the expected death rates. • The morbidity and mortality reviews process required refining, as sharing of learning could be inconsistent as was the quality of reviews. A mobile application was being developed to help share learnings. • A recurrent theme had emerged via incident reporting in respect of out-ofhours paediatric palliative care advice and support, as no out-of-hours service had been commissioned. • There had been an increase in the number of complaints relating to the location of the death due to a lack of side rooms. Similarly, there was a lack of private spaces to have sensitive conversations. • A palliative care box had been trialled on Ward D3. Use of charity funding was being considered to enable this to be rolled out elsewhere. 5.12 Medical Appraisal and Revalidation Annual Report including Board Statement of Compliance Paul Grundy was invited to present the Medical Appraisal and Revalidation Annual Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report was intended to enable the Trust to provide assurance that its professional standards processes meet the requirements of the Medical Profession (Responsible Officers) Regulations 2010 and related guidance. Page 5 • This was the second year of using a portal as part of the appraisals process, which had resulted in an improved user experience. • Compliance rates had continued to improve, and there was a good process in place to remind individuals to complete their appraisals. • There had been an increase in the number of appraisers and these were wellrated. Decision: Having reviewed the Annual Report, the Board approved the Statement of Compliance tabled to the meeting, and authorised either the Chair or Chief Executive Officer to sign the Statement on behalf of the Trust. 5.13 Safeguarding Annual Report 2023-24 Corinne Miller and Danielle Honey were invited to present the Safeguarding Annual Report for 2023/24, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • There had been a continued increase in activity across most services, and there had been a sustained increase in the number of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications across the Trust along with requests for support with complex Mental Capacity Act case management. • The year had been challenging due to a loss of key staff. • The Trust had undertaken work to update its policies and Level 3 Safeguarding Adult Training had been rolled out via the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). • A key area of work had been to review the pathway for adults with local authorities. The response from local partners remained challenging due, largely, to budgetary constraints at these other organisations. • The Trust’s children’s safeguarding team had carried out the self-assessment audit required by section 11 of the Children Act 2004, which highlighted no areas of specific concern or gaps. There had been an 28% increase in referrals as well as an increase in the level of complexity. • The adult safeguarding team had won the ‘UHS Champions Team of the Year’ award. 6. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Lauren Anderson was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • All risks had been reviewed by the relevant Executive Director(s) since the BAF was last presented to the Board, with an extensive review having been carried out in December 2023 and in April 2024. • Following review by the Finance and Investment Committee in August 2024, risk 5c had been modified to better reflect the Trust’s estates-related risks. • The NHS was designing a dynamic risk assessment framework. • Work was ongoing to compare the Care Quality Commission’s Well-Led framework with the Trust’s BAF, and to identify any gaps. Page 6 7. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report The paper ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’ was presented to the meeting, the content of which was noted. Decision: The Board agreed to ratify the application of the Trust Seal to the documents listed in the ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’. 7.2 Health and Safety Annual Report 2023-24 Jane Fisher was invited to present the Health and Safety Annual Report for 2023/24, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • There continued to be a number of incidents of late reporting of work-related absence, although steps were being taken to streamline the process and to make reporting easier. • There had been a number of losses in staff over the year, which had impacted the FFP3 mask-fitting team in particular. • Improved training had been made available through the Virtual Learning Environment, and health and safety training received was now listed as a skill on staff members’ HealthRoster profile. • Thirty-nine incidents had been reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR). • The main causes of injuries were as a result of collisions, slips, trips and falls, sharps, and incidents of violence and aggression. With the exception of the latter, these incidents were generally accidents or a result of human error, with nursing and healthcare assistants being the most likely groups to be injured. 7.3 People and Organisational Development Committee Terms of Reference It was noted that the People and Organisational Development Committee had reviewed its terms of reference at its meeting held on 21 August 2024. Decision: Following discussion, it was further noted that whilst the committee had proposed no changes to the terms of reference, it was agreed that the terms of reference should include specific reference to the CQC’s quality statements given the emphasis within the CQC’s latest framework on equality, diversity and inclusion related matters. 8. Any other business There was no other business. 9. Note the date of the next meeting: 5 November 2024 10. Items circulated to the Board for reading The item circulated to the Board for reading was noted. There being no further business, the meeting concluded. Page 7 11. Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Decision: The Board resolved that, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust’s Constitution and the Standing Orders of the board of directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. The meeting was adjourned. Page 8 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 06/06/2024 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 1 1152. Digital Teape, Joe Explanation action item JT agreed to include Digital as an agenda item at a future Trust Board Study Session. 27/02/2025 Pending Update: Item tentatively scheduled for TBSS on 27/02/2025. Trust Board – Open Session 25/07/2024 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee (Oral) 1163. Impact of technology Machell, Craig 27/02/2025 Pending Explanation action item Craig Machell agreed to add an item covering the impact of technology over the next 5-10 years to a future Trust Board Study Session agenda. Update: Item tentatively scheduled for 27/02/25 Study Session. Trust Board – Open Session 10/09/2024 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 4 1175. 'Red flag' staffing incidents Byrne, Gail Explanation action item Gail Byrne agreed to look into the increase in ‘red flag’ staffing incidents in July 2024. 05/11/2024 Pending Page 1 of 1 Agenda item 4.1 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 5 November 2024 Committee: Audit and Risk Committee Meeting Date: 14 October 2024 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Any Other Matters: • The committee reviewed the year end process for 2023/24, and associated ‘lessons learned’. Many of the issues encountered ought to be mitigated by the introduction of a new finance system, together with a ‘rehearsal’ of the year end accounts process to be carried out early in 2025. • The Trust’s National Cost Collection submission for 2024 went well with no validation errors requiring re-submission and data quality was good. Whilst the output will be presented to the Finance and Investment Committee, initial indications were that the Trust was more efficient than the average. • The committee received an update on the Procurement Act 2023 and the potential impact on the Trust. It was noted that the additional reporting requirements had been delayed until February 2025 due to issues with the digital reporting platform development. • The committee received updates in respect of Information Governance and Legal. • The committee received an update on Data Quality, including work ongoing to review cancer waiting times data. • A report on a local proactive exercise in respect of Bank/Agency staff identity fraud showed that whilst the Trust was following the majority of the recommendations to reduce the risk of this type of fraud, current practice could be improved. The committee agreed with the report. 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Level of Assurance: Substantial • All risks had been reviewed with the relevant executive director(s). • It is intended that agenda items at Board meetings will be more clearly linked to the BAF risks. • In addition, division-level ‘BAFs’ are under consideration to provide a clearer idea of overall risk at the divisional level to bridge the gap between the operational risk register and Board-level BAF. • 90% of operational risks had been reviewed, an indicator of wellembedded risk management within the organisation. The Trust’s Fraud, Bribery & Corruption Annual Report 2023/24 highlighted no particular areas of concern. The committee reviewed the performance of the Trust’s internal and external auditors. In addition, the committee held a discussion with the external auditors without management present. Substantial Assurance Reasonable Assurance There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Page 1 of 2 Limited Assurance No Assurance Not Applicable Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda item 4.2 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 5 November 2024 Committee: Finance and Investment Committee Meeting Date: 21 October 2024 Key Messages: • • • • • • The Trust has received significant additional cash in October 2024 through deficit support funding and additional payments for 2023/24 ERF performance. The Trust’s financial position remains challenging with a year-to-date deficit of £8m. The Always Improving programme continues to make progress, but will need to go further and faster. The Trust’s data centre arrangements remain a risk and design work is ongoing in respect of a solution. The risk associated with cyber incidents also remains high. The committee supported a business case for possible expansion of UHS Pharmacy Limited and recommends it to the Board. The committee reviewed the proposed financial recovery plan and recommends to the Board its submission to the ICB. The main risk to the achievement of the Trust’s 2024/25 plan remains the need for the ICS transformation programmes to deliver. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 5.8 Finance Report for Month 6 Level of Assurance: Substantial • The Trust has received £11.2m of deficit support funding as well as £6.5m of additional funding in respect of 2023/24 Elective Recovery performance. • The year-to-date deficit is c.£8m, with an underlying deficit of c.£6m per month. • The Trust’s monthly income remains strong and ERF performance in September 2024 was 130%. However, costs are gradually increasing, and further investigation is required into pay expenditure. • The full amount of 2024/25 CIP has now been identified. • The most significant risk to the Trust’s achievement of its 2024/25 plan remains delivery of the system transformation programmes. 6.2 Board Assurance Framework Level of Assurance: Reasonable • Risks 5a, 5b and 5c have been updated, following discussions with the respective Executive Directors. • Risk 5a will be reassessed following the Trust’s self-assessment against the Recovery Support Programme undertakings to ensure that the risk rating and target are appropriate. • A new scoring framework is being developed to improve consistency in the rating of risks. Any Other Matters: The additional cash received in October 2024 means that it is now likely that the Trust will not need additional cash until February 2025, whereas this was previously expected to be the case in November 2024. The Trust has in place effective controls to monitor its cash position, and a regular report on cash will be provided to the Finance and Investment Committee. Page 1 of 2 Substantial Assurance Reasonable Assurance Limited Assurance No Assurance Not Applicable There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda item 4.3 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 5 November 2024 Committee: People and Organisational Development Committee Meeting Date: 21 October 2024 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Any Other Matters: • The Trust remains below its plan in terms of workforce numbers. However, from October 2024 onward, this position is expected to change. • The risk of non-delivery of ICS transformation programmes is significant. The Trust has assumed a significant reduction in workforce based on delivery of these schemes. • The committee examined the progress against actions designed to improve the lives of resident doctors. It was noted in particular that there was an issue with a lack of availability of office/desk space. • The Trust had been notified that Unite was commencing a ballot of its members commencing on 21 October 2024 as part of the ongoing dispute with porters. 5.11 People Report for Month 6 Level of Assurance: Substantial • The Trust was 249 WTE below its plan. However, this position was expected to change significantly with the onboarding of newly qualified nurses etc. in the autumn. • In addition, the Trust’s plan assumed that the ICS transformation programmes would begin to deliver significant reductions from October 2024 onward. • Turnover and sickness remain below target at 11.1% and 3.6% respectively. Bank and agency rates also remain low. • Appraisal rates remain low at 73%. The Trust was considering a move away from the current ESR system in order to make the appraisal process easier. The Trust had held constructive discussions with Unison as part of the Band 2/3 pay dispute. Substantial Assurance Reasonable Assurance Limited Assurance No Assurance Not Applicable There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Page 1 of 1 Agenda item 4.4 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 5 November 2024 Committee: Quality Committee Meeting Date: 14 October 2024 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Any Other Matters: • The Trust was making good progress against its 2024/25 Quality Priorities. • There were concerns regarding the consistency of approach to infection prevention and control in the Trust. Action plans were being produced and the ‘Fundamentals of Care’ programme is also intended to address many of these concerns. • A never event due to wrong site surgery had been recorded. This is the fifth never event reported during 2024. • The closure of Ward D4 had not been effective in eradicating the candida auris infection with four new cases reported. • There was insufficient resource to roll out National Safety Standard for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPS) 2 in a comprehensive and systematic manner. • In its review of mental health work, the committee noted the following top three risks: lengths of wait for onward care; parity of esteem for patients; and the level of support from local mental health trusts. 6.2 Board Assurance Framework Level of Assurance: Reasonable • Risks 1a, 1b, 1c and 4a have been updated, following discussions with the respective Executive Directors. • It was agreed that the likelihood of achieving the target risk level for risk 1c (infection prevention and control) by April 2025 should be reviewed. • Staffing remains the main concern for the Trust’s Maternity services. • The possibility of support from Salisbury NHS FT to manage the increasing number of caesarean sections was being explored. Substantial Assurance Reasonable Assurance Limited Assurance No Assurance Not Applicable There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Page 1 of 1 Agenda item 4.5 Report to the Trust Board of Directors, 5 November 2024 Title: Sponsor: Author: Purpose Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French, Chief Executive Officer Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs (Re)Assurance Approval Ratification Information x Strategic Theme Outstanding patient outcomes, safety and experience Pioneering research and innovation World class people Integrated networks and collaboration Foundations for the future x x x x Executive Summary: The CEO’s Report this month covers the following matters: • Autumn Statement • Portering Dispute • BAM Dispute • Change NHS • Review into the Operational Effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission • Proposed Legislative Changes • New Hospital Programme – Hampshire Together • Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare • Charity Priorities • Staff Survey • National Patient Safety Award Contents: Chief Executive Officer’s Report Risk(s): N/A Equality Impact Consideration: YES / NO / N/A Chief Executive Officer’s Report Autumn Statement On 30 October 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented her Autumn Statement. The statement was said to be based on the principles of restoring economic stability and increasing investment. A summary can be found from NHS Providers website: autumn-budget-2024-on-the-day-briefing.pdf The statement set out measures to raise an additional £40bn in taxation. This includes an increase in employer’s national insurance contributions by 1.2% to 15% from April 2025, increases in the rates of capital gains tax, changes to inheritance tax, abolition of the nondomicile tax regime, increased stamp duty on second homes, an increase in the rate of the windfall tax on energy companies, and removal of the VAT exemption for private schools. The Chancellor said that she would reduce wasteful spending and has set a 2% productivity savings target for all departments. The Government will publish its ten-year plan for the NHS in Spring 2025 and re-committed to reducing waiting times to 18 weeks by delivering on its manifesto commitment for 40,000 extra hospital appointments each week. The key announcements for health and care include: • Day-to-day spending for the Department of Health and Social Care will increase by £22.6bn from 2023/24 to 2025/26. This is a two-year average real terms NHS growth rate of 4% – the highest since 2010 (excluding the years affected by the COVID-19 pandemic). • Capital spending will increase by £3.1bn in 2025/26 (compared to 2023/24 outturn) – rising to £13.6bn. This is a two-year average real terms growth rate of 10.9%, although it is still lower than the overall value of the maintenance backlog (£13.8bn). This includes £1.5bn for new surgical hubs and diagnostics scanners, and £1bn towards backlog maintenance. There remains some uncertainty regarding the implications of the additional revenue funding and whether any of the funding announced will provide in-year relief in addition to values already confirmed as part of pay award and Elective Recovery Framework funding. Overall, the commitment to additional capital and revenue investment to the NHS is extremely welcome. We will assess the implications for HIOW ICS and to UHS over the coming weeks and months. The national proposed rise in the minimum wage to £12.21 in April 2025 will exceed the current lowest level within the NHS of £12.08. The national staff council will be working with NHS unions to review the implication of this and how it is addressed at a national level. Portering Dispute The Trust has been formally notified by UNITE the union that it has initiated a strike ballot of its members employed within the portering department at University Hospital Southampton. The ballot commenced on 21 October and will run until 11 November 2024. UNITE is balloting members on a range of issues including conduct, culture and working conditions. Prior to the ballot, and having been made aware of staff concerns, the Trust commissioned an independent external review, seeking views of all the portering department. The ballot has attracted media coverage from the BBC and some other local sources, and the Trust provided a response to the issues raised. The Trust is in active discussions with UNITE and local portering representatives to address the issues being raised and will continue to work constructively to resolve the dispute. Page 2 of 6 Meanwhile, the Trust is actively considering plans to ensure patient services and safety are maintained in the event a strike takes place. This will include enacting the Trust’s business continuity processes through the hospital incident management structure. The Board will be kept informed as plans are finalised and on conclusion of the ballot. BAM Dispute While the Trust was proceeding with the development of the east wing annex, concerns were raised by external structural engineers over the capacity of the existing building to cope with the expected additional weight the development would put on the existing structure. In 2022, the Trust raised a formal issue with BAM, the principal contractor of the existing east wing annex building. Over the last two years the Trust, with the support of DAC Beachcroft, has been trying to get BAM’s representatives to the mediation table to resolve the issues raised on the building. In September 2024, the decision was taken to commence arbitration proceedings against BAM Construction over the inability to agree to a mediator or mediation date. The Trust continues to work closely with DAC Beachcroft during this process, aiming for completion in early 2025. Change NHS On 21 October 2024, the Department for Health and Social Care launched an online portal for individuals to share their views, experiences and ideas to assist in the development of the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan. Staff and members of the public have been asked to: • Give their views on the NHS and health and care. • Tell the Government what they feel is working well and what needs improving. • Share their experiences. • Post their ideas for improving health and care in the future. More information can be found at: Change NHS: help build a health service fit for the future GOV.UK Review into the Operational Effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission On 15 October 2024, the Government published an independent report by Dr Penny Dash, who had been commissioned in May 2024 to review the operational effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The review heard from over 300 people from across the health and care sectors and within the CQC, and analysed the CQC’s performance data. The review found significant failings in the internal workings of the CQC, which have led to a substantial loss of credibility, a deterioration in the CQC’s ability to identify poor performance and support a drive to improve quality. The review summarised these failings as follows: • Poor operational performance – there has been a stark reduction in activity compared with 2019. • Significant challenges with the provider portal and regulatory platform. • Delays in producing reports and poor-quality reports. • Loss of credibility within the health and care sectors due to the loss of sector expertise and wider restructuring, resulting in lost opportunities for improvement. • Concerns around the single assessment framework and its application. • Lack of clarity regarding how ratings are calculated and concerning use of the outcome of previous inspections to calculate a current rating. • There are opportunities to improve the CQC’s assessment of local authority Health and Care Act 2022 duties. • ICS assessments are in early stages of development with a number of concerns shared. • The CQC could do more to support improvements in quality across the health and care sector. • There are opportunities to improve the sponsorship relationship between the CQC and the Department of Health and Social Care. Page 3 of 6 The full report can be read at: Review into the operational effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission: full report - GOV.UK Proposed Legislative Changes The Government has proposed a number of significant reforms to employment legislation through its Employment Rights Bill. These changes include: • From 2026, employees will have immediate entitlement to paternity leave, unpaid parental leave, and bereavement leave from the first day of employment. Protections for pregnant women and mothers will also be strengthened. • ‘Exploitative’ zero-hours contracts will be banned, giving workers the right to move to guaranteed hours contracts after a 12-week reference period.
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2024-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-5-November-2024.pdf

Doctors trial 'breakthrough' injection for prostate cancer

Description: British doctors are trialling a "breakthrough" injection that could treat prostate cancer without causing side effects.
Url: /AboutTheTrust/Newsandpublications/Latestnews/2017/July-2017/Doctors-trial-breakthrough-injection-for-prostate-cancer.aspx

1 to 10 of 95

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … Next

Browse site A to Z

Search results

UHS AR 23-24 Final

Annual report 20-21

Annual-report-and-quality-account-2019-20

Papers Trust Board - 15 July 2025

Annual-report-2018-19

Annual report 2021-2022

Papers Trust Board - 29 November 2022

UHS AR 22-23-6

Papers Trust Board - 5 November 2024

Doctors trial 'breakthrough' injection for prostate cancer

Site policies

Contact details

Useful links