Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Simple Search

Search Type: Criteria:

You could also try: complement (30), foil (3), matching part (107)

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

Description: ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2019/20 Incorporating the quality account 2019/20 Page 2 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/annual-report-and-quality-account-2019-202.pdf

Annual-report-2018-19

Description: ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2018/19 incorporating the quality account 2018/19 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/annual-report-2018-19.pdf

UHS AR 23-24 Final

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

Annual-report-24-25-final

Description: 2024/25 Incorporating the quality account University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2024/25 Presented to Parliament
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/Annual-report-24-25-final.pdf

UHS AR 22-23-6

Description: 2022/23 Incorporating the quality account University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23 Presented to Parliament
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/UHS-AR-22-23-6.pdf

Annual report 20-21

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

Annual report 2021-2022

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

Papers Trust Board - 7 January 2025

Description: Date Time Location Chair Observing Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 07/01/2025 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd Fatemeh Jenabi, Specialty Registrar (shadowing Joe Teape) 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 5 November 2024 9:15 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 November 2024 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 Finance and Investment Committee 9:20 Dave Bennett, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:25 Committee Jane Harwood, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee 9:30 Tim Peachey, Chair including Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 5.4 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:40 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 8 10:00 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Break 10:35 5.7 Finance Report for Month 8 10:45 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.8 ICB Finance Report for Month 8 10:55 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.9 People Report for Month 8 11:05 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.10 Freedom to Speak Up Report 11:15 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Christine Mbabazi, Equality & Inclusion Adviser/Freedom to Speak Up Guardian 5.11 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 11:25 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant 5.12 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 11:35 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendees: Natasha Watts, Deputy Chief Nursing Officer/Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience 5.13 Infection Prevention and Control 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 11:45 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Julian Sutton, Lead Infection Control Director/Julie Brooks, Deputy Director of Infection Prevention & Control 5.14 Annual Medicines Management 2023-24 Report 11:55 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: James Allen, Chief Pharmacist 5.15 Annual Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 2024 12:05 Discuss and approve the review Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Rosemary Chable, Head of Nursing for Education, Practice and Staffing Page 2 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 12:15 Review and discuss the update 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 Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency 12:25 Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer Attendees: John Mcgonigle, Emergency Planning & Resilience Manager/ Danielle Sinclair, Deputy Emergency Planner 7.2 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 8 Any other business 12:35 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 9 Note the date of the next meeting: 11 March 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) 7 January 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) 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 8 5.7 Finance Report for Month 8 5.8 ICB Finance Report for Month 8 5.9 People Report for Month 8 5.10 Freedom to Speak Up Report 5.11 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 5.12 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 5.13 Infection Prevention Control 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 5.14 Annual Medicines Management 2023-24 Report 5.15 Annual Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 2024 7.1 Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPPR) 1a, 1b, 1c 5a 5a 3a, 3b, 3c 3b 3a, 3b 1b 1c All 1b, 3a 1a, 3a, 5b, 5c Appetite (Category) Minimal (Safety) Current risk rating 4x5 20 Cautious (Experience) Minimal (Safety) 3x3 9 4x4 16 Open (Technology & Innovation) 3x3 9 Open (workforce) Open (workforce) Open (workforce) 4x5 20 4 x3 12 4x3 12 Cautious (Effectiveness) 3x3 9 Cautious (Finance) 3x5 15 Target risk rating 4 x 2 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 26 2 x 3 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 25 4 x 3 Mar 12 26 4 x 2 Mar 8 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 25 3 x 2 Apr 6 25 3 x 3 Apr 9 25 Cautious (Effectiveness) Open (Technology & Innovation) Open (Technology & Innovation) 4x5 20 3x4 12 2x3 6 4 x 2 Apr 8 27 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 2 Dec 4 24 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 x x Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date 05/11/2024 Time 9:00 – 11:30 Location The Ark Conference Centre, HHFT/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Dave Bennett, NED (DB) Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer (GB) Keith Evans, Deputy Chair and NED (KE) David French, Chief Executive Officer (DAF) Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer (PG) Steve Harris, Chief People Officer (SH) Jane Harwood, NED/Senior Independent Director (JH) Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer (IH) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer (JT) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) In attendance Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships (MDeS) (item 5.1) Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Ali Keen, Head of Cancer Nursing (AK) (item 4.11) Kelly Kent, Head of Strategy and Partnerships (KK) (item 5.1) 4 governors (observing) 2 members of staff (observing) 2 members of the public (observing) Apologies Diana Eccles, NED (DE) 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 Diana Eccles. The Chair provided an overview of her activities since September 2024, including visits to hospital departments, meetings with peers and other key stakeholders. 2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 10 September 2024 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 10 September 2024. 3. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions In respect of action 1175, it was noted that there had been an increase in the number of incidents of delays in giving of medication or pain relief, missed symptoms, and insufficient staffing numbers. However, in part the increase in numbers of incidents was considered to be due to efforts to encourage reporting of such incidents, and the situation had improved more recently. It was agreed to close this action. Page 1 It was noted that there were no other matters arising or overdue actions. 4. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 4.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee The chair of the Audit and Risk Committee was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 14 October 2024, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee reviewed the lessons learned from the 2023/24 annual accounts, and noted that the issues encountered should be resolved in time for the 2024/25 accounts due, largely, to the implementation of a new finance system. • The committee also received a report in respect of the risk of impersonation fraud for bank/agency staff and the procedures that had been put in place to mitigate this risk. 4.2 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 Report in respect of the meeting held on 21 October 2024, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee had reviewed the Finance Report for Month 6 (item 4.7) and discussed the Trust’s re-commitment to its 2024/25 plan in support of its request for deficit support funding from NHS England. • The position in respect of cash was challenging and the committee discussed what the Trust should do in the final quarter of 2024/25. It was noted that the rules on when and how much cash support could be requested were somewhat unclear. • The committee discussed a potential expansion of the activities of UHS Pharmacy Limited, although it was subsequently noted that the specific potential opportunity had since failed to materialise. • The committee also discussed the Trust’s financial recovery programme. 4.3 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 Report in respect of the meeting held on 21 October 2024, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had been below its plan in terms of whole-time-equivalent (WTE) numbers, although this position would change from October 2024 onward due to the onboarding of newly qualified nurses and the failure of the Integrated Care System transformation plans to deliver in terms of reduction in patients having no criteria to reside and mental health support. • The committee noted the cumulative impact on staff of having to balance staff numbers, performance, and patient experience. • Whilst noting that the annual appraisal rate remained low, it was suspected that more appraisals than recorded had taken place, but that these had not been recorded on the Electronic Staff Record. 4.4 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 14 October 2024, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: Page 2 • Patients’ access to a rehabilitation and recovery service during and after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was limited due to a lack of service provision. The Trust was non-compliant with national guidance in this area. • Due to resource constraints the Trust was unable to systematically roll out the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPS) 2. However, it was noted that a solution to this issue was being considered. • There had been no significant improvement in terms of the Trust’s system partners in respect of supporting the Trust with mental health admissions. • The committee also reviewed the Maternity and Neonatal Safety Report, based on data available at September 2024, and including the NHS Resolution Maternity Incentive Scheme Year 6 progress update, the local response to the Care Quality Commission’s National Report Review of Maternity Services in England 2022-2024, and the Antenatal and Newborn Screening Annual Report 2023/24. 4.5 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: • Whilst the commitment in the Autumn Statement to additional funding for the NHS was welcomed, it was unclear at this stage what this additional funding will mean in practice and how it would be allocated. • There had been recent media coverage of the Trust’s ongoing dispute with its porters following a press release by the UNITE union. • Arbitration proceedings were expected to commence in respect of a long- running dispute with BAM Construction relating to the construction of the east wing annex building. • Significant changes in employment legislation were anticipated between now and 2026, although, due to the nature of employment conditions in the NHS, it was not anticipated that these changes would have a significant impact on the Trust. • The new combined community provider, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust was launched on 1 October 2024. • A meeting had been held with the now independent hospital charity to discuss priorities over the medium term. • The national NHS staff survey had launched on 20 September 2024 and would run until 28 November 2024. It was noted that the participation rate thus far had been below that seen in previous years. • The Trust’s quality and patient safety partners programme had won the ‘Patient Involvement in Safety’ award at the Health Service Journal’s Patient Safety Awards on 16 September 2024. • There was a concern that the Government’s intended 10-Year Plan for the NHS, which was expected to redirect focus on prevention and community healthcare, could result in an immediate loss of funding for acute providers, i.e. before the longer-term preventative measures had had an opportunity to take effect. 4.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 Joe Teape was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s overall performance was good compared to other teaching hospitals. In August 2024, the Trust was first for its 65-week wait performance, and second for the 60-day cancer metric. Page 3 • The month of October was proving to be challenging with increased bed occupancy and surge capacity having to be opened. Type 1 Emergency Department attendance was over 400 per day. • Whilst there had been improvements in the length of stay, the impact of this had largely been negated by the high demand being experienced. • The ‘W-45’ initiative was to be implemented at the end of November 2024, whereby ambulances would automatically hand over patients to emergency departments after 45 minutes. It was noted that this policy would potentially put strain the relationship between the Emergency Department and the South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS). • It was noted that there were potential issues with the data presented in terms of the number of virtual appointments and use of MyMedicalRecord. The Board discussed the high levels of attendance in the Emergency Department. It was noted that: • The Trust’s winter plans did not assume 400 attendances per day. • Attendances were typically of higher acuity, and did not appear to be as a result of patients being unable to access GP services. • The Trust had a number of projects underway in order to direct patients to alternative routes into the hospital, such as through the Same-Day Emergency Care service. • The importance of ensuring the wellbeing of staff during such a period of sustained demand was also noted. • In addition, the Trust had requested funding for GPs in the Emergency Department as had occurred in previous years as a means of reducing demand on the Emergency Department. Action: Joe Teape agreed to investigate the data in respect of virtual appointment and MyMedicalRecord numbers presented for Month 6. 4.7 Finance Report for Month 6 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had received additional funding in respect of 2023/24 Elective Recovery Fund (ERF) performance, funding for industrial action costs, and deficit support funding from NHS England. As a result, the Trust had recorded a year-to-date deficit of £8m, a variance of -£4.7m against plan. • The Trust’s underlying deficit continued to be £5-6m per month. • The Trust had 200-220 patients with no criteria to reside at any one time, and expected reductions in mental health demand had not been realised due to non-delivery of system programmes. • The Trust had also undertaken £17m of unpaid activity in the first half of 2024/25. • The Trust had recorded 130% ERF performance in month and 128% year-to- date. It also continued to maintain low bank and agency use, and had delivered £32m of Cost Improvement Programme benefits. • There was significant financial pressure throughout the NHS in England. 4.8 ICB Finance Report for Month 6 Ian Howard was invited to present the ICB Finance Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report tabled to the meeting had been prepared by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (ICB) for all providers in the system. Page 4 • The system’s 2024/25 plan targeted a deficit of £70m. • During the first half of 2024/25, the system had received £55m in deficit support funding from NHS England and a surplus of £20m would be required during the second half of the year in order to be able to meet its 2024/25 target. • Meeting the 2024/25 target would likely be challenging. • The system had yet to see any significant benefit from the six transformation programmes. • It was noted that the ICB report would benefit from additional information in respect of workforce and equality, diversity and inclusion. 4.9 Recovery Support Programme (RSP) Undertakings – Self Assessment Ian Howard was invited to present the paper ‘Recovery Support Programme (RSP) Undertakings – Self-Assessment’, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In June 2024, the Trust, along with all other organisations in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System (ICS) under the Recovery Support Programme had submitted a self-assessment in respect of the undertakings entered into in 2023. NHS England had provided feedback in respect of these self-assessments in August 2024. • All providers had been asked to provide a further self-assessment, which would then be incorporated into a system-wide response in January 2025. • The evidence supplied by the Trust in support of its self-assessment indicated significant engagement by the Trust’s Board with the organisation’s undertakings under the RSP as well as progress against these undertakings since the previous submission. • Factors such as the number of patients having no criteria to reside and other matters beyond the Trust’s control remained a concern in terms of the Trust’s ability to fully meet the undertakings. • The action plans for the ICS transformation programmes should be included as part of the Trust’s response to the request for a self-assessment. Decision Having discussed the proposed response by the Trust, the Board agreed the proposed self-assessment, and authorised David French and Ian Howard to submit it to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board, subject to there being no material changes prior to submission. 4.10 People Report for Month 6 Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust was currently under its 2024/25 plan by 249 whole-time-equivalents (WTE). However, this situation was expected to change in October 2024 due to the impact of onboarding of newly qualified nurses and midwives, and also due to non-delivery of ICS transformation programmes in non-criteria to reside and mental health, which assumed a reduction of 167 WTE. • The Trust benchmarked well in terms of its sickness absence rate and turnover. • The Trust had plans to transfer recording of appraisals from the Electronic Staff Record to the Visual Learning Environment platform, which was considered to be more ‘user friendly’ and was therefore expected to improve recorded appraisal numbers. Page 5 • The Trust was in active negotiations with Unison in respect of the Band 2/3 pay dispute. • The People and Organisational Development Committee was to examine the overall workforce picture in more detail. 4.11 Cancer Patient Experience Survey Results 2023 Ali Keen was invited to present the Cancer Patient Experience Survey Results 2023, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The survey involved 132 trusts, and had a 58% response rate at UHS (1,064 patients). • At the Trust 15 out of 59 questions scored above the expected range, which indicated that the Trust was a positive outlier when compared to trusts of a similar size and demographic. • Patients with longer-term health conditions and women tended to have worse experiences than other groups. • The care by and quality of staff at the Trust were rated highly. • There were opportunities for improvement in some areas such as administration and communication around appointments. 5. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 5.1 Corporate Objectives 2024-25 Quarter 2 Review Martin De Sousa and Kelly Kent were invited to present the Corporate Objectives 2024/25 Quarter 2 review, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report now incorporated a forecast for the end of year. • The overall picture was positive with 12 objectives shown as ‘green’, two as ‘amber’, and two as ‘red’. • The main areas of risk in terms of the objectives concerned the deliverability of a stretching financial plan. • The completion of year two of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme was also at risk due to the state of steam duct tunnels, which required substantial remediation ahead of work commencing on the low temperature hot water system. 5.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Craig Machell was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework Update, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In September and October 2024, the Board’s committees had reviewed the BAF risks assigned to them, and the Audit and Risk Committee had reviewed the entire BAF. • As a result of these reviews, it had been agreed to increase the risk rating for Risk 1c (Infection Prevention Control) and to extend the target date. In addition, the target dates for all risks were to be reviewed to ensure that they were realistic. • The Board agenda now included an annex, which indicated where papers were linked to a BAF risk and the impact of any decision by the Board on the Trust’s achievement of its target risk rating. Furthermore, Board papers now Page 6 had a clear link to any relevant BAF risk included as part of the new cover sheet. 6. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 6.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors’ (CoG) Meeting 23 October 2024 The Chair provided an overview of the meeting of the Council of Governors held on 23 October 2024. It was noted that the meeting had addressed the following matters: • Attendance at Council of Governors meetings • Appointment of a member of the Governors’ Nomination Committee • Planning for the Governors’ strategy session in December 2024 • Membership engagement • Feedback from the Working Groups • The external auditor’s report on the Annual Accounts In addition, on 31 October 2024, the Council of Governors had met with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB to discuss future plans for the system and opportunities for collaboration between providers. 6.2 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. Decision: The Board agreed to ratify the application of the Trust Seal to the documents listed in the ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’. 7. Any other business There was no other business. 8. Note the date of the next meeting: 7 January 2025 9. 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. 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 7 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 06/06/2024 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 1 1152. Digital Teape, Joe Explanation action item JT agreed to include Digital as an agenda item at a future Trust Board Study Session. 27/02/2025 Pending Update: Item tentatively scheduled for TBSS on 27/02/2025 Trust Board – Open Session 25/07/2024 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee (Oral) 1163. Impact of technology Machell, Craig 27/02/2025 Pending Explanation action item Craig Machell agreed to add an item covering the impact of technology over the next 5-10 years to a future Trust Board Study Session agenda. Update: Item tentatively scheduled for 27/02/25 Study Session. Trust Board – Open Session 05/11/2024 4.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 1181. MyMedicalRecord (MMR) Teape, Joe 07/01/2025 Completed Explanation action item Joe Teape agreed to investigate the data in respect of virtual appointment and MyMedicalRecord numbers presented for Month 6. Update: The issue was related to the MMR – drop-in logins in month and the increase in the previous month which was noted in the Month 6 report, as oncology had been added to the system and all patients notified in that month driving a surge in logins. Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 5.1 i) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 7 January 2025 Committee: Finance & Investment Committee Meeting Date: 25 November 2024 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • For month 7, the Trust had reported an in-month deficit of £4.5m and a £12.5m year-to-date deficit. The Trust was £9.2m behind plan. The non-delivery of system-wide transformation programmes represented approximately half of the overall deficit. The recent pay awards resulted in an additional £2m cost pressure. Elective Recovery performance was 125%, which was lower than previously due to operational challenges in October 2024, high levels of annual leave, and the performance achieved in October 2019 on which in-month performance was based. The Trust’s workforce numbers were beginning to increase as anticipated as newly qualified staff members were onboarded. The ongoing discussions with Unison in respect of the Band 2/3 pay dispute would likely lead to additional one-off costs as well as recurring costs if any pay increase were agreed. It was expected that the Trust would be below the NHS England minimum cash holding during Quarter 4. It was forecast that the Trust would deliver £67.7m of CIP for 2024/25 against £84.9m of identified schemes. The Trust’s Always Improving programme had succeeded in delivering a 3.6% reduction in length of stay. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Not applicable. Any Other Matters: • The committee received a quarterly update from Estates, Facilities and Capital Development. • The committee supported the Trust’s bid for external funding in support of the Southampton Elective Hub. 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. Page 1 of 2 No Assurance Not Applicable Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. 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 5.1 ii) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 7 January 2025 Committee: Finance & Investment Committee Meeting Date: 16 December 2024 Key Messages: • • • • The Trust’s financial position remains difficult despite significant levels of savings being delivered in areas such as patient flow, theatres, and outpatients. The main contributor to the Trust’s deficit continues to be non-delivery of system-wide transformation programmes, especially those concerning patients having no criteria to reside. The Trust was forecasting to achieve c.£67m of its cost improvement programme target for 2024/25, a shortfall of £17m against the identified opportunities. However, much of the unachieved amount assumed delivery of system transformation programmes. The Trust’s cash balance was initially expected to fall below the NHS England minimum holding level during Quarter 4. However, the Trust has received £12m of additional cash, which now means that the Trust’s cash balance should not fall below minimum required levels until Quarter 1 of 2025/26. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 5.7 Finance Report for Month 8 Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust’s in-month deficit was £5.7m and a year-to-date deficit of £18.2m, £14.8m behind plan year-to-date. • The Trust has carried out £21m of unfunded activity during the year. • The Trust continues to benchmark well in terms of value for money, and continues to apply measures to ensure financial grip and governance with strong controls in place. 6.1 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). • The risk rating for Risk 5a has been increased from 15 to 20 due to the deteriorating cash balance and the ongoing financial pressures. Any Other Matters: • The committee reviewed the outputs of the review of non-pay expenditure carried out by Deloitte. • The committee supported the outline strategy for a possible private patient unit. • The committee gave its support in principle for the Trust to bid for £1.75m of funding in support of the Trust’s Same-Day Emergency Care service. 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. Page 1 of 2 Limited Assurance No Assurance Not Applicable Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. 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 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 7 January 2025 Committee: People & Organisational Development Committee Meeting Date: 13 December 2024 Key Messages: • • • • • The Trust’s substantive workforce grew by 7 whole-time-equivalents (WTE) during November 2024 in line with forecast. However, an adjustment has also been made to the substantive numbers being reported due to the status of a hosted network (the CRN), which expanded following a TUPE transfer of staff. The rate of bank staff usage had increased in November 2024 due to the need to open surge capacity. This was expected to continue during the remainder of the year. Reduction in bank benefit has been assumed though, commencing in January linked to NQNs exiting supernumerary periods. The non-delivery of system-wide transformation programmes continues to pose a significant risk to the Trust’s delivery of its 2024/25 workforce plan. A Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme (MARS) has been approved by NHS England, which was expected to deliver a reduction in workforce of c.20 WTE by March 2025. The Trust was forecasting a total workforce of 13,464 WTE at the end of the year – broadly flat compared with the end of 2023/24. Increases in substantive workforce has been forecasted during December and January. Due to the volatility of predicting start dates during the Christmas period, a reforecast may take place in January. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 5.9 People Report for Month 8 Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust is above its 2024/25 workforce plan by 77 WTE due to a combination of the planned increases in substantive staff as newly qualified employees are onboarded, and the assumed reduction in workforce requirements due to delivery of system-wide transformation programmes. • The system-wide transformation programmes assumed a reduction in workforce of 218 WTE. Non-delivery of these programmes therefore poses a significant risk to the Trust’s achievement of its overall 2024/25 workforce plan. • The Trust’s sickness absence rate was 3.3% against the target of 3.9%, and turnover was lower than expected. • The response rate to the Staff Survey was low compared to the national average. 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial N/A • Risks 3a, 3b and 3c have been updated, following discussions with the respective Executive Director(s). • The financial situation and uncertainty in respect of the NHS long-term workforce plan poses a significant underlying risk, and it was suggested that increasing the rating of risk 3c should be considered to reflect this. Any Other Matters: • A detailed update was provided in respect of the ongoing industrial dispute with the porters and in respect of the Band 2/3 pay dispute. Page 1 of 2 • The need to manage ongoing industrial disputes was impacting the Trust’s People team’s capacity to make progress on other areas, such as those relating to transformation. 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 7 January 2025 Committee: Quality Committee Meeting Date: 25 November 2024 Key Messages: • • • • • • • There had been seven never events reported during 2024/25. There had been a decrease in the number of category 2 pressure ulcers, which was possibly due to increased training rates. Three prostate patients had been lost to follow up, and there were concerns in respect of capacity within the prostate service. Overall, the Quality Indicators show a system under pressure. There were also concerns in respect of cardiac surgery services due to staffing levels and culture within the team, which had led to cancellations and increased waiting lists. The PALS/complaints service had had 2,135 interactions during Quarter 2. The top themes related to clinical treatment, patient care, and communication. The number of Inquests was increasing, which was putting pressure on services. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 5.12 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial Medium • Whilst the overall death rate had increased, this was in line with national trends. The Trust was performing well, and was one of 13 trusts scoring below the expected figure. • A mobile application to share the outputs of mortality and morbidity meetings was being reviewed. • The lack of available side rooms was leading to an increasing number of patients dying on wards rather than in a private environment. 5.13 Infection Prevention and Control 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust was expected to miss most bacteraemia targets for 2024/25. • The Trust was mid-table compared with other teaching hospitals. • The rate of MRSA had increased to 4-5 cases per annum from 2020 onwards, compared with 0-2 per annum between 2015 and 2020. • An audit of hand washing had raised concerns about the compliance rate. • The loss of experienced staff since the COVID-19 pandemic was considered to be a significant contributor to the decline in performance. Any Other Matters: The committee reviewed the Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report and noted the following: • Caesarean section rates remained high. • The Trust’s post-partum haemorrhage rate remained above the national expectations, but no key themes had been identified following review of this matter. • In a review of third- and fourth-degree tears, no key themes had been identified. • One maternal death was under investigation. Page 1 of 43 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 43 Agenda Item 4.6 Report to the Quality Committee, 25 November 2024 Title: Sponsor: Author: Purpose Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Alison Millman, Quality Assurance and Safety Midwifery Matron Jessica Bown, Quality Assurance and Safety Midwifery Matron Hannah Mallon, Quality Assurance and Safety Neonatal Matron Marie Cann, Maternity and Neonatal Safety Lead Emma Northover, Director of Midwifery (Re)Assurance Approval Ratification Information x x x Strategic Theme Outstanding patient outcomes, safety and experience Pioneering research and innovation World class people Integrated networks Foundations for the and collaboration future x Executive Summary: NHS Resolution (NHSR) requires that the Maternity & Neonatal (MatNeo) service reports to our Trust Quality Committee each time it meets. This Quarter 2 (Q2) 24-25 MatNeo services safety report will continue to be adapted and responsive to safety concerns or issues within our service providing assurance around safety improvements impacting our families, services, and staff. The information provided is for assurance and reassurance, whilst meeting the requirements of NHSR Maternity Incentive Scheme (MIS)Year 6 and highlights the safety improvement work and learning from all aspects of the services. We ask members to continue to support the MatNeo Services and provide monitoring and scrutiny as required. Contents: This report provides an update in relation to the following areas for Quarter 2 2024/25: 1. Perinatal Quality Surveillance – Maternity & Neonatal Dashboard (Appendix 1) 1.1. Scheduled Caesarean Section Capacity 1.2. Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPHs) 1.3. Episiotomy 1.4. 3rd and 4th degree tears 1.5. ITU transfers 1.6. Apgars 500ms (43.58%) NMPA target is 1500mls (5.8%) NMPA target is 35% Global majority booked CoC Model – Q2 compliance 19.5%, National target is > 35% The most vulnerable families are still supported by our Needing Extra Support Teams (NEST) and as we progress workstreams around future workforce plans, the service aspires to develop new and more sustainable CoC models of care. To give assurance we monitor and audit outcomes to ensure that groups most likely to be offered a CoC model are not showing as exceptions in our data or when clinically reviewing adverse outcomes. 1.9 FFT recommenders as % of responders Current compliance: 83.9% of responders would recommend our service. This has fallen slightly from Q1 (87.4%). As mentioned in the previous Committee report, the % of responders who would recommend our postnatal ward dropped to 67% in September 2024. This was escalated to the inpatient matrons and an improvement plan focusing on two areas has been developed (Appendix 2). These areas are: • Partner or someone else involved in service users care being allowed to stay with them as much as the service user wanted during their stay in hospital. • After the birth, ensure that women and birthing people are given the opportunity to ask any questions they may have about their labour and birth. 1.10 Maternity Opel 4 Diverts There has been an increase in the number of occasions when the Maternity Service has moved through escalation and ultimately declared OPEL 4. There are escalation processes and policies in place that aim to ensure appropriate decision making and the safety of our families and workforce. This issue has been widely monitored through Birthrate Plus reporting and reviewed within safety incident investigations and is on our Risk Register (Risk 259 High Red). As per the Trust’s PSIRF plan, harm tools are completed for each Opel 4 exceeding 24 hours to review the wider impact and harm associated with the service being on
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2025-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-7-January-2025.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 29 November 2022

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

Word document

Description: Word Specification Sample Working Draft 04, 16 August 2002 Document identifier: wd-spectools-word-sample-04 Location: http://www.oasis-open.org/spectools/docs/ Editor: [List your editors here; check whether “Editor” header should be plural] Eve Maler, Sun Microsystems <eve.maler@sun.com> Contributors: [List your contributors here] [Optionally list them in the Acknowledgments appendix instead] Karl Best, OASIS Norman Walsh, Sun Microsystems Abstract: [Supply your own summary of the technical purpose of the document.] This document provides a working MS Word 2000 sample from which you can start editing your own OASIS-published document. Instructions are provided as italic text in brackets, which should be deleted before publication. Full instructions are provided in the body of the document. Status: [Describe the status and stability of the specification and where to send comments.] This document is updated periodically on no particular schedule. Send comments to the editor. [This is boilerplate; to use, fix the hyperlinks:] Committee members should send comments on this specification to the xxx@lists.oasis-open.org list. Others should subscribe to and send comments to the xxx-comment@lists.oasis-open.org list. To subscribe, send an email message to xxx-comment-request@lists.oasis-open.org with the word "subscribe" as the body of the message. [This is boilerplate; to use, fix the hyperlinks:] For information on whether any patents have been disclosed that may be essential to implementing this specification, and any offers of patent licensing terms, please refer to the Intellectual Property Rights section of the XXX TC web page (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xxx/). [If a Committee Specification or OASIS Standard:] The errata page for this specification is at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xxx/yyy. Table of Contents Introduction 3 1.1 Terminology 3 2 Word Styles 4 2.1 Overall Style 4 2.2 Title Page 4 2.3 Headings 4 2.4 Paragraphs 4 2.5 Lists 4 2.6 Tables 5 2.7 Code Examples 5 2.8 Character Styles 5 3 References 6 3.1 Normative 6 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 7 Appendix B. Revision History 8 Appendix C. Notices 9 Introduction [Provide an introductory chapter, indicating if any parts of it are non-normative.] 1.1 Terminology [The following is boilerplate. Most specifications will need this and the corresponding bibliography entry.] The key words must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, should not, recommended, may, and optional in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 1 Word Styles [This section is provided to explain and demonstrate the styles available in the Word template attached to this sample document. It is important to use the styles provided in the template consistently and to avoid defining new styles or using raw formatting. Delete this entire section when using this sample document to begin writing a new specification.] 2.1 Overall Style The paper size is set to Letter, which is 8 ½ x 11. You may change this to A4 or whatever other size suits your needs. The document identifier and publication date information in the footer needs to be updated every time you publish. Line numbers are enabled by default for easy reference by specification commenters. You may turn line numbering off. 2.2 Title Page The title page is designed to fit a lot of metadata compactly. If you wish to create a “true” title page, you may insert a page break after the subtitle. 2.3 Headings Heading 1 through Heading 9 and AppendixHeading have been defined with a special appearance. Headings are numbered and appear in the Table of Contents. Pressing Return after a heading inserts a Normal paragraph style directly after. This template sets Heading 1 and AppendixHeading to start on a new page. You may set the Heading 1 style not to start on a new page if you wish. Major headings have a horizontal rule above them. 2.4 Paragraphs The font in the Normal paragraph style is 10-pt Arial. You may change this to 11-pt Times New Roman if you prefer a serif font; changing these two settings should change all the other relevant styles. 2.5 Lists The Definition term and Definition paragraph styles are defined specially for this template. They produce a definition list with a hanging appearance. Pressing Return after one inserts the other directly after. Definition term Definition for the term. Use List bullet for first-level bulleted lists. Use List bullet 2 for second-level bulleted lists. Use List continue for continued paragraphs in list items. * List bullet List continue. * List bullet 2 List continue 2. For bibliography lists, use the Ref paragraph style. Use the Ref term character style for the bracketed text that serves as the bibliography entry key, and make each reference term into a bookmark for use as references from the text. For example, [RFC2119] is a generated cross-reference to the IETF RFC 2119 bibliography entry in Section 3.1 of this sample. 2.6 Tables Use the following style for most tables: [To be supplied; suggestions welcome!] 2.7 Code Examples For schema code and other normative code, use the Code paragraph style. It fits 71 characters. For example: 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <simpleType name="DecisionType"> <restriction base="string"> <enumeration value="Permit"/> <enumeration value="Deny"/> <enumeration value="Indeterminate"/> </restriction> </simpleType> Use the Code small style if the code has very long lines. It fits 80 characters. For example: 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 <simpleType name="DecisionType"> <restriction base="string"> <enumeration value="Permit"/> <enumeration value="Deny"/> <enumeration value="Indeterminate"/> </restriction> </simpleType> For non-normative examples, use the Example paragraph style. For example: GET http://<host name and path>?TARGET=<Target>...<HTTP-Version> <other HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 components> Use the Example small style if the example has very long lines. For example: GET http://<host name and path>?TARGET=<Target>...<HTTP-Version> <other HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 components> 2.8 Character Styles This template defines several character styles for general text use: * Element style (shortcut Ctrl-Shift-E) for <NativeElement> names and <ns:ForeignElement> names; add the angle brackets yourself * Attribute style (shortcut Ctrl-Shift-A) for attributeNames * Datatype style (shortcut Ctrl-Shift-Alt-D) for DataType names * Keyword style (shortcut Ctrl-Shift-K) for OtherKeyword names * Variable style (shortcut Ctrl-Shift-Alt-V) for variable names 2 References 3.1 Normative [RFC2119] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt, IETF RFC 2119, March 1997. Appendix A. Acknowledgments The following individuals were members of the committee during the development of this specification: * Jane Doe, Example Corp. * A. Nonymous (chair), Example Corp. * John Smith, Example Corp. * Karl Best, OASIS * John Doe, Other Examples, Inc. * Eve Maler, Sun Microsystems * Norman Walsh, Sun Microsystems In addition, the following people made contributions to this specification: * Joe Blow, Example Corp. Appendix B. Revision History [This appendix is optional, but helpful. It should be removed for specifications that are at OASIS Standard level.] Rev Date By Whom What wd-00 2002-04-26 Eve Maler Initial version wd-03 2002-06-12 Eve Maler Incorporates decision to put IPR boilerplate in the Status section and comments from Drummond Group. Wd-04 2002-08-16 Eve Maler Updated the copyright statements to meet legal requirements. Appendix C. Notices OASIS takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on OASIS's procedures with respect to rights in OASIS specifications can be found at the OASIS website. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification, can be obtained from the OASIS Executive Director. OASIS invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to implement this specification. Please address the information to the OASIS Executive Director. Copyright © OASIS Open 2002. All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself does not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the purpose of developing OASIS specifications, in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights document must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by OASIS or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an “AS IS” basis and OASIS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. wd-spectools-word-sample-03 12 June 2002 Copyright © OASIS Open 2002. All Rights Reserved. Page 1 of 9
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/Zengenti-Mock/Word-document.doc

1 to 10 of 17

Previous 1 2 Next

Browse site A to Z

Search results

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

Annual-report-2018-19

UHS AR 23-24 Final

Annual-report-24-25-final

UHS AR 22-23-6

Annual report 20-21

Annual report 2021-2022

Papers Trust Board - 7 January 2025

Papers Trust Board - 29 November 2022

Word document

Site policies

Contact details

Useful links