A A AText only | Accessibility | Privacy and cookies

Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Advanced Search

Privacy-notice-DIGNTIY-one-year (1)

Description
The Distribution of Highly Sensitive Troponin in the Critically Unwell and Associated Mortality – one year follow up. This is a privacy notice for patients who took part in the distribution of highly sensitive troponin in the critically unwell and associated mortality study Duration: January 2020 – September 2021 Key contacts: Zoe Nicholas, Jonathan Hinton Chief Investigator: Professor Nicholas Curzen 1. Research category The original study recruited 1,612 consecutive patients who underwent blood tests on admission to one of the three adult intensive care units for any clinical reason at University Hospital Southampton (UHS) between the 30th of January 2019 and 30th of July 2019. For each patient included within the study a single high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn) was added onto the first sample received during their intensive care admission. Subsequently hs-cTn testing was performed every day for the first two days and then every other day during the intensive care admission. This was performed to demonstrate the distribution of hs-cTn and the factors associated with elevated hs-cTn in intensive care. Furthermore the study aimed to assess whether there was an association between hs-cTn concentrations and inpatient mortality. This one year follow up study is an investigator-driven, retrospective, non-interventional, single centre study to assess whether a single hs-cTn result is predictive of future events, in particular adverse cardiovascular events. This was a planned follow up of the original study and received approvals from the research ethics committee (REC) and confidentiality advisory group (CAG) were received for the original CHARIOT study (IRAS 250338, REC 18/ES/0118, CAG 18/CAG/0156). 2. Background The data from the original study have provided useful insights into the distribution of hscTn in intensive care as well as the factors associated elevated hs-cTn levels. Furthermore the study has also suggested that hs-cTn may be a predictor of inpatient mortality. We would like to assess whether the hs-cTn results are a predictor of a patients longer term prognosis. This would potentially allow the identification of groups of patients at higher risk of future events based on their hs-cTn results. These data would help to guide future investigation of potential medical interventions in similar groups to assess whether these interventions can improve outcomes in any high risk cohorts identified. This is particularly pertinent because at present we have relatively blunt risk assessment tools but the use of hs-cTn as a marker of increased risk may help to better provide tailored risk assessment for individuals. 3. Objectives The aim of this sub-study is to assess whether hs-cTn results taken during critical illness states have a long term prognostic role (at one year). 4. Data collection The original study protocol (which included the plan to assess one year outcomes) was approved by both REC & CAG, and is consistent with the International Conference on Harmonisation Guidance of Industry E6 Good Clinical Practice, the Declaration of Helsinki, and all local regulations. Consent was not sought due to the number of patients recruited, the importance of ensuring a consecutive cohort and because the study resulted in no changes to the patient pathway. UHS will act as data controller, and will be sole recipient of all patient identifiable data. UHS will request mortality data at one year for all patients included within the original study from NHS Digital. The data set will then have all patient identifiable data removed and will be sent securely to the Keele Cardiovascular Research Group who will act as joint data processors with UHS. 5. Data base information The database of patients enrolled in the original study is securely stored at UHS. It contains baseline characteristics, markers of illness severity, the use of organ support, blood results and hs-cTn levels. This study is in the advanced stages of analysis and once completed will be published in respected medical journals and presented at medical conferences. All patients included in the database have been assigned a unique study number. Patient identifiable data relating to the unique study ID will only be available at UHS. UHS will request from NHS Digital the survival data at one year. 6. Secure storage and processing of patient information This study has already received REC & CAG approvals – processes designed to make sure researchers can benefit from accessing data while minimizing risk of any harm to patients and Health Research Authority Confidential Advisory Group Section 2.51 approvals. The legal basis for processing the data is covered under General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), Article 6 (1) (e) and Article 9 (2) (j). Personal data of patients (NHS number, date of birth, sex, and unique study ID) is securely stored at UHS. These data will be forwarded, to NHS Digital, who control the Civil Registration Mortality (survival) data. These are considered to be personal data according to European data protection rules, GDPR. As UHS is running the study, they are called the data controller. The purpose of sending this personal data between UHS and NHS Digital is so that NHS Digital can link these data together for the same patients, to provide more accurate and complete information for researchers who can track a patient’s journey through the NHS system. NHS Digital will securely transfer pseudo anonymised data to researchers at UHS. Pseudo anonymised means that most identifying fields within a database are replaced with artificial identifiers, or pseudonyms so patient information can be processed without researchers being able to identify patients. Finally, all pseudo anonymised data will be securely transferred from UHS to the Keele Cardiovascular Research Group (part of the University of Keele). Keele Cardiovascular Research Group are data processors and will work with UHS to analyse the data because they have particular expertise in the analysis of large cardiovascular databases. All patient information will be stored on a secure network that is password-protected, and can only be accessed by those with specialised training and access for the duration of the study. The data will be stored by researchers at UHS until 2021 for analysis and dissemination purposes. All data will be published anonymously in peer-reviewed medical journals and/or at (inter)national medical conferences. This study will not use automated decision making or profiling. In terms of data processing, there is no change in the right for participants to access their data. Furthermore participants also have the right to: rectify their data; restrict processing, object to their data being processed and withdraw their data from being processed. In order to do any of these please contact the research team (details at the end of this document). Once the results have been published it will not be possible to remove them from the public domain and hence it will not be possible to withdraw consent at this stage. However, if requests for withdrawal are made after publication the patient’s data will be removed from any unpublished work and the database. University Hospital Southampton Data Protection: UHS is required by law to comply with data protection legislation. The UK’s regulator for the legislation is the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is the commitment of the hospital to ensure that every current employee and registered student complies with this Act to ensure the confidentiality of any personal data held by UHS, in whatever medium. This Act came into force on 25 May 2018. UHS processes the personal data of living individuals such as its staff, students, contractors, research subjects and customers. UHS has a data protection and confidentiality policy (2018) as a commitment to the safeguarding of personal data processed by its staff and students, and to ensure compliance with the legislation. It is the duty of data controllers, such as UHS, to comply with the data protection principles with respect to personal data. This policy describes how UHS will discharge its duties in order to ensure continuing compliance with the Act in general and the data protection principles and rights of data subjects in particular. Further information may be accessed through the following UHS link: http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/ClinicalResearchinSouthampton/Public-and-patients/Getinvolved/General-Data-Protection-Regulation.aspx or the following link to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO): https://ico.org.uk/ Data Protection Officer Contact details: Data protection officer Trust Headquarters University Hospital Southampton Tremona Road Southampton SO16 6YD For additional contact details please access above UHS link Opting-out We are happy to discuss your rights to protect your data, and how exactly it will be used in our research. If you would like further information about the use of your data in this research study, or would like to lodge a complaint to a supervisory authority – please contact us on the details given below. If you would like to request that your confidential patient information is not included in this study, please contact us. Contact details: Zoe Nicholas, Jonathan Hinton The Coronary Research Group Rm ED029 E Level, North wing Southampton General Hospital Tremona Road SO16 6YD 02381 208538 Jonathan.hinton@uhs.nhs.uk Zoe.nicholas@uhs.nhs.uk
Url
/Media/Southampton-Clinical-Research/Downloads/Privacy-notice-DIGNTIY-one-year-1.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 10 March 2026

Description
Date Time Location Chair Apologies Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 10/03/2026 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2026-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-10-March-2026.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 11 March 2025

Description
Date Time Location Chair Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 11/03/2025 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2025-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-11-March-2025.pdf

BEACON protocol v8.0 07Mar2023 signed

Description
A randomised phase IIb trial of BE AC v izumab added to Temozolomide O ± Irin tecan for children with N refractory
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/PaediatricOncology/beacon-protocol-v8.0-07mar2023-signed.pdf

UHS self-certification NHS provider licence conditions G6 and CoS7

Description
Worksheet "G6 & CoS7" Financial Year to which self-certification relates 2021/22 Please complete the explanatory information in cell Declarations
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/NHS-Improvement-declaration-conditions-G6-and-CoS7.pdf

Papers Trust Board 27 May 2021

Description
Date Time Location Chair Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 27/05/2021 9:00 - 13:00 Microsoft Teams Peter Hollins 1
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2021-Trust-document/TB-papers/Papers-Trust-Board-27-May-2021.pdf

Papers-CoG 26.04.2023

Description
Agenda attachments 1 CoG Agenda - 26.04.2023.docx Date Time Location Chair Agenda Council of Governors 26/04/2023 14
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Governors/Papers-CoG-26.04.2023.pdf

Papers Council of Governors - 27 April 2022

Description
Date Time Location Chair Agenda Council of Governors 27/04/2022 14:00 - 16:00 Microsoft Teams Jane Bailey 1 Chair
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2022-Trust-documents/Papers-Council-of-Governors-27-April-2022.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 11 November 2025

Description
Date Time Location Chair Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 11/11/2025 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre 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 Patient Story (item deferred) 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 9 September 2025 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 September 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 9:05 Keith Evans, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance, Investment & Cash Committee 9:10 David Liverseidge, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:15 Committee Jane Harwood, Chair 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee 9:20 Tim Peachey, Chair 5.5 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:25 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 10:00 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer 5.7 Break 10:40 5.8 Finance Report for Month 6 10:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.9 ICB System Report for Month 6 11:05 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.10 11:10 People Report for Month 6 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.11 NHSE Audit and review of 'Developing Workforce Safeguards' including 11:20 UHS Self-Assessment Return Review and approve the self-assessment return Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer 5.12 11:30 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report and Update on 10-Point Plan Review and discuss the report and update Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant 5.13 Annual Clinical Outcomes Summary Report 11:45 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendees: Lucinda Hood, Head of Medical Directorate/Kate Pryde, Clinical Director for Improvement and Clinical Effectiveness 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2025-26 Quarter 2 Review 11:55 Review and feedback on the corporate objectives Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendee: Martin de Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 12:05 Review and discuss the update Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary/Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager Page 2 7 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors' (CoG) meeting 28 October 2025 12:15 (Oral) Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 7.2 Register of Seals and Chair's Actions Report 12:25 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 7.3 Health and Safety Services Annual Report 2024-25 12:30 Receive and discuss Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Vickie Purdie, Head of Patient Safety/Scott Spencer, Health and Safety Adviser 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: 13 January 2026 10 Items circulated to the Board for reading 12:45 10.1 South Central Regional Research Delivery Network (SC RRDN) 2025-26 Q2 Performance Report Note the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer 11 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. 12 Follow-up discussion with governors 12:45 Page 3 Agenda links to the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) 11 November 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 6 5.8 Finance Report for Month 6 5.9 ICB System Report for Month 6 5.10 People Report for Month 6 5.11 Workforce Safeguards Self-Assessment 5.12 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 5.13 Clinical Outcomes Summary Report 1a, 1b, 1c 5a 5a 3a, 3b, 3c 1a, 3a 3a, 3b 1a, 1b 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) 5x5 25 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 Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date 09/09/2025 Time 9:00 – 13:00 Location Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Diana Eccles, NED (DE) Keith Evans, Deputy Chair and NED (KE) 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) Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer (AH) David Liverseidge, NED (DL) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) In attendance Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (LA) (item 6.1) Danielle Honey, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Children (DH) (item 5.14) Lucinda Hood, Head of Medical Directorate (LH) (item 5.15) Duncan Linning-Karp, Deputy Chief Operating Officer (DL-K) (item 5.6) Corinne Miller, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Adults (CMi) (item 5.14) Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience (JM) (items 5.11-5.12) 1 member of the public (item 2) 30 members of staff (observing) 6 members of the public (observing) Apologies Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer (GB) David French, Chief Executive Officer (DAF) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) 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 Gail Byrne, David French and Tim Peachey. The Chair provided an overview of meetings she had held and events that she had attended since the previous Board meeting. 2. Patient Story Aelwen Emmett, a volunteer at the Trust and former patient was invited to present her experience, focusing particularly on her work to improve the standard of food offered to patients. 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 15 July 2025 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 15 July 2025. Page 1 4. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions The matters arising and actions were noted. In respect of action 1246, it was noted that virtual outpatient appointments had now been built into the Trust’s programme. Furthermore, meetings were to be held with commissioners and the cancer network to improve the quality of referrals. It was noted that action 1246 could be closed. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee David Liverseidge was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 21 July and 2 September 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In July 2025, the Trust had reported that it was £1.1m adverse to its plan, but that the underlying trajectory was improving. • The committee received an update from Wessex NHS Procurement Limited, noting that the company was on track in terms of its Cost Improvement Programme target. • The committee had received an update in respect of both the proposed Hampshire and Isle of Wight elective hub and a possible Urgent Treatment Centre at Southampton. • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 4 (item 5.8), noting that the Trust had reported a year-to-date deficit of £19.5m, which was £5.8m adverse to plan. Key drivers for the Trust’s financial position included the lack of improvement in the number of patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients, the continued difference between funded and actual activity under block contracts, lower than anticipated income, and higher than planned workforce numbers. • The Trust was ahead of its plan on Cost Improvement Programme delivery. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s proposed Financial Recovery Plan and noted the need to ensure that the long-term impact of decisions needed to be taken into account. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s cash position and noted that cash support would be required in the Autumn and that the committee would be amending its terms of reference to expand its role in terms of cash monitoring and oversight. • The committee reviewed the Board Assurance Framework risks within its remit, noting that Risk 5a had increased to 25 due to the risk associated with the Trust’s cash position (item 6.1). 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee Jane Harwood was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 21 July and 1 September 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee reviewed the People Report for Month 4 (item 5.10), noting that there continued to be significant demands on the Trust’s workforce, especially due to the number of patients having no criteria to reside and patients with a primary mental health need. Whilst the Trust’s substantive workforce had reduced, there had been an increase in the number of temporary staff resulting in the Trust reporting that it was 55 whole-time- equivalents above its plan. Page 2 • The committee considered the impact of the recruitment controls on the administrative and clerical workforce and the potential for shortages in these areas causing issues elsewhere. • The committee received an update in respect of the Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme (MARS), noting that 65 applications had been approved. • The committee received an update on the recruitment of newly qualified nurses, noting that the Trust had pre-empted the announcement of a ‘guarantee’ by the Secretary of State. • The committee reviewed the workforce related elements of the Trust’s Financial Recovery Plan, noting the challenges in delivering what was required and the Trust’s reliance on improvements in patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients. • The committee reviewed its terms of reference, proposing to make only minor changes (item 7.2). 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee Diana Eccles was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 18 August 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee considered the proposal to revise enhanced rates paid to temporary staff in certain areas to remove the enhancement and bring rates into line with Agenda for Change rates. The committee noted the impact on staff and the concerns expressed by staff members. However, it was further noted that the enhancements were not intended to be permanent. • The committee received the Experience of Care report and noted a continuation in the trend observed during Quarter 4 of staff attitudes featuring as a reason for complaint. It was considered likely that this was indicative of the pressures on staff. • The committee reviewed the Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2025-26 Quarter 1 Report, noting that an action plan was in place in respect of the Maternity Triage Line to address some shortcomings identified in the process. • The committee received the Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 1 Report (item 5.11), noting that the Trust was one of only 11 trusts out of 119 with a lower-than-expected death rate during the period. • The committee reviewed the Safeguarding Annual Report 2024-25 and Strategy 2025-26 (item 5.14), noting that activity levels remained consistent with prior years, but the complexity of cases had increased. 5.4 Chief Executive Officer’s Report Paul Grundy was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The NHS league tables for 2025 had been published on 9 September 2025. The Trust had ranked 48th out of 134 and had been placed in segment 3 of the NHS Oversight Framework due to the effect of the ‘financial override’. The Trust was temporarily in segment 5 due to being in the Recovery Support Programme. • Trusts were required to submit self-assessments for the Provider Capability Assessment during October 2025. This would inform decisions relating to which organisations to place in the Performance Improvement Programme. • Resident doctors undertook strike action between 25 and 30 July 2025. Approximately one-third of those eligible at the Trust took part in the industrial action and the Trust had performed well in terms of mitigating the impact on activity. Page 3 • The Royal College of Nursing had published results of its analysis of violence and aggression against nursing staff in emergency departments, noting that the number of incidents had increased from 2,093 in 2019 to 4,054 in 2024. • NHS England had published a series of urgent and emergency care improvement guides to assist organisations with managing the winter period. • A number of changes to the organisation of local councils in Hampshire and Southampton were proposed as part of national plans to create unitary councils in place of existing county and district/borough councils. 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 4 Andy Hyett was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had reported an increase in the number of patients waiting over 52, 65 and 78 weeks alongside an increase in the overall waiting list. The Trust had entered Tier 2 escalation for Referral To Treatment performance. • The Trust had been placed in Tier 1 escalation due to the gap between its current Emergency Department performance and its performance plan for 2025/26. However, indicative data for August and September 2025 showed improved performance. • Work was ongoing to improve flow with task and finish groups established to review the discharge process and to implement rapid improvements. • The number of patients having no criteria to reside and those with a primary mental health need remained high. A workshop had been set up with Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust in respect of mental health patients. • Steps were being undertaken to reduce the number of inappropriate attendances in the Emergency Department with patients potentially redirected to other areas. However, an Urgent Treatment Centre would be key to alleviating pressure on the Emergency Department in the longer term. The Board discussed the Trust’s performance against national standards. This discussion is summarised below: • Performance against the 62-day standard for cancer waiting times was an area of focus to ensure more consistent performance. • Work was ongoing to extend shared decision-making in order to involve patients in decisions about their care and treatment, noting however that this was more of a challenge with inpatients. • There was a challenge in terms of managing the demand for patients requiring diagnostic services. It was noted that there had been issues with availability of equipment over the summer period. It was acknowledged that diagnostics performance also impacted other areas such as cancer and Emergency Department metrics. • The percentage of over 65s attending the Emergency Department was expected to be a key metric to monitor over the winter period. Actions Andy Hyett agreed to look at the roll out of Pharmacy First. Andy Hyett agreed to carry out a deep-dive into Diagnostics to be either provided as a ‘Spotlight’ in the Performance KPI Report or via a Trust Board Study Session. Page 4 5.6 UHS Operating Plan 2025-26 and Board Assurance Statement Andy Hyett was invited to present the Operating Plan 2025-26 and Board Assurance Statement, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Operating Plan provided a summary of plans from October 2025 to September 2026, sitting alongside other key policies such as those relating to infection prevention control, major incidents, and influenza. • The Operating Plan would also serve as the Trust’s winter plan, which was recognised as a period of increased pressure. The Board discussed the proposed Operating Plan for 2025/26, this discussion is summarised below: • It was considered likely that, even with delivery of the demand management schemes being led by the Integrated Care Board (ICB), there would be a gap between demand and capacity over the winter period in particular. Therefore, further interventions to improve discharge rates and to reduce the number of patients having no criteria to reside would be necessary. In addition, the Trust would be required to make potentially difficult decisions in respect of prioritisation of patients and possible cancellation of elective procedures. • Concerns were expressed in relation to the trend of low uptakes of seasonal vaccinations, such as that against influenza, which had been seen since the COVID-19 pandemic. This situation would likely create further challenges due to patients with seasonal illnesses requiring additional infection prevention control measures. Furthermore, low uptake by staff members would likely result in increased rates of staff sickness and, accordingly, reduced capacity and/or increased expenditure on temporary staffing. • It was understood that there was a NHS campaign to encourage staff in particular to be vaccinated against influenza, and that plans were in place for senior leaders to visibly support this campaign through being vaccinated. • The Board challenged whether the Trust could meet the targets set out in the Operating Plan given the financial and other pressures currently experienced. • It was additionally noted that the Trust was reliant on external support and delivery of external demand management programmes led by the ICB in order to be able to meet the performance targets, especially in terms of management of the number of patients having no criteria to reside and those with a primary mental health need. • Furthermore, the Trust’s financial position was such that it was required to produce a financial recovery plan, which would require additional financial savings to be made. • It was agreed that the Board should fully consider whether to approve the Operating Plan once it had considered the Trust’s financial recovery plan in the Closed Session of the meeting. [Note: the matters below forming part of item 5.6 were discussed following the approval of the Trust’s financial recovery plan in the Closed Session.] Noting that the Board had discussed and supported the Trust’s financial recovery plan, subject to certain caveats, the Board again discussed the proposed Operating Plan for 2025/26. This discussion is summarised below: • The Trust’s financial recovery plan would need to be supported by NHS England and would also need to deliver in order for the Trust to be able to meet the performance targets set out in the Operating Plan. • The Trust continued to have significant dependence on third parties, especially other providers, the Integrated Care Board, and local authorities, to be able to successfully reduce the number of patients having no criteria to Page 5 reside or number of mental health patients. Without these reductions, the Trust would face significant capacity constraints, which would impact its performance, especially during periods of high demand. Decision Noting the discussions in the Closed Session in respect of the financial recovery plan, and having reviewed the proposed Operating Plan 2025-26 and accompanying Board Assurance Statement, the Board approved the Operating Plan 2025-26 and its submission, subject to the following: • delivery of system-wide programmes to manage demand and reduce numbers of non-criteria to reside and mental health patients, • appropriate support being provided by third parties, including local providers, the Integrated Care Board, and local authorities, especially in terms of supporting discharges and managing numbers of non-criteria to reside and mental health patients, and • support from NHS England for and delivery of the Trust’s financial recovery plan. In addition, the Board authorised the Chair and Chief Executive Officer to sign the Board Assurance Statement. 5.7 Break 5.8 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 reported an in-month deficit of £6.8m (£4.8m above plan), although the underlying deficit was showing improvement, reducing to £6.6m. However, this trajectory was not sufficient to deliver the plan. • The Trust was carrying out approximately £2.5m of unfunded activity per month. In order to tackle some of this amount, the Trust had conducted negotiations with other providers and systems to address underfunding on contracts. • There were concerns about whether the Trust’s elective over-performance during the first half of the year would be fully funded. Whilst agreement had been reached in respect of funding three months of over-performance, it was not clear whether this would be replicated in the future. • The Trust would be seeking an activity management plan, which would detail which activities to cease to perform on the basis that the Trust continuing to over-perform against agreed funded activity levels was financially unsustainable and that it was not reasonable that the Trust should be criticised for falling performance in areas such as waiting lists as it sought to manage its finances. • The Trust’s cash position remained an area of concern with cash support to be requested from NHS England. • There appeared to be an emerging risk of slippage against the Trust’s capital programme, which was to be discussed at the Finance and Investment Committee. 5.9 ICS Operational Delivery Report for Month 4 Ian Howard was invited to present the ICS Operational Delivery Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust was the only organisation within the system currently reporting being off plan. However, there were indicators from other providers with Page 6 significant risks being highlighted about organisations’ abilities to meet their 2025/26 plans. • There was an error in the report in respect of the Trust’s workforce numbers. A correction to the report had been requested. • The Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICS plan was for a breakeven position at the end of 2025/26. However, this was reliant on receipt of £60m of deficit support funding from NHS England, which was at risk because the Trust was no longer reporting being on plan. 5.10 People Report for Month 4 It was noted that two questions had been received from members of the public prior to the meeting (see Annex A), both of which related to the decision to remove the enhancement from NHS Professionals rates paid to staff in certain areas of the Trust such as in Theatres and in the Emergency Department. It was further noted that: • A discussion had also been held with staff prior to the Board meeting, at which a number of other questions had been raised. In particular, staff had expressed concerns about their feeling valued by the organisation. • The reasoning behind the decision to remove the enhancement previously paid on temporary staffing rates was explained as being to provide consistency with other staffing groups and with other providers by aligning rates paid with Agenda for Change rates. This change was part of a package of measures to improve the financial position of the Trust. • The decision to remove the enhancement was supported by an Equality and Quality Impact Assessment as part of the Trust’s process for making decisions of this nature. [Post meeting note: Following the meeting, the Royal College of Nursing, on behalf of its members in the affected areas, submitted a collective dispute. The questions raised in advance of the meeting, together with other related points, were to be addressed as part of the collective dispute process.] Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s plan for 2025/26 was for a reduction in whole-time-equivalents (WTE) by 765. Whilst the Trust had reduced the size of its workforce, it was still 55 WTE off-plan. • The Trust had reduced the number of divisions from four to three and had implemented recruitment controls whereby only 70% of clinical posts would be recruited to and a prohibition on recruitment to non-clinical posts. • The Trust had also carried out a Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme (MARS) and had made some redundancies in discrete areas. It was noted, however, that there was a lack of funding for severance payments, which limited the Trust’s options with respect to steps it could take to reduce its workforce. • Temporary staffing was a particular area of focus, both in terms of numbers of temporary staff but also in terms of the cost paid for such staff. This aligned with the work of the South East temporary staffing collaborative which aimed to reduce the price of temporary labour in both bank and agency. Page 7 • Despite its challenges during 2025/26, the Trust had proactively offered roles to newly-qualified nurses ahead of the Secretary of State’s announcement of a ‘graduate guarantee’ on the basis that, from a strategic perspective, the Trust needed to take into account its future workforce requirements. Action Steve Harris and Andy Hyett agreed to respond to the questions and points raised at the meeting held with staff in respect of the NHS Professionals rates matter. 5.11 Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 1 Report Jenny Milner was invited to present the Learning from Deaths 2025/26 Quarter 1 Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s summary hospital-level mortality indicator (SHMI) score continued its downward trajectory and was the lowest value recorded since 2018. As such, the Trust was one of only 11 trusts nationally to achieve a lower-thanexpected mortality rate. • Work was ongoing to disseminate lessons from end-of-life care and an additional module for the Ulysses system had been purchased to facilitate data capture and standardisation for Morbidity and Mortality meetings. Action Jenny Milner was to provide further information to the Board in respect of why the Trust’s SHMI score remained low. 5.12 Annual Complaints Report 2024-25 Jenny Milner was invited to present the Annual Complaints Report 2024/25, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report provided details of complaints received between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 and was the first full year of reporting against the new standard introduced by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). • Complaints activity had increased by 40% and the Trust was not currently meeting response targets. • The Trust benchmarked higher than others in terms of complaints not upheld. The Board discussed the Trust’s approach to complaints handling and, in particular, whether the Trust was an outlier in terms of the number of complaints not upheld. The Board challenged whether complaints deemed as ‘not upheld’ ought, in some instances, to be considered ‘partially upheld’. Consideration should therefore be given to reviewing the Trust’s complaints against PHSO referrals and outcomes. Action Jenny Milner was to provide further information regarding how the Trust was planning to meet complaints response times. Page 8 5.13 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 framework published by NHS England was designed to allow the Trust to provide assurance that its professional standards processes meet the relevant statutory requirements and support quality improvement. • Feedback in respect of the appraisals process had been largely positive. • Appraisal compliance rates had continued to rise across the year with a current average of 88.8%. • The Board was required to approve a Statement of Compliance confirming that the Trust was compliant with the Medical Profession (Responsible Officers) Regulations 2010 (as amended). Decision Having considered the Medical Appraisal and Revalidation Annual Report tabled to the meeting, the Board authorised the Chair or Chief Executive Officer to sign the Statement of Compliance. 5.14 Safeguarding Annual Report 2024-25 and Strategy 2025-26 Danielle Honey was invited to present the Safeguarding Annual Report 2024/25 and Strategy for 2025/26, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report summarised the activity of the Trust’s safeguarding service in 2024/25. It was noted that the service had contributed to reviews of 56 patients where a statutory review had been considered. • The number of referrals under section 42 of the Care Act 2014 caused by Southampton City Council had reduced following the implementation of the council’s new processes. This was not reflective of a reduction in the number of UHS referrals or the complexity of the referrals responded to. • There had been an increase in the number of open cases with Southampton City Council and there had been a 13% increase in the number of patients subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. • There had also been an increase in the number of scoping reviews compared to prior years, although fewer were progressing to formal reviews. • Following a survey of staff, work was underway to improve the visibility of the team and there was a focus on team wellbeing with support from the psychology team. • The situation in respect of expected changes in the role of integrated care boards was being monitored due to the potential for changes in the team’s scope and remit. Page 9 6. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Lauren Anderson was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework update, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • All risks had been reviewed by the relevant executive directors since July 2025. • The revised risk appetites agreed by the Board in July 2025 were being embedded. • The rating of Risk 5a had increased from 20 to 25 due to the lack of agreement for cash support. However, once this agreement had been obtained and the Financial Recovery Plan was in place, it was expected that this risk would again reduce to 20. • An audit of the Trust’s risk management maturity by the Trust’s internal auditors was near to completion. 7. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors’ (COG) Meeting 16 July 2025 The Chair presented a summary of the Council of Governors’ meeting held on 16 July 2025. It was noted that the meeting had considered the following matters: • Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Report • The Trust’s 2025/26 Operating Plan • Council of Governors’ Terms of Reference • Membership Engagement • Feedback from the Governors’ Nomination Committee Furthermore, the Council of Governors approved the extension of the appointment of Tim Peachey as a non-executive director for a period of 12 months. 7.2 People and Organisational Development Committee Terms of Reference Craig Machell was invited to present the proposed changes to the People and Organisational Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The People and Organisational Development Committee had reviewed its terms of reference at its meeting on 1 September 2025. • It was proposed to make only minor changes to remove reference to the Charitable Funds Committee, which no longer existed. Decision Having considered the proposed amendments to the People and Organisational Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, the Board approved the changes. Page 10 8. Any other business It was noted that it was organ donation week during 22-28 September 2025. Action Craig Machell agreed to add organ donation to the agenda of a future Trust Board Study Session. 9. Note the date of the next meeting: 11 November 2025 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. 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 11 Annex A Questions: 1. The Board has agreed a cut in bank pay rates for nursing staff, resulting in local staff being unlikely to maintain their bank roles in this organisation, (based on a survey of over 450 nurses within the affected areas). Currently these roles provide staffing in areas such as theatres and other specialised areas, the impact being these departments can use local skills and knowledge to provide seamless operational delivery. How can the board provide assurance that, a) this will not impact on safety for patients, and b) they truly value nurses for the professional skills they provide for this Trust. 2. Our Emergency Department has recently been placed under Tier 1 monitoring by NHS England, reflecting serious national concerns about safety and performance. The department is already regularly understaffed, with patient care frequently delayed as a result. In light of this, how can the Trust justify reducing NHSP pay rates for Emergency Department nurses — a decision that risks deterring skilled staff from covering shifts and further compromising patient safety and the delivery of safe, timely care? What specific steps will the Trust take to mitigate these risks to patients and staff if the changes go ahead? Page 12 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 15/07/2025 - 5.11 Freedom to Speak Up Report 1267. Data Mbabazi, Christine Watts, Natasha 13/01/2026 Pending Explanation action item Christine Mbabazi to include data from other mechanisms for reporting concerns in future Freedom to Speak Up reports. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 4 1281. Pharmacy First Hyett, Andy 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to look at the roll out of Pharmacy First. 1282. Diagnostics Hyett, Andy 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to carry out a deep-dive into Diagnostics to be either provided as a ‘Spotlight’ in the Performance KPI Report or via a Trust Board Study Session. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 5.10 People Report for Month 4 1283. NHS Professionals rates Harris, Steve Hyett, Andy 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Steve Harris and Andy Hyett agreed to respond to the questions and points raised at the meeting held with staff in respect of the NHS Professionals rates matter. Page 1 of 2 Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 5.11 Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 1 Report 1284. SHMI score Milner, Jenny Watts, Natasha 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Jenny Milner was to provide further information to the Board in respect of why the Trust’s SHMI score remained low. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 5.12 Annual Complaints Report 2024-25 1285. Response times Milner, Jenny Watts, Natasha 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Jenny Milner was to provide further information regarding how the Trust was planning to meet complaints response times. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 8 Any other business 1286. Organ donation Machell, Craig 18/12/2025 Pending Explanation action item Craig Machell agreed to add organ donation to the agenda of a future Trust Board Study Session. Update: To be scheduled 18/12/25 or 03/02/26. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.1 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 11 November 2025 Committee: Audit & Risk Committee Meeting Date: 13 October 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • • The committee reviewed and discussed the outputs of a ‘lessons learned’ activity following the late publication of the Trust’s annual report and accounts. It was noted that a number of actions had been agreed and that a trial run would be conducted at Month 9. The committee noted the proposal to tender for new valuers for 2025/26 and the review of the Modern Equivalent Asset estimation methodology that would be carried out during the year. The committee agreed with a proposal to write off historical debt from private (mostly overseas) patients on the basis that it was irrecoverable. There had been 68 waivers of competitive tendering during the first half of 2025/26, most of which related to continued service provision. It was noted that the submission as part of the National Cost Collection exercise had been completed in July 2025 and that the Trust was 7% more efficient than the average based on the data. An update was received in respect of Information Governance. The Trust’s Data Security and Protection Toolkit was now rated as ‘approaching standards’ and progress had been made in respect of the backlog in subject access requests. The committee received an update in respect of legal expenditure and claims during 2024/25. The committee reviewed the internal audit reports on the Data Security and Protection Toolkit, CQC Readiness, and risk maturity. The committee received an update on the progress of the Trust’s local counter-fraud team against the plan for 2025/26, noting that imposter fraud was an area of focus. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial N/A • The committee had last reviewed the BAF in March 2025, and there had been a definite increase in the level of risk with the ratings of four of the risks having increased since then. • Approximately 25% of the risks on the Trust’s operational risk register were rated ‘critical’ (i.e. 15 or above). • The internal audit of risk management had been positive and the Trust’s risk management framework was considered as being mature. 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 5.2 i) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 11 November 2025 Committee: Finance and Investment Committee Meeting Date: 22 September 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 5. The Trust had reported an in-month deficit of £5.9m and £25.4m deficit year-todate. The in-month deficit was £4.2m above the original plan, but was in line with the trajectory in the Financial Recovery Plan. The Trust’s underlying deficit had continued to improve, reducing to £6.2m, although this improvement was not yet at the pace required. The main drivers of the variance to plan were variances in income compared with what had been expected during 2025/26 and variances in terms of pay costs. The Trust was expecting to be 95 whole-timeequivalents above plan at year end based on current assumptions. It was noted that the Trust had identified 100% of Cost Improvement Programme savings at Month 5 and 76% of schemes were fully developed. Approximately £37m of savings had been delivered between Months 1 and 5, although higher than anticipated levels of non-recurrent savings had been delivered. The committee reviewed the Trust’s capital forecast, noting that there was a risk of a shortfall against the Trust’s internal CDEL. An update was received regarding the Urgent and Emergency Care transformation programme. The committee received the annual assurance report from UHS Pharmacy Limited, noting the company’s performance during the year and the work being done to expand services internally and externally. The committee considered the Trust’s cash forecast for Month 5, noting that the Trust’s underlying deficit was steadily eroding the Trust’s cash balance. The Trust had introduced strict treasury management measures and had previously received advance payments from the ICB as a means to mitigate the cash position. However, it had been necessary to submit a request for revenue support from NHS England in September 2025 and further such applications would be required from November 2025 onwards. In order to increase the focus on and governance of cash-related matters, the committee reviewed its terms of reference to strengthen the cash-related provisions and agreed to recommend to the Board that the committee be re-constituted as the Finance, Investment and Cash Committee with an Operating Cash Group reporting into the committee. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) N/A Any Other Matters: The revised terms of reference for the committee were reviewed and approved at the Board meeting held on 7 October 2025. 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 11 November 2025 Committee: Finance, Investment and Cash Committee Meeting Date: 3 November 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 6 (see below). The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s performance against its Financial Recovery Plan, noting that progress had been made in terms of putting plans in place regarding patients with no criteria to reside and mental health patients. Good progress had also been made in respect of the ‘grip and control’ measures. At Month 6, the Trust remained on track with the Financial Recovery Plan. An overview of the recently published Medium Term Planning framework was provided. It was noted that the first submission of the Trust’s three-year plan was due before
Url
/Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2025-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-11-November-2025.pdf

Privacy notice CHARIOT one year

Description
True 99th centile of high sensitivity cardiac troponin for hospital patients: prospective, observational cohort study (CHARIOT study) – one year follow up. This is a privacy notice for patients who took part in the CHARIOT Study Duration: August 2019 – August 2022 Key contacts: Zoe Nicholas, Jonathan Hinton Chief Investigator: Professor Nicholas Curzen 1. Research category The original CHARIOT study recruited 20,000 consecutive inpatients and outpatients undergoing blood tests for any clinical reason at University Hospital Southampton (UHS) between the 29th of June 2017 and 24th of August 2017. For each patient included within the study a single high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn) was added onto the first sample received during the study timeframe to demonstrate the distribution of results that could be expected in a real world population. The current one year follow up of the CHARIOT study is an investigator-driven, retrospective, non-interventional, single centre study to assess whether a single hs-cTn result is predictive of future events, in particular adverse cardiovascular events. Approvals from the research ethics committee (REC) and confidentiality advisory group (CAG) were received for the original CHARIOT study. A substantial amendment was approved by both these committees for the CHARIOT one year follow up study (IRAS 215262, REC 17/SC/0042, CAG 17/CAG/0083) 2. Background The data from the CHARIOT study have provided useful insights into the distribution of hs-cTn levels across both the inpatient and outpatient environments at our large teaching hospital. The study has also provided us with a better understanding of the co-morbidities that are associated with elevated hs-cTn. We would like to assess whether the hs-cTn results are a predictor of a patients prognosis. This would potentially allow the identification of groups of patients at higher risk of future events based on their hs-cTn results. These data would help to guide future investigation of potential medical interventions in similar groups to assess whether these interventions can improve outcomes in any high risk cohorts identified. This is particularly pertinent because at present we have relatively blunt risk assessment tools but the use of hs-cTn as a marker of increased risk may help to better provide tailored risk assessment for individuals. 3. Objectives The aim of this addition to the original CHARIOT study is to assess whether hs-cTn results have a prognostic role in the secondary care cohort. 4. Data collection The original CHARIOT study protocol was approved by both REC & CAG, and is consistent with the International Conference on Harmonisation Guidance of Industry E6 Good Clinical Practice, the Declaration of Helsinki, and all local regulations. Consent was not sought due to the number of patients recruited, the importance of ensuring a consecutive cohort and because the study resulted in no changes to the patient pathway. A substantial amendment was approved by both REC & CAG for the one year follow up. UHS will act as data controller, and will be sole recipient of all patient identifiable data. UHS will request mortality and hospital admission data at one year for all patients included within the CHARIOT study from NHS Digital. The data set will then have all patient identifiable data removed and will be sent securely to the Keele Cardiovascular Research Group who will act as joint data processors with UHS. 5. Data base information The database of patients enrolled in the CHARIOT study is securely stored at UHS. It contains baseline characteristics, blood results and hs-cTn levels. The findings resulting from this data base were published in the British Medical Journal (https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l729). These data have helped clinicians interpret hs-cTn results in a real world population. All patients included in the database have been assigned a unique study number. Patient identifiable data relating to the unique study ID will only be available at UHS. UHS will request from NHS Digital the survival data and hospital episodes data at one year. 6. Secure storage and processing of patient information This study has already received REC & CAG approvals – processes designed to make sure researchers can benefit from accessing data while minimizing risk of any harm to patients - and Health Research Authority Confidential Advisory Group Section 2.51 approvals. The legal basis for processing the data is covered under General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), Article 6 (1) (e) and Article 9 (2) (j). Personal data of patients (NHS number, date of birth, sex, and unique study ID) is securely stored at UHS. These data will be forwarded, to NHS Digital, who control the Civil Registration Mortality (survival) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. These are considered to be personal data according to European data protection rules, GDPR. As UHS is running the study, they are called the data controller. The purpose of sending this personal data between UHS and NHS Digital is so that NHS Digital can link these data together for the same patients, to provide more accurate and complete information for researchers who can track a patient’s journey through the NHS system. NHS Digital will securely transfer pseudo anonymised data to researchers at UHS. Pseudo anonymised means that most identifying fields within a database are replaced with artificial identifiers, or pseudonyms so patient information can be processed without researchers being able to identify patients. Finally, all pseudo anonymised data will be securely transferred from UHS to the Keele Cardiovascular Research Group (part of the University of Keele). Keele Cardiovascular Research Group are data processors and will work with UHS to analyse the data because they have particular expertise in the analysis of large cardiovascular databases. All patient information will be stored on a secure network that is password-protected, and can only be accessed by those with specialised training and access for the duration of the study. The data will be stored by researchers at UHS until 2022 for analysis and dissemination purposes. All data will be published anonymously in peer-reviewed medical journals and/or at (inter)national medical conferences. This study will not use automated decision making or profiling. In terms of data processing, there is no change in the right for participants to access their data. Furthermore participants also have the right to: rectify their data; restrict processing, object to their data being processed and withdraw their data from being processed. In order to do any of these please contact the research team (details at the end of this document). Once the results have been published it will not be possible to remove them from the public domain and hence it will not be possible to withdraw consent at this stage. However, if requests for withdrawal are made after publication the patient’s data will be removed from any unpublished work and the database. University Hospital Southampton Data Protection: UHS is required by law to comply with data protection legislation. The UK’s regulator for the legislation is the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is the commitment of the hospital to ensure that every current employee and registered student complies with this Act to ensure the confidentiality of any personal data held by UHS, in whatever medium. This Act came into force on 25 May 2018. UHS processes the personal data of living individuals such as its staff, students, contractors, research subjects and customers. UHS has a data protection and confidentiality policy (2018) as a commitment to the safeguarding of personal data processed by its staff and students, and to ensure compliance with the legislation. It is the duty of data controllers, such as UHS, to comply with the data protection principles with respect to personal data. This policy describes how UHS will discharge its duties in order to ensure continuing compliance with the Act in general and the data protection principles and rights of data subjects in particular. Further information may be accessed through the following UHS link: http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/ClinicalResearchinSouthampton/Public-and-patients/Get-involved/General-Data-Protection-Regulation.aspx or the following link to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO): https://ico.org.uk/ Data Protection Officer Contact details: Data protection officer Trust Headquarters University Hospital Southampton Tremona Road Southampton SO16 6YD For additional contact details please access above UHS link Opting-out We are happy to discuss your rights to protect your data, and how exactly it will be used in our research. If you would like further information about the use of your data in this research study, or would like to lodge a complaint to a supervisory authority – please contact us on the details given below. If you would like to request that your confidential patient information is not included in this study, please contact us. Contact details: Zoe Nicholas, Jonathan Hinton The Coronary Research Group Rm ED029 E Level, North wing Southampton General Hospital Tremona Road SO16 6YD 02381 208538 Jonathan.hinton@uhs.nhs.uk Zoe.nicholas@uhs.nhs.uk
Url
/Media/Southampton-Clinical-Research/Privacy-notice-CHARIOT-one-year.docx
1 to 10 of 87
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … Next