A A AText only | Accessibility | Privacy and cookies

Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Advanced Search

Recovering well after a surgical termination of pregnancy - patient information

Description
This factsheet explains what to expect after having a surgical termination of pregnancy.
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Patientinformation/Womenshealth/Recovering-well-after-a-surgical-termination-of-pregnancy-3084-PIL.pdf

Recovering well after a surgical management of miscarriage - patient information

Description
This factsheet explains what to expect after having an operation known as a surgical management of miscarriage.
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Patientinformation/Womenshealth/Recovering-well-after-a-surgical-management-of-miscarriage-3047-PIL.pdf

Recovering well after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery - patient information

Description
This factsheet explains what to expect after your gynaecological laparoscopic surgery and how you can help your body to recover well
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Patientinformation/Womenshealth/Recovering-well-after-gynaecological-laparoscopic-surgery-2082-PIL.pdf

Doppler-guided greater occipital nerve (GON) block - patient information

Description
This factsheet explains what a doppler-guided greater occipital nerve (GON) block is, what the procedure involves and what the possible
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Patientinformation/Brain-and-spine/Doppler-guided-greater-occipital-nerve-GON-block-3707-PIL.pdf

'Cut and drop' removal of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube - patient information

Description
This factsheet explains why your child needs to have their percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube removed, what the procedure involves and
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Patientinformation/Childhealth/Cut-and-drop-removal-of-a-percutaneous-endoscopic-gastrostomy-PEG-tube-3038-PIL.pdf

Cetuximab (500)-Fluorouracil-Folinic Acid-Oxalplatin

Description
Chemotherapy Protocol COLORECTAL CANCER CETUXIMAB(500)-FLUOROURACIL-FOLINIC ACID (Modified de Gramont)OXALIPLATIN Regimen This regimen may require funding • Colorectal Cancer
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/Chemotherapy-SOPs1/Colorectal/Cetuximab500-Fluorouracil-FolinicAcid-Oxalplatin.pdf

Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin

Description
Chemotherapy Protocol COLORECTAL CANCER CAPECITABINE-CETUXIMAB-OXALIPLATIN (21 day) This regimen may require funding Regimen • Colorectal Cancer – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) Indication • Cetuximab in combination with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy is recommended as a possible first or second line treatment for people with metastatic colorectal cancer when: - surgery to remove the cancer in the colon or rectum has been carried out or is possible - the metastases are only in the liver and cannot be removed surgically before treatment - the person is fit enough to have surgery to remove the cancer in the colon or rectum and to have liver surgery if it becomes possible to remove the metastases after cetuximab treatment • The tumour is positive for the wild type KRAS genotype • WHO performance status 0, 1, 2 Toxicity Drug Capecitabine Cetuximab Oxaliplatin Adverse Effect Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, diarrhoea, mucositis, chest pain Infusion related reactions, interstitial lung disease, skin reactions, electrolyte abnormalities, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation Peripheral neuropathy (cumulative), acute laryngopharyngeal dysasthesia (increase duration of infusion) The adverse effects listed are not exhaustive. Please refer to the relevant Summary of Product Characteristics for full details. Monitoring Regimen Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 1 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) • Prior to starting therapy confirm a positive KRAS status • FBC, LFT’s and U&E’s prior to day one of treatment • Monitor for hypersensitivity reactions for 60 minutes after the end of the cetuximab infusion • Patients with complete or partial dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency are at increased risk of severe and fatal toxicity during treatment with capecitabine. All patients should be tested for DPD deficiency before initiation (cycle 1) to minimise the risk of these reactions Dose Modifications The dose modifications listed are for haematological, liver and renal function only. Dose adjustments may be necessary for other toxicities as well. In principle all dose reductions due to adverse drug reactions should not be reescalated in subsequent cycles without consultant approval. It is also a general rule for chemotherapy that if a third dose reduction is necessary treatment should be stopped. Please discuss all dose reductions / delays with the relevant consultant before prescribing if appropriate. The approach may be different depending on the clinical circumstances. The following is a general guide only. Haematological Prior to prescribing the following criteria must be met. Criteria Neutrophil Platelets Eligible Level equal to or more than 1.5x109/L equal to or more than 100x109/L Consider blood transfusion if patient symptomatic of anaemia or has a haemoglobin of less than 8g/dL For haematological toxicity, if the neutrophil count is less than 1.5 109/L or the platelet count is less than 75 109/L, delay treatment until these levels are achieved. Re-initiate therapy at the full dose for a seven day delay or with 75% of the original dose for a fourteen day delay (consider re-starting with 100%). If the delay is more than 20 days stop therapy. There is little need to adjust the dose of cetuximab for haematological toxicity. Hepatic / Renal Impairment Deteriorating liver or kidney function may be a sign of disease progression or drug toxicity. Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 2 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) Hepatic Impairment Drug Capecitabine Cetuximab Oxaliplatin Dose (% of original dose) There is little published information available. No dose reductions are necessary for those with mild to moderate hepatic dysfunction due to liver metastasis Administer only when the transaminases are 5xULN or below and the bilirubin is 1.5xULN or below There is little published information available. No dose reductions are probably necessary. Renal Impairment Drug Capecitabine Cetuximab Creatinine Clearance (ml/min) Dose (% of original dose) More than 51 30-50 less than 30 more than 180 (1.5xULN) 100 75 Do not use Do not use Oxaliplatin Less than 20 Dose reduce and adjust according to toxicity Other Dose reductions or interruptions in therapy are not necessary for those toxicities that are considered unlikely to be serious or life threatening. For example, alopecia, altered taste or nail changes. Dose limiting toxicities include diarrhoea, abdominal pain, emesis, stomatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia and neurosensory toxicities among others. If any NCI-CTC grade 1 toxicity occurs treatment should be continued, without interruption, at the full dose. For toxicities NCI-CTC grade 3 or above in general treatment should be withheld until recovery to at least NCI-CTC grade 1 then re-started if medically appropriate. If recovery takes twenty-one days or longer then stop treatment. Capecitabine NCI-CTC Grade 2 Interrupt treatment until the toxicity resolves to NCI-CTC grade 0-1 then continue at the same dose. If the toxicity recurs for a second time again interrupt treatment until it resolves to NCI-CTC grade 0-1 then resume therapy at 75% of the original dose. If the same adverse effect develops on a third occasion once more interrupt treatment until it resolves to NCI-CTC grade 0-1 then continue at 50% of the original dose. Stop treatment if the toxicity re-appears on a fourth instance. Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 3 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) NCI-CTC Grade 3 Interrupt treatment until the toxicity resolves to NCI-CTC grade 0-1 then continue treatment using 75% of the original dose with prophylaxis if appropriate. If the toxicity recurs for a second time again interrupt treatment until it resolves to NCI-CTC grade 0-1 and then resume therapy at 50% of the original dose. If the same adverse effect develops on a third occasion discontinue capecitabine. NCI-CTC Grade 4 Discontinue treatment unless the responsible consultant considers it to be in the best interest of the patient to continue at 50% of the original dose once the toxicity has resolved to NCI-CTC grade 0-1. When capecitabine is stopped for toxicity the doses are omitted, not delayed. Consider stopping capecitabine therapy if chest pain occurs. Cetuximab Allergic or hypersensitivity reactions have occurred during the administration of cetuximab. For a NCI-CTC grade 1 reaction reduce the infusion rate by 50%. For a NCI-CTC grade 2 reaction, stop the infusion and administer supportive therapies as indicated. Once the reaction has resolved to NCI-CTC grade 1 or below resume the infusion at 50% of the previous rate. For a NCI-CTC grade 3 or 4 toxicity stop the infusion immediately and disconnect the tubing from the patient. Administer appropriate supportive therapies. Once recovered, patients should not receive cetuximab again. Once the rate has been reduced it should not be increased on subsequent infusions. If a second reaction occurs on the slower infusion rate the infusion should be stopped and no further treatment given. An acniform skin rash occurs in over 70% of those receiving cetuximab. The onset is normally within three weeks of starting therapy and often resolves after week twelve. For a NCI-CTC grade 1-2 reaction use symptomatic treatments such as topical or oral antibiotics and continue with the cetuximab. For a NCI-CTC grade 3 toxicity delay treatment until the toxicity resolves to NCI-CTC grade 2 or below. If this occurs within fourteen days resume cetuximab at the same dose. If more than fourteen days is required stop treatment. If the NCI-CTC grade 3 toxicity occurs for a second and third time the cetuximab may again be delayed for up to and including fourteen days with concomitant dose reductions to 200mg/m2 and 150mg/m2 respectively. Cetuximab dose reductions are permanent. The cetuximab must be discontinued if more than two consecutive infusions are withheld or a fourth episode of a NCI-CTC grade 3 skin toxicity develops or a NCI-CTC grade 4 toxicity at any time. UV radiation may worsen skin reactions. Sun safety practices should be followed during and for up to two months after the end of treatment. Stop treatment if there is a confirmed pneumonitis. Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 4 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) Oxaliplatin For cold related dysaesthesia or paresthesia without pain there is no need to dose delay or reduce unless it persists between cycles. In this instance withhold the oxaliplatin until recovery and then re-start treatment using 100mg/m2. Only omit the oxaliplatin if it recurs. For paresthesia with pain or functional impairment that lasts up to seven days no dose modification is necessary. If it persists beyond seven days or is NCI-CTC grade 3 and above, in the first instance reduce the dose to 100mg/m2. If the painful paresthesia recurs or persists between cycles omit the oxaliplatin. If NCI-CTC grade 3-4 diarrhoea or stomatitis recurs despite appropriate reduction in the capecitabine dose the oxaliplatin dose should be reduced to 100mg/m2. There are rare case reports of acute interstitial lung disease or lung fibrosis in association with oxaliplatin. Where an unexplained respiratory symptom occurs stop treatment until pulmonary investigations have been conducted to exclude an interstitial cause. Regimen 21 day cycle for 6 cycles Cycle One Drug Capecitabine Cetuximab Cetuximab Oxaliplatin Dose 800mg/m2 twice a day 400mg/m2 250mg/m2 130mg/m2 Days Route 1-14 incl Oral 1 8, 15 1 Intravenous infusion (see administration) Intravenous infusion (see administration) Intravenous infusion in 500ml glucose 5% over 120 minutes Cycle Two Onwards Drug Dose Capecitabine 800mg/m2 twice a day Cetuximab 250mg/m2 Oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 Days 1-14 incl 1, 8, 15 1 Route Oral Intravenous infusion (see administration) Intravenous infusion in 500ml glucose 5% over 120 minutes Dose Information • Capecitabine will be dose banded in accordance with the national dose bands • Cetuximab will be dose banded in accordance with the national dose bands (5mg/ml) Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 5 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) • Oxaliplatin will be dose banded in accordance with the national dose bands (5mg/ml) Administration Information Extravasation • Cetuximab - neutral • Oxaliplatin – exfoliant Other • Capecitabine should start on the evening of day 1 • Capecitabine should be taken with or after food • Individuals should be monitored for hypersensitivity reactions for sixty minutes after finishing the cetuximab infusion. Do not administer other chemotherapy during this period. • The rate of administration of cetuximab must not exceed 5mg/min for the first infusion (minimum 120 minutes). If well tolerated subsequent infusions may be given at a rate of 10mg/min (minimum 60 minutes). • Oxaliplatin must never come into contact with sodium chloride 0.9%. Ensure the line is flushed with glucose 5% before and after each oxaliplatin infusion Additional Therapy • Antiemetics 15-30 minutes prior to chemotherapy on day one only; - dexamethasone 8mg oral or intravenous - ondansetron 8mg oral or intravenous As take home medication; - dexamethasone 4mg twice a day oral for 3 days - metoclopramide 10mg three times a day when required oral • 30 minutes prior to cetuximab infusion; - chlorphenamine 10mg intravenous - dexamethasone 8mg oral or intravenous (given as part of antiemetic regimen on day 1) - H2 antagonist according to local formulary choice and availability - paracetamol 1000mg oral Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 6 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) • Oral loperamide 4mg after the first loose stool then 2-4mg four times a day when required for the relief of diarrhoea (maximum 16mg/24 hours). • Mouthwashes according to local or national policy on the treatment of mucositis • Gastric protection with a proton pump inhibitor or a H2 antagonist may be considered in patients considered at high risk of GI ulceration or bleed Additional Information • The National Patient Safety Agency alert NPSA/2008/RRR001 must be followed when prescribing, dispensing or administering oral chemotherapy. • Ensure the total daily dose of capecitabine is divided into two doses given twelve hours apart (the first should be administered in the evening of day one of the cycle) Serious toxicity has occurred where the total daily dose has been given twice a day. • It must be made clear to all staff, including those in the community, that this is a short course of oral chemotherapy that must not be continued. References 1. Moosnann N, von Weikersthal LF, Vehling-Kaiser U et al. Cetuximab plus capecitabine and irinotecan compared with cetuximab plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. AIO KRK-0104 – a randomised trial of the German AIO CRC study group. JCO 2011; 29 (8): 1050-1058. 2. Maughan TS, Adams RS, Smith CG et al. Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin based first line combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer; results of the randomised phase III MRC COIN trial. Lancet 2011; 377 (9783); 2103-2114. Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 7 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) REGIMEN SUMMARY Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) Day One Cycle One 1. Chlorphenamine 10mg intravenous 2. Dexamethasone 8mg oral or intravenous 3. Paracetamol 1000mg oral Administration Instructions Please check if the patient has taken paracetamol. The maximum dose is 4000mg in every 24 hours 4. H2 antagonist according to local formulary choice and availability Administration Instructions: Administer according to local formulary choice and availability one of the following 30 minutes prior to chemotherapy; - Ranitidine 50mg intravenous once only - Famotidine 20mg oral once only - Nizatidine 150mg oral once only - Ranitidine 150mg oral once only If there is no stock of these products due to national shortages treatment may proceed without the H2 antagonist provided there is no instruction in the ARIA journal indication the patient must have H2 antagonist treatment. All infusion related reactions must be recorded in the ARIA journal and reported to the appropriate consultant. Many Trusts do not administer an H2 antagonist from cycle three onwards. They have been left in the ARIA protocols so that decisions can be made on an individual Trust and patient basis. 5. Cetuximab 400mg/m2 intravenous infusion An interval of 60 minutes should be left between administration of cetuximab and oxaliplatin 6. Ondansetron 8mg oral or intravenous 7. Oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 intravenous infusion in 500ml glucose 5% over 120 minutes Take Home Medicines 8. Capecitabine 800mg/m2 twice a day for 14 days oral 9. Dexamethasone 4mg twice a day for 3 days oral starting the day after oxaliplatin 10. Metoclopramide 10mg three times a day when required oral Day Eight and Fifteen Cycle One 1. Chlorphenamine 10mg intravenous 2. Dexamethasone 8mg oral or intravenous 3. Paracetamol 1000mg oral Administration Instructions Please check if the patient has taken paracetamol. The maximum dose is 4000mg in every 24 hours Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 8 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) 4. H2 antagonist according to local formulary choice and availability Administration Instructions: Administer according to local formulary choice and availability one of the following 30 minutes prior to chemotherapy; - Ranitidine 50mg intravenous once only - Famotidine 20mg oral once only - Nizatidine 150mg oral once only - Ranitidine 150mg oral once only If there is no stock of these products due to national shortages treatment may proceed without the H2 antagonist provided there is no instruction in the ARIA journal indication the patient must have H2 antagonist treatment. All infusion related reactions must be recorded in the ARIA journal and reported to the appropriate consultant. Many Trusts do not administer an H2 antagonist from cycle three onwards. They have been left in the ARIA protocols so that decisions can be made on an individual Trust and patient basis. 5. Cetuximab 250mg/m2 intravenous infusion Day One Cycle Two Onwards 1. Chlorphenamine 10mg intravenous 2. Dexamethasone 8mg oral or intravenous 3. Paracetamol 1000mg oral Administration Instructions Please check if the patient has taken paracetamol. The maximum dose is 4000mg in every 24 hours 4. H2 antagonist according to local formulary choice and availability Administration Instructions: Administer according to local formulary choice and availability one of the following 30 minutes prior to chemotherapy; - Ranitidine 50mg intravenous once only - Famotidine 20mg oral once only - Nizatidine 150mg oral once only - Ranitidine 150mg oral once only If there is no stock of these products due to national shortages treatment may proceed without the H2 antagonist provided there is no instruction in the ARIA journal indication the patient must have H2 antagonist treatment. All infusion related reactions must be recorded in the ARIA journal and reported to the appropriate consultant. Many Trusts do not administer an H2 antagonist from cycle three onwards. They have been left in the ARIA protocols so that decisions can be made on an individual Trust and patient basis. 5. Cetuximab 250mg/m2 intravenous infusion 6. Ondansetron 8mg oral or intravenous 7. Oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 intravenous infusion in 500ml glucose 5% over 120 minutes Take Home Medicines 8. Capecitabine 800mg/m2 twice a day for 14 days oral 9. Dexamethasone 4mg twice a day for 3 days oral starting the day after oxaliplatin 10. Metoclopramide 10mg three times a day when required oral Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 9 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) Day Eight and Fifteen Cycle Two Onwards 1. Chlorphenamine 10mg intravenous 2. Dexamethasone 8mg oral or intravenous 3. Paracetamol 1000mg oral Administration Instructions Please check if the patient has taken paracetamol. The maximum dose is 4000mg in every 24 hours 4. H2 antagonist according to local formulary choice and availability Administration Instructions: Administer according to local formulary choice and availability one of the following 30 minutes prior to chemotherapy; - Ranitidine 50mg intravenous once only - Famotidine 20mg oral once only - Nizatidine 150mg oral once only - Ranitidine 150mg oral once only If there is no stock of these products due to national shortages treatment may proceed without the H2 antagonist provided there is no instruction in the ARIA journal indication the patient must have H2 antagonist treatment. All infusion related reactions must be recorded in the ARIA journal and reported to the appropriate consultant. Many Trusts do not administer an H2 antagonist from cycle three onwards. They have been left in the ARIA protocols so that decisions can be made on an individual Trust and patient basis. 5. Cetuximab 250mg/m2 intravenous infusion Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 10 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) DOCUMENT CONTROL Version Date Amendment Written By Approved By 1.3 October Update of premedication due to Arum Shortland Dr Debbie Wright 2020 shortage of IV ranitidine. Pharmacist Pharmacist IV ranitidine changed to H2 antagonist according to local formulary choice and availability Coding removed Monitoring updated with DPD testing 1.2 May 2014 Header changed Dr Debbie Wright Donna Kimber Metoclopramide dose changed Pharmacist Pharmacy Technician to 10mg Cetuximab administration changed to reflect SPC Mucositis recommendation changed Bolus removed from supportive therapies Coding updated Disclaimer added 1.1 Nov 2011 In the “Additional Therapy” section, dexamethasone added to the cetuximab premedication Dr Debbie Wright Becky Wills with statement regarding anti- Pharmacist Pharmacist emetic on day 1. Ondansetron moved in the regimen summary to be given after the cetuximab. In the regimen summary spelling of chlorpheniramine changed to chlorphenamine Spelling mistakes in dose modifications corrected (with out to without and paresthesiae to paresthesia) 1 Sept 2011 None Dr Debbie Wright Dr Tim Iveson Pharmacist Consultant Medical Oncologist This chemotherapy protocol has been developed as part of the chemotherapy electronic prescribing project. This was and remains a collaborative project that originated from the former CSCCN. These documents have been approved on behalf of the following Trusts; Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust NHS Isle of Wight Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust Salisbury Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 11 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day) University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust All actions have been taken to ensure these protocols are correct. However, no responsibility can be taken for errors which occur as a result of following these guidelines. Version 1.3 (October 2020) Page 12 of 12 Colorectal – Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin (21 day)
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/Chemotherapy-SOPs1/Colorectal/Capecitabine-Cetuximab-Oxaliplatin.pdf

Standing Financial Instructions

Description
These Standing Financial Instructions (SFIs) are issued for the regulation of the conduct of Trust members and officers in relation to
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Finance/StandingFinancialInstructions.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
1 to 9 of 9