Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Simple Search

Search Type: Criteria:

Papers Trust Board - 5 November 2024

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

Vulnerable with capacity

Description: Are there situations where a capacitous patient is nonetheless vulnerable to adverse decision making?
Url: /HealthProfessionals/Clinical-law-updates/Vulnerable-with-capacity.aspx

UHS modern slavery statement 2023-2024

Description: UHS modern slavery statement Modern slavery describes anyone forced into labour, owned, or controlled by an ‘employer’, treated as a commodity (i.e. bought or sold) or physically constrained. Human trafficking describes the practice of illegally transporting someone from one area or country to another, usually for the purposes of being sold into modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act (2015) puts a statutory requirement onto the NHS and requires all statutory bodies to work together collaboratively to tackle modern slavery. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust has a zero-tolerance approach towards slavery and servitude. We will ensure that we are not complicit with modern slavery as an employer, either directly or via our supply chains. Furthermore, we recognise that collaborative partnerships and sound multi-agency working arrangements are fundamental to help ensure that victims are identified, protected, and safeguarded. Our modern slavery policy will apply to all staff and volunteers working in the Trust and recognise our responsibility to be compliant with the Modern Slavery Act (2015). Our people Modern slavery is a category of abuse as defined within the Care Act (2014). As such, any concerns relating to modern slavery require a safeguarding process to be followed. The safety, protection and support of the potential victim must always be prioritised. A potential victim of modern slavery may not access healthcare again in the same service, making it crucial that we attempt to address any emergency and urgent health needs at this time. All our staff have a responsibility to be alert to the potential indicators of modern slavery (as outlined in our modern slavery policy) and know how to act on those concerns in line with local and national guidance. To support this, staff who have direct, face to face patient contact will be roleprofiled to attend Level 2 safeguarding adults training, which incorporates information relating to modern slavery. Additional support and advice for staff is available from the safeguarding team as required. Additionally, the UHS safeguarding adults’ team have face-to-face contact with patients, and where possible can offer direct support to patients where there are indicators that they are victims of modern slavery. Our staff use practical, trauma-informed methods of working which are based upon the central principles of dignity, compassion, and respect. Recruitment We recognise recruitment as a key area where workers are most at risk of exploitation, especially where third party labour recruiters are involved. This makes it essential that staff pay particular attention to sound and safe recruitment processes. We promote good practice including: • Only working with formal labour providers who are legitimate, registered business entities • Having clear service level agreements in place with labour providers • Conducting checks on the labour providers’ recruitment processes, including agency worker documents (such as right to work documents, payslips, contracts) • Having regular conversations with agency workers to ensure they have opportunity to raise any concerns. Suppliers We expect and require all our suppliers to comply with all local, national and international laws and regulations, and to have their own processes and policies regarding modern slavery and human trafficking that comply with our values. You can read modern slavery statements from our two principal contractors Serco and Mitie on their respective websites: https://www.serco.com/esg/modern-slavery and https://www.mitie.com/legal/modern-slavery-act/. The Trust’s procurement is managed by Wessex NHS Procurement Limited (WPL), which is a 50/50 joint venture with Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. WPL takes appropriate care around modern slavery when procuring goods and services on behalf of UHS. WPL utilises either NHS Supply Chain nationally contracted agreements, public sector procurement frameworks, or in the case of a local agreement, NHS Terms and Conditions, underpinned by a purchase order confirming the requirements. All these procurement routes provide a robust process to identify, prevent and mitigate modern slavery risk. WPL itself does not perform due diligence on the suppliers with whom we contract via these procurement mechanisms as we rely on the assurances and underlying processes of the suppliers. The overwhelming majority of vendors are accredited, well established and reputable companies domiciled in countries requiring them to have strict policies on modern slavery and therefore we believe the risk is very low. Items sourced from countries with less well established or documented processes are almost exclusively procured through NHS Supply Chain, which has a robust vendor vetting process and ongoing inspections. NHS Supply Chain is owned and operated via SCCL Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of NHS England. This statement will be reviewed on an annual basis. This statement is made pursuant to section 54(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and constitutes University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust’s slavery and human trafficking statement for the financial year ending 31 March 2024. David French Chief Executive Officer
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Modern-slavery/uhs-modern-slavery-statement-20232024.pdf

Virtual consultation, actual peril

Description: A court considers whether a virtual consultation is sufficient for assessing a patient's mental health.
Url: /HealthProfessionals/Clinical-law-updates/Virtual-consultation-actual-peril.aspx

Papers Trust Board - 25 July 2024

Description: Agenda Trust Board – Open Session Date 25/07/2024 Time 9:00 - 13:00 Location Anaesthetic Seminar Room (CE95/99), E Level, Centre Block, SGH/ Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd Apologies Gail Byrne (Natasha Watts to deputise) In attendance Kerrie Montoute, Head of Programmes, CDO Directorate at NHSE (shadowing Jenni Douglas-Todd) 1 9:00 2 3 9:15 4 5 5.1 9:20 5.2 9:25 5.3 9:30 5.4 9:35 5.4.1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 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. Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 6 June 2024 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 6 June 2024 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. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE Quality includes: clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee (Oral) Keith Evans, Chair Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee (Oral) Dave Bennett, Chair Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee (Oral) Jane Harwood, Chair Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee (Oral) Tim Peachey, Chair Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 1 Report 5.5 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:45 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 3 10:15 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.7 Break 10:45 5.8 Finance Report for Month 3 11:00 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.9 People Report for Month 3 11:15 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.10 Annual Complaints Report 2023-24 11:30 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Natasha Watts, Interim Deputy Chief Nursing Officer 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2024-25 Quarter 1 Review 11:45 Review and feedback on the corporate objectives Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendees: Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships/Kelly Kent, Head of Strategy and Partnerships 6.2 Research and Development Plan 2024-25 12:00 Discuss and approve the plan Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendees: Karen Underwood, Director of R&D/Marie Nelson, R&D Head of Nursing and Health Professions 6.3 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 12:20 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 Page 2 7 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors' Meeting 24 July 2024 (Oral) 12:30 Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 7.2 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 8 Any other business 12:40 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 9 Note the date of the next meeting: 10 September 2024 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 Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date 06/06/2024 Time 9:00 – 13:00 Location Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present 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) (until 12:00) Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer (JT) In attendance Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (LA) (item 6.3) Christine Mbabazi, Equality & Inclusion Advisor/Freedom to Speak Up Guardian (CM) (item 5.12) Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience (JM) (item 5.11) Suzy Pike, Divisional Director of Nursing/Professions, Division B (SP) (item 5.13) Clare Rook, Chief Operating Officer, CRN: Wessex (CR) (item 6.1) Julian Sutton, Interim Lead Infection Control Director (JS) (item 5.10) 1 member of the public (item 2) 5 governors (observing) 6 members of staff (observing) 2 members of the public (observing) Apologies Dave Bennett, NED (DB) Diana Eccles, NED (DE) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) 1. Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting. There were no interests to declare in the business to be transacted at the meeting. It was noted that apologies had been received from Diana Eccles, Alison Tattersall and Dave Bennett. The Chair provided an overview of her activities since April 2024, including visits to hospital departments, meetings with peers and other key stakeholders. 2. Patient Story Hannah Pilka was invited to relate the story of her father, Karol Pilka, who died suddenly in hospital on 31 December 2023. The care and compassion shown by the nurse caring for Karol Pilka was highlighted. This greatly assisted the family with the grieving process. The Trust’s bereavement team was also praised. The Board noted the importance of care and compassion by the Trust’s staff. Page 1 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 28 March 2024 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 28 March 2024. 4. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions It was noted there were no matters arising or overdue actions. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee The chair of the Audit and Risk Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 20 May 2024. It was noted that: • The committee reviewed the Trust’s National Cost Collection submission for 2023/24. • A report on waivers of competitive tendering was received, and it was noted that these were mostly due to urgent requirements or where there was only a single supplier. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s draft Annual Report and Accounts for 2023/24. • The draft internal audit report for 2023/24 was expected to provide a ‘clean’ opinion and there were no outstanding actions from previous audits. • The Trust received a ‘green’ assessment from the review against the Counter- Fraud Functional Standard. 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee The chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 22 May 2024. It was noted that: • The committee reviewed the People Report for Month 1 (item 5.9) and noted that performance in this area was positive. • The additional workforce controls appeared to be working in terms of managing the size and composition of the Trust’s workforce. • The controls in respect of use of bank and agency staff also appeared to have had a significant effect. • The committee received an update on the Trust’s Inclusion and Belonging Strategy, noting that a number of initiatives were underway. • The committee reviewed progress against the objectives for year three of the Trust’s People strategy and expressed concern with the level of resource available to deliver these. 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee The chair of the Finance and Investment Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 3 June 2024. It was noted that: • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 1 (item 5.7) and received an update in respect of the Trust’s annual plan for 2024/25. • The committee received an update on the Trust’s Cost Improvement Programme, noting that it had achieved £2.5m to date out of the £82m target. • UHS Estates was broadly on budget and was delivering and a positive report was also noted in respect of Wessex Procurement Limited. Page 2 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee The chair of the Quality Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 3 June 2024. It was noted that: • The committee noted an increase in the number of high-harm falls, which was a concern. • The committee also expressed concern at the resource demand posed by Inquests and post-mortems, particularly in terms of the number of witnesses now being called by Coroners. • The committee had reviewed a draft of the Trust’s Quality Account for 2023/24. • In reviewing the relative risk of mortality, it was noted that patients were 16% less likely to die at the Trust compared to the average mortality rate. • In terms of infection prevention and control, it was noted that this was at a higher rate than was acceptable, although there was a national issue in terms of infection prevention and control (item 5.10). 5.5 Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • It was the 80th anniversary of Operation Overlord, the Allied landings in Normandy. • The Infected Blood Inquiry had published its report on 20 May 2024. As a result of which, the UK Government has established a compensation scheme for those impacted. In addition, NHS England had commissioned an ongoing patient support service for those affected, and it was expected that the Trust would be one of the two providers in the region offering this service. • The Prime Minister had announced that a general election would be held on 4 July 2024. As a result, there were a number of implications for the Trust as a public body during the ‘pre-election period’. • Further industrial action by junior doctors was scheduled to take place between 27 June 2024 and 2 July 2024. The Trust was taking appropriate steps to manage this. • Paula Melhuish, Deputy Director of Estates and Capital Development, had received the Outstanding Service Award from the Health Estates and Facilities Management Association on 13 May 2024. • The Trust had been awarded additional capital funding due to its Emergency Department performance at the end of 2023/24. It was likely that some of this funding would be used to increase same-day emergency care capacity. • The Trust’s plan for 2024/25 had yet to be agreed in common with other trusts across NHS England. • Discussions were ongoing in respect of the Integrated Care Board’s transformation programmes, and it was noted that David French had been appointed to head the workforce transformation programme. 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 1 Joe Teape was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 1, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The data for March 2024 showed that the Trust was in the top-half or top- quarter in terms of its comparative performance. • There were 15 patients waiting longer than 78 weeks for a corneal transplant due to a lack of available materials beyond the Trust’s control. • Emergency Department performance had improved during May 2024 with use of surge capacity of only 14 per day (out of 50) and a reduction in the number Page 3 of patients with no criteria to reside of about 10%, although this was mostly due to the time of the year. • The Trust’s Diagnostics performance had been good over the period, with all but two areas achieving the 95% target. Recovery plans were in place for the areas not achieving the target and the Trust had informed trusts with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging capability that referrals would no longer be supported. • The Trust’s overall key performance indicators showed good or improving performance. However, there were concerns about the sustainability of this trajectory and some areas were vulnerable to loss of key personnel. • The Quality Committee was to carry out a deep-dive into falls and pressure ulcers, and a hydration trial to reduce the number of falls was being considered. The Board noted the reported ransomware attack against Synnovis on 3 June 2024, which had impacted trusts in London as well as the NHS Blood and Transplant service. It was noted that the Trust did use the supplier, but was unaffected by the incident. However, the impact on the NHS Blood and Transplant service would likely cause potential issues for the Trust in terms of the availability of blood and transplant services. Action: JT agreed to include Digital as an agenda item at a future Trust Board Study Session. 5.7 Finance Report for Month 1 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 1, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Planning for 2024/25 was still ongoing, and a further submission was to be made on 12 June 2024. As a result of the delays in the planning process, there was currently no formal reporting to NHS England. • The Trust had recorded a deficit of £3.8m during the month, which was in line with its current plan. • The Trust’s underlying deficit was between £4-4.5m per month. However, during month 1, this was nearer to £6m due to lower elective recovery performance during the period. 5.8 Break 5.9 People Report for Month 1 Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 1, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • There had been an overall reduction in whole-time equivalents during April 2024, with a reduction in bank and agency use. It was noted that 60-80 agency staff were related to patients with a mental health-related care need. • The Trust’s annual workforce plan had been submitted, but this was reliant on delivery by the Integrated Care System on a number of assumptions in terms of patients with no criteria to reside and provision of mental health care. • The Trust had received a silver award under the Defence Employer Recognition Scheme. Page 4 • The Trust was the second-lowest user of bank and agency staff in the southeast region. This represented a significant turnaround within a short period, although it was noted that there were some areas of fragility within the Trust. 5.10 Infection Prevention and Control 2023-24 Annual Report Julian Sutton was invited to present the Infection Prevention and Control 2023/24 Annual Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • There were a number of concerns stemming from application of ‘fundamentals of care’, such as a failure to apply risk reduction measures appropriately. • There had been seven cases of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) during the year. • An update was provided in respect of the candida aureus outbreak, with approximately 70 patients colonised. • Rapid upper gastro-intestinal tract testing had resulted in benefits due to the speed of detecting infections and/or ruling them out quicker, thereby freeing up capacity. • An update was provided in respect of the incidence of measles since April 2024, which necessitated a significant amount of work to carry out contact tracing and to notify those potentially exposed. • There was a general increase in the infection rate nationally, and the Trust generally was in the middle in terms of its performance, dependent on the particular infection category. 5.11 Learning from Deaths 2023-24 Quarter 4 Report Jenny Milner and Paul Grundy were invited to present the Learning from Deaths report for Quarter 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In line with a national trend, there had been an increase in the number of deaths during the fourth quarter. • A new application was being trialled to facilitate the sharing of the learnings from morbidity and mortality meetings. Work was also being carried out to standardise morbidity and mortality meetings, which would further facilitate the dissemination of learning. • Due to performance by the current provider below the standard expected, the Trust was tendering for a new supplier for baby funerals. • The Medical Examiner service was prepared for the changes due to be implemented nationally in September 2024 requiring the review of all deaths. • Based on the whole-year average, the Trust had the fifth-lowest mortality rate in England. • The Trust’s bereavement service had some constraints on resources, which was impacting out-of-hours and weekend support. 5.12 Freedom to Speak Up Report Christine Mbabazi was invited to present the Freedom to Speak Up Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Between the period November 2023 – May 2024, the Trust had recorded 56 Freedom to Speak Up cases, compared to 44 during the same period in 2022/23. Page 5 • The reintroduction of face-to-face meetings following the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in quicker resolution of issues. • The Trust was moving away from the term ‘whistleblowing’ owing to the possible negative connotations of the term, in favour of ‘speaking up’. • Investigations into cases raised via the Trust’s Freedom to Speak Up service always had involvement by an individual who was independent. • There was an issue with complaints found to be untrue where the complainant was anonymous and how to handle these cases, especially in terms of where an individual was subject to an unfounded allegation of wrongdoing. • The cases raised were similar in terms of the themes as the rest of the country. • Freedom to Speak Up should be a last resort, where possible, concerns should be dealt with at the local level. • Although most cases were resolved satisfactorily, communicating the outcome could be a challenge due to the need to preserve confidentiality in respect of matters such as disciplinary processes. • Support was provided to the Trust’s Freedom to Speak Up champions, including mental health/wellbeing support where appropriate. 5.13 Fuller Inquiry Report Suzi Pike was invited to present the Fuller Inquiry Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that in November 2021, an independent inquiry was established to investigate how an NHS estates member of staff was able to carry out inappropriate and unlawful actions in the mortuary of Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, and how and why this activity went unnoticed for so long. The inquiry was split into two phases, and this report was to provide detail of the 17 recommendations arising from the inquiry’s phase one report and the Trust’s response to these. 6. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 CRN Wessex 2023-24 Annual Performance Report Clare Rook and Paul Grundy were invited to present the CRN Wessex 2023/24 Annual Performance Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The network was assessed against three high-level objectives concerning recruitment onto commercial and non-commercial studies and experience survey participation rates. • The network did not meet the objective in respect of open studies, but was close to the target for non-commercial studies. The network did achieve the experience survey participation objective. • The changes in the research network were expected to result in positive opportunities, although were consuming significant amounts of time managing the HR aspects of the transition. Page 6 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Lauren Anderson was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) update, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The BAF had been reviewed and updated since it was last presented to the Board in March 2024. • The likelihood rating of the Estates risk (risk 5b) had increased, resulting in an increase from 16 to 20. • Work was being carried out to further embed the Trust’s risk appetite and to link the Trust’s operational risks with the BAF. This included consideration of the creation of an intermediate, division-level risk register in order to bridge the gap between the operational and BAF risks. 7. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors’ (CoG) Meeting 1 May 2024 The Chair provided an overview of the Council of Governors’ meeting held on 1 May 2024. It was noted that the Council of Governors had considered the following matters: • A report from the Chief Executive Officer • The Trust’s 2024/25 corporate objectives • Non-NHS activity • The annual report and quality account timetable • Terms of Reference • Governor vacancies and elections • Membership engagement 7.2 Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report The paper ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’ was presented to the meeting, the content of which was noted. 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’. 8. Any other business There was no other business. 9. Note the date of the next meeting: 25 July 2024 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 28/03/2024 4.14 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 1127. Junior Doctors Grundy, Paul Hulbert, Diana 24/10/2024 Pending Explanation action item Paul Grundy and Diana Hulbert agreed to include an item regarding junior doctors on a future Trust Board Study Session agenda. Update: Due to industrial action on 27 June, this item has been deferred to the next TBSS on 24/10/2024. Trust Board – Open Session 06/06/2024 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 1 1152. Digital Teape, Joe 24/10/2024 Explanation action item JT agreed to include Digital as an agenda item at a future Trust Board Study Session. Pending Update: This item is tentatively scheduled for TBSS on 24/10/2024. Page 1 of 1 Report to the Trust Board of Directors Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Author: Date: Purpose: Issue to be addressed: Maternity & Neonatal (MatNeo) Safety Report 2024-25 Quarter 1 (Qtr.1) 5.4.1 Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Emma Northover, Director of Midwifery and Professional Lead for Neonatal Services Jess Bown, Quality & Safety Midwifery Matron Hannah Mallon, Quality & Safety Neonatal Matron Marie Cann, MatNeo Safety Lead 25 July 2024 Assurance or reassurance  Approval Ratification Information  This report constitutes the agreed Maternity & Neonatal (MatNeo) Services Qtr.1 safety report, provides a key overview of our services in, providing assurance to the members for the following: 1. Perinatal Quality Surveillance Qtr.1 (Appendix 1) 2. Serious Incidents (Appendix 2), Learning Slide (Appendix 2a) 3. Perinatal Mortality Review Tool (PMRT) (Appendix 3) 4. ATAIN Qtr.1 Report (Appendix 4) 5. Quality & Safety Shared Learning Slide (Appendix 5 MNSI QRM) 6. Culture Score Survey 7. MatNeo Service User Feedback (Appendix 6 CQC Maternity Survey Improvement plan/Birth trauma enquiry response) 8. MNVP Update 9. Trust Claims Scorecard 10. Midwifery Staffing Report 11. Maternity Safety Champions & Quad Team Update 12. NHSR (Maternity Incentive Scheme Year 6) NB 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 are reportable as per NHSR Year 6 NB Appendices 1-6 available in iBabs Documents. Response to the issue: 1. Perinatal Quality Surveillance – Maternity Neonatal Dashboard (Appendix 1) The Maternity & Neonatal Dashboard provides a perinatal quality surveillance overview of indicators for our services. The dashboard outcomes continue to be scrutinised by the Quality and Safety Team and reported to the MatNeo Safety Champions. The following section of the report will provide an update on the key indicators. The remaining red flags on the dashboard are ‘ongoing’, with no new concerns identified. As requirements change additional indictors will be added with recent changes including: • Late fetal losses (16+0-23+6) • Intrapartum stillbirths • PROMPT obstetric emergencies training (work in progress) • Newborn Life Support (NLS) (Data coming) • Maternity Day Assessment Unit (MDAU) Triage times. Page 1 of 9 1.1 % of Bookings by 9+6 weeks (NICE recommendation) Overall compliance for Qtr.1 was  31%. The action plan discussed in the previous report has been extended to continue for 3 months, taking us until the end of July 2024. This remains as a feature (Risk 815 Red 15) on the Risk Register until further notice. NB. As a result of the action and improvement plan mentioned above the number of bookings in May was 633, which is a significant increase from 448 in April. This increase should settle now that the backlog has been cleared. April 5.8% May 30% June 58% 1.2 Timeliness of testing KPI for sickle cell and Thalassemia screening Overall compliance for Qtr.1 was 36%. This surveillance indicator is set against a national benchmark and provides the indicator for the proportion of pregnant women and birthing people having had antenatal sickle cell and thalassemia screening for whom a screening result is available ≤10 weeks + 0 days gestation. This result enables prompt partner testing and the offer of prenatal diagnostic testing if required. The improvements seen in respect to compliance levels in screening have been as a direct result of the changes made to the booking processes. We anticipate further improvements to the screening data as service changes within the self-referral team become formalised. April 6.4% May 33% June 68% The action plan discussed in the previous report has been extended to continue for 3 months, taking us until the end of July 2024. This remains as a feature (Risk 37 Red 15) on the Risk Register until further notice. To note this indicator is intrinsically linked to the % of Bookings by 9+6 weeks and as this compliance increases so will screening compliance. 1.3 Booked onto Continuity of Carer (CoC) pathway The Maternity Continuity of Care Model (MCoC) is a key model that ensures all families, particularly those most vulnerable, have safer and improved outcomes. The outcomes are as follows: • Total booked onto a CoC pathway Current rate for Qtr.1 is 13%, within the target being > 35%. • Global Majority booked onto a CoC pathway Current rate for Qtr. 1 is 23%, which has increased from 14.7% in March, target being > 51%. This workstream has additional team lead oversight to ensure we are targeting those most at risk. April 24% May 22% June 22% Page 2 of 9 • Total booked who are living in IMD1 area booked onto a CoC pathway Current rate for Qtr. 1 is 65%, these women/birthing people are being identified early to ensure they are booked onto a CoC pathway and close oversight by the senior leadership team and NEST team leads. April 41% May 56.5% June 98% 1.4 Education and Training NHSR Year 6 - Safety Action 8 asks Trusts to evidence compliance of 90% for the 3 ‘in-house’ one day multi-professional training days. The Quality and Safety Team have close oversight working with the education leads to ensure progress is maintained for training and education. The need has been identified early and provision sought for additional training days, due to increased acuity operationally and staff being redeployed to work clinically, with the additional resources we are on track to meet compliance by 30 November 2024. 1.5 Neonatal Life Support (NLS) NHSR Year 6 – Safety Action 8 also asks Trusts for evidence of compliance of 90% for neonatal life support. This is included within PROMPT for Maternity Services but is taught separately within Neonatal Services. Targeted education is planned for Autumn 2024 to ensure compliance will be met by the end of the reporting period (November 2024). The process for providing the annual NLS updates within Neonatal Services is being reviewed to apportion it across the year, which includes having an allocated time within the doctor’s induction and adding to the rolling education rota. 2 Serious Incidents (SI) including Maternity and Newborn Safety Investigations (MNSI) and PMRT cases Appendix 2 provides assurance to the members that the appropriate reporting has taken place for Qtr.1. The report includes all new MNSI cases, of which there were 2, and any PSII cases. Also providing an update on all cases closed within the same timeframe, together with any thematic learning identified. Information will also be included which relates to new and closed perinatal mortality cases even where there are no patient safety care concerns for the service to continue to be transparent. 2.1 Appendix 2 also includes a summary of the Moderate incidents reported in April/May 2024 to date. There were 2 cases closed in Qtr.1 and the learning slides featured within the last report: • MNSI 029127 case closed Trust shared learning slide • MNSI 031668 case closed Trust shared learning slide. 2.2 Appendix 2a highlights the Iodine skin prep case learning slide which has been shared with the Local Maternity and Neonatal System (LMNS), case currently an ongoing PSII. 3 Perinatal Mortality Review Tool Report (PMRT) See Appendix 3 for a summary of Qtr.1 PMRT cases and learning. The MatNeo service can confirm that there is high level oversight of reported and processed cases to ensure reviews and feedback from and to families are captured within appropriate timeframes. Page 3 of 9 Case information is reviewed at a level where the service can look to identify any themes or vulnerable groups. Learning has been identified within the information and is shared with our LMNS. 4 ATAIN Qtr.1 Report For Qtr.1 2024/25, there were a total of 41 unexpected admissions. The process for reviewing term admissions has changed and the reasons for admission have also been amended slightly. However, poor perinatal adaptation continues to be the most common reason for admission. Appendix 4 provides a deep dive into Quarter 1 admissions. 5 Quality and Safety Shared Learning Our service continues to drive quality and ensure that safe care is provided to our families. Appendix 5 provides Committee members with an overview of the key learning from the Trust’s quarterly MNSI review meeting. 6 Perinatal Culture Score Survey The Trust is holding feedback sessions with the workforce, facilitated by Korn Ferry (the Score Survey provider), looking to obtain further narrative to support and inform the Change Team (improvement leads) to ensure meaningful results and a positive improvement. 7 MatNeo Service User Feedback 7.1 Friends & Family Overall, for Qtr.1 the Friends and Family feedback continues to be above Trust target at 32.0% with 89% recommending our service. This feedback is reviewed by the senior team and any thematic concerns are identified and improvements planned. 7.2 CQC Maternity Survey Action Plan Appendix 6 outlines the Maternity Improvement Plan following the 2023 CQC Women’s Experiences of Maternity Care Survey, combined with the themes identified in the recent Birth Trauma Enquiry report. Locally we have reviewed the results and have developed an action plan to address the findings. 8 Maternity & Neonatal Voices Partnership (MNVP) Chair Update The Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB advertised the MNVP chair role on the 24 May 2024, with the closing date of 7 July 2024, subject to recruitment the Trust hopes to have a chair in place soon to support the MatNeo Service to ensure the patient voice is heard and service user engagement in shaping our MatNeo service. 9 Trust Claims Scorecard Qtr.1 Claims Scorecard will be reviewed by the Safety Champions and targeted interventions aimed at improving patient safety would be developed. This will come to the Quality Committee in August for noting as per NHSR Year 6 reporting requirements. Page 4 of 9 10 Midwifery Staffing Report 10.1 A clear breakdown of BirthRate Plus (BR+) or equivalent calculations to demonstrate how the required establishment has been calculated In line with national drivers for assurance in relation to safe staffing levels within maternity services, UHS Maternity Services currently utilise BirthRate Plus (BR+) as a system and framework for workforce planning and strategic decision making. The last assessment of UHS Maternity Services by BR+ in 2018 suggested an overall clinical establishment based on a midwife V birth ratio of 1:24, calculated against an annual birth rate of 5500 births. At the time, the required total establishment as calculated by BR+ to ensure safe staffing levels equated to 226.55 WTE which was inclusive of support staff contribution. UHS recently commissioned a revised BR+ review in March 2024. Whilst we await our final report, early indicators show our service to be operating in a staffing deficit, which indeed feels accurate on a day-to-day basis. Despite a lower birthrate in 23/24 of around 5000, the growing complexity of maternity calls for more input and midwifery care hours throughout pregnancies across the service, whilst also increasingly requiring wider MDT input. Birthrate Plus data shows that UHS continues to see a higher than average case mix with 77% of people falling within the highest acuity / care requirement categories compared to 68% in 2018. In July 2023, we saw a peak in this activity where 91% of women / birthing people delivered on our labour ward or in theatre. This rate has continued into 2024 with the average only falling to around 88% each month. Our normal birth rate has stabilised with an average of 45% however the rising trend we have seen over the last 12 months in caesarean section births, continues to be high and consistently account for over 40% of all births in our service. 10.2 In line with Midwifery staffing recommendations from Ockenden, Trust Boards must provide evidence of funded establishment being compliant with outcomes of BirthRate+ or equivalent calculations Over the last 3 years, UHS Maternity Services have at times been working with midwife V birth ratios that are more suggestive of 1:27. This has felt uncomfortable but with contingency frameworks in place, the service has remained safe. With a vacancy rate of 22.49 WTE currently for registered staff we are presently operating a 1:29 midwife V birth ratio. This situation is further compounded by short-term sickness, an increased national demand for education and training and a high maternity leave rate of 9%. This inevitably results in a workforce that is significantly overstretched carrying an overall headroom percentage of 31%. We have increased staff support in the clinical environment in addition to pastoral and psychological support to enhance retention of the workforce. We are pleased to say that with this initiative, we have retained 100% of our newly qualified preceptees who started with us in November 2023. UHS Maternity Services has a very detailed, robust escalation and contingency plan which is activated when the service is under pressure to maintain safety and improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. The leadership team, including the Director of Midwifery, commit to a high number of out of hours on calls to support the service when in escalation and when staffing does not match the acuity and activity across the acute clinical areas. Page 5 of 9 Whilst effective in bridging gaps for the most part, this is not a sustainable way of working and it is resulting in burnout across the midwifery leadership team. 10.3 Where Trusts are not compliant with a funded establishment based on BirthRate+ or equivalent calculations, Trust Board minutes must show the agreed plan, including timescale for achieving the appropriate uplift in funded establishment. The plan must include mitigation to cover any shortfalls In support of the BR+ acuity tool, UHS Maternity Services have developed a systematic process for workforce planning in the form of a monthly dashboard. This live data is reflective of total staff unavailability to include vacancy rates, sickness ratios, maternity leave, and study time, all of which is compared alongside the budgeted versus actual staffing establishment overall. The data recorded within the monthly dashboard is lifted directly from maternity Erostering and ESR systems. As such the staffing ratios are recorded in real time and will represent staffing levels in their most accurate form. The monthly dashboard not only records an accurate position for midwifery staffing at the current time but also offers a projected forecast for staff unavailability in the months going forward. This ensures and supports an ongoing process for rolling recruitment, involving both qualified and unqualified staff groups. Utilising the dashboard in this way will see the Maternity Service reduce the current vacancy rate down from a predicted 26.58WTE in October 2024 to fully recruited as per our current funded establishment by 1st February 2025, assuming that we are able to maintain engagement from all our new recruits. With national evidence directly linking reduced midwifery staffing levels and poor maternity and neonatal outcomes for families, recruitment to clinical maternity roles, both registered and unregistered has been supported by the Trust Board and prioritised at recruitment panels. With this support, Maternity Services have continued to recruit to vacant posts and following a successful newly qualified midwife recruitment drive, we are expecting 34WTE B5 midwives to join UHS Maternity Services on our preceptorship programme in November 2024. Recognising the level of support that our new colleagues will need, and to create a balanced skill mix across our workforce, we also have a rolling B6 recruitment process which is returning a steady stream of experienced B6 midwives also joining our service. 10.4 Midwifery red flag reporting – Evidencing compliance that all women / birthing people receive 1:1 midwifery care in active labour and the protected supernumerary status of the labour ward coordinator UHS Maternity Services record our staffing V acuity data every 4 hours across the intrapartum areas using the BR+ tool. Within our staffing template the labour ward coordinator is rostered and protected to maintain a supernumerary status at all times. This standard is achieved and maintained across the entirety of every shift, not just the start which is the reportable required standard. The skillset of this staff group is pertinent to the safe running of the labour ward, our most acute and high risk clinical area. The table below offers assurance to the Trust Board that UHS Maternity Services consistently meet this safety standard with no red flag events recorded for the whole of 2023 and to date in 2024. The labour ward coordinator team recognise the specialist nature of their role and reliably respond to cover unexpected vacant shifts. Across our operational Page 6 of 9 and leadership teams, we have staff who also hold the labour ward coordinator skillset as a dual or previous role which offers extra flexibility and redeployment options at times where a substitute coordinator may be required. At UHS, the labour ward coordinator does not take responsibility for any patients nor do they cover breaks for other members of staff enabling them to have continuous oversight of their clinical environment. Red Flag Report - Labour Ward (scheduled assessments only) Red Flag Red Flag Description 2023 total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Any occasion when 1 midwife is not able to provide continuous RF9 one-to-one care and 0 0000 0 support to a woman during established labour RF10 Labour ward coordinator not supernumerary status 0 0000 0 Red Flag Report - Broadlands (scheduled assessments only) Red Flag Red Flag Description 2023 total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Any occasion when 1 midwife is not able to provide continuous RF9 one-to-one care and 0 00 0 0 0 support to a woman during established labour Another red flag that is closely monitored and reportable to the Trust Board as a measure of good practice is the assurance that all women / birthing people receive 1:1 care in active labour across all birth environments. At UHS Maternity Services we respond quickly and effectively to the fast paced, unpredictable nature of intrapartum care and evoke our maternity escalation plan to source additional midwives for intrapartum care. Currently midwives are redeployed often to meet the needs of the service which can cause uncertainty and frustration for them at times. Morale and job satisfaction levels are low amongst midwives who are continuously called upon for support, however all would agree that safe care is the priority. It is only through this escalation that we continue to provide safe care to the women / birthing people accessing our service in the right place, at the right time and by the right people. If we cannot provide 1:1 care in active labour, UHS Maternity Services will declare the highest level of escalation, OPEL 4, and look to divert incoming people in labour to neighbouring Trusts across the region. Since the start of 2024, UHS Maternity Services have escalated to OPEL 4 on 23 occasions. Across the whole of 2023 OPEL 4 was declared 28 times. This is a significant and stark increase in service pressure that our Maternity Service Page 7 of 9 is experiencing with staffing and acuity accounting for the majority of cases. Whilst we report that we are compliant with providing 1:1 care in active labour and we are safe, we are seeing an increase in other reportable red flags such as delays in induction and being unable to facilitate birthplace choices. 10.5 Maternity Workforce Development – Next Steps/Way Forward Over the last year, an extensive listening exercise has taken place to help inform the future direction and structure of the Maternity Service workforce. To align with current service needs, and with staff wellbeing as a central focus, the Director of Midwifery and Midwifery Senior Leadership Team are reviewing the way the service is delivered with the potential of a workforce restructure. Ensuring that an appropriately skilled practitioner is available to meet service demands in the most responsive and efficient way remains pivotal in the success of this potential project. This will be pertinent to models and pathways of care provision, operating both in and out of the hospital setting, including homebirth and intrapartum services within our low-risk birth centres. Drivers around flexible working, retention and restorative practice will all underpin the direction and future of the way in which we work. In terms of strategic workforce planning, there is currently a significant focus around the issue of supply and demand for maternity staff, particularly registered midwives. Some options for workforce development see alternative training pathways for health care workers who previously may not have benefitted from such openings and include shortened midwifery conversion courses for registered nurses, return to practice midwifery courses, midwifery apprenticeship models and foundation programmes for aspiring maternity support workers. It is anticipated that by broadening the gateway into careers within maternity services, whilst allowing training and education to be both accessible and affordable, a wider audience of prospective candidates will be achieved. In these current times where maternity workforce tensions are so prominent, we recognise that succession planning is of prime importance, and therefore are busy creating new opportunities for staff upskilling and professional development. UHS Maternity Services are committed to investing in their people and as such have dedicated programmes for career development starting at band 2 and progressing to band 9. Our prime focus is to consider new ways in which we can future proof our maternity services going forward, whilst investing wholly in the health and wellbeing of our existing workforce. 11 Maternity & Neonatal Safety Champions & Quad Team Update Safety Champions Gail Byrne (Exec) Tim Peachey (Non-Exec) Victoria Puddy (Neonatal) Jillian Connor (Obstetric) Marie Cann (Midwifery) QUAD Bala Thyagarajan (Care Group Clinical Lead) Ganga Verma (Obstetric Clinical Lead) Hannah Kedzia (Care Group Manager) Marie Cann (Midwifery) The Safety Champions and Quad met on the 1 May 2024 for a joint meeting and safety walkabout of the service. There were no additional concerns or actions identified, just the ongoing challenges around staffing and estates recognised. Page 8 of 9 12 NHSR – Maternity Incentive Scheme year 6 The last Quality Committee report provided an exception report for the 10 safety actions. The Trust met with the LMNS on the 27 June 2024 for the first quarterly review meeting, to assess progress against the 10 safety actions, and the trajectory for complete submission is on track. The next review meeting is planned for August, to review progress, ahead of end of the reporting period on the 30 November 2024. Implications: (Clinical, Organisational, Governance, Legal?) The risk implications for the UHS Trust and MatNeo services sit within several frameworks including: • Reputational – Safety concerns can be raised by the public to both NHS Resolution and the CQC. • Financial – Compliance with NHS Resolution Maternity Safety Actions to meet all ten safety actions remains to be an expectation for maternity safety requirements. • Governance – Safety concerns can be escalated to the Care Quality Commission for their consideration and to NHS England, the NHS Improvement Regional Director, the Deputy Chief Midwifery Officer, the Regional Chief Midwife. • Safety - Non-compliance with requirements or recommendations would have a detrimental impact on the women and their families leading to increased poor outcomes and staff wellbeing. MNSI can raise concerns regarding the safety of MatNeo services and instigate reviews. Risks: (Top 3) of Top Risks: carrying out the • 788 (Red) Elective theatre capacity change / or not: • 258 (Red) Maternity staffing • 259 (Red) Capacity and demand in Maternity services • 260 (Red) MDAU • 262 (Red) Induction of Labour Summary: This Qtr.1 MatNeo services safety report provides an overview of the key safety Conclusion workstreams and aims to provide committee members with the actions and and/or mitigations in place to improve areas of significant concern. The report recommendation: encompasses the perinatal quality surveillance minimum requirements and aims to fulfil the reporting requirements for NHSR MIS year 6. The 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 MatNeo dashboard provides the board with the Perinatal Quality Surveillance information and will continue to be refined to provide a platform for clear oversight of key outcomes and measures. We continue to work on ways to ensure the dashboard clearly highlights any action and improvement plans where areas of risk have been identified. The information provided is for assurance and reassurance, whilst meeting the requirements of NHSR Year 6, and highlights the safety improvement work and learning from all aspects of the services including serious incident and MNSI cases. We ask members to continue to support the MatNeo Services and provide monitoring and scrutiny as required. Page 9 of 9 Report to the Trust Board of Directors Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Date: Purpose: Issue to be addressed: Response to the issue: Chief Executive Officer’s Report 5.5 David French, Chief Executive Officer 25 July 2024 Assurance Approval or reassurance Ratification Information X My report this month covers updates on the following items: • General Election • COVID-19 Inquiry • Forgotten Generation • Ligature Risk • Care Quality Commission • Haemophilia Treatment • LIMS system The response to each of these issues is covered in the report. Implications: Any implications of these issues are covered in the report. (Clinical, Organisational, Governance, Legal?) Summary: Conclusion The Board is asked to note the report. and/or recommendation Page 1 of 5 General Election On 4 July 2024, the UK’s general election result was a clear mandate for the Labour party, returning 412 Members of Parliament which represents a 174-seat majority. Labour’s manifesto commitments in terms of health included: • Using spare capacity in the independent sector to ensure that patients are diagnosed and treated more quickly. • Reform of the NHS to ensure that mental health is given the same attention and focus as physical health. • Modernising the Mental Health Act to address treatment of people with autism and learning difficulties, and racial inequalities perpetuated by the Act. • Implement professional standards and regulate NHS managers. • Set an explicit target to close the black and Asian mortality gap. • Implement the expert recommendations of the Cass Review, the independent review of gender identity services. • Ensure the publication of regular, independent workforce planning across he
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2024-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-25-July-2024.pdf

Manslaughter by doctors

Description: Auto Generated Title On these pages I discuss the clinical law on which our nursing and medical staff rely when caring for our patients. Mr Robert Wheeler, director, department of clinical law There has been both interest and concern relating to the recent immediate imprisonment of a doctor for manslaughter. Commentators have questioned 1 whether the threshold for conviction of surgeons for manslaughter is being lowered in England and Wales. Are there safeguards in the criminal justice system that makes the anxiety that doctors are now more prone to conviction or imprisonment for manslaughter ill-founded? Manslaughter is an offence of unlawful killing, or homicide. It is distinguished from murder by finding the absence of ‘ malice aforethought ’ , roughly translated as an intention to kill. Manslaughter covers the majority of homicides that are not murder. A charge of manslaughter allows for the court to have discretion in punishment, ranging from an absolute discharge to life imprisonment. This discretion reflects the commensurately wide range of circumstances that could have lead to the unlawful killing. This is necessary, since some defendants who did have an intention to kill can nevertheless establish that this intention was mitigated by one of three main defences; diminished responsibility, a loss of self-control via provocation, or engagement in a suicide pact. In these special circumstances, of voluntary manslaughter, mitigation may allow a reduction in the sentence to make it proportionate to their crime. No such mitigation is available in murder, since for this the life sentence of imprisonment is mandatory. In general terms, when doctors are prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, related to the alleged unlawful killing of a patient, it is the charge of gross negligence manslaughter which is alleged by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In common with other crimes, a formulaic approach to prosecution, conviction and sentencing exists with the intention of ensuring consistency in criminal justice. For this reason, three thresholds must be crossed if a person is to be sentenced for this crime. Firstly, the CPS will only bring this charge if it is considered to be in the public interest; and that on the balance of probability, the prosecution will be successful. Secondly, the prosecution will have to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that each element of the crime is proved. The elements for the crime of gross negligence manslaughter have been developed by the courts, and were affirmed in the case of Adomako, in 1995 1 , which illustrates the context of this offence. A patient had died after his anaesthetist failed to check that the oxygen supply remained connected to his endotracheal tube during retinal surgery, or to react to the consequent cessation of movements of breathing in this paralysed patient, or to the cessation of the ventilator ’ s indicators of oxygen delivery. The court held that to be convicted, the following elements had to be proved: (i) the defendant must have breached their duty of care by virtue of their negligence (ii) that the negligence must have caused death (iii) that the negligence complained of must amount to ‘ gross negligence ’ . The latter threshold would only be made out if the jury decides as follows: “ Having regard to the risk of death involved, [was] the conduct of the defendant so bad in the circumstances as to amount [in the jury ’ s mind] to a criminal act or omission? ” In an appeal 2 hearing that followed, the court defined states of the defendant ’ s mind that could properly lead to a finding of gross negligence. These included (i) indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health, (ii) actual foresight of risk coupled with determination to run the risk, and (iii) an appreciation of the risk coupled with an intention to avoid it but also coupled with such a high degree of negligence in attempted avoidance as the jury considered justified conviction. It can therefore be seen that distinct objective thresholds have to be passed by both the CPS in deciding to prosecute; and then by the jury, in finding that the three basic elements of gross negligence manslaughter, together with the mental element required to commit the offence, are proved. After conviction, another formula has to be considered, in this case in the form of guidelines prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. These constrain the sentencing judge, but nevertheless provide for the consideration of aggravating factors indicating either a higher culpability, or a more than usually serious degree of harm (the latter, largely in relation to the vulnerability of the victim). To balance these, there are a number of mitigating factors, indicating lower culpability. It is only after taking any of these applicable factors into consideration that the judge can arrive at a sentence. Factors that reduce seriousness or reflect personal mitigation include good character, and exemplary conduct during the investigation and trial of the alleged offence. Factors increasing the seriousness of the crime include an attempt to conceal evidence. Perhaps as a result of this sentencing formula doctors (including Adomako) convicted of gross negligence manslaughter consistently have had a custodial sentence imposed, which has (until now) invariably been suspended 3 . Becker administered excessive morphine to treat ureteric colic, resulting in respiratory arrest. Prentice and Sullman mistakenly injected vincristine intrathecally, with fatal results; Misra and Srivastava failed to respond to signs of of post operative infection after routine surgery, culminating in toxic shock and death. In all of these convictions, the custody sentence has varied between six and 24 months; the period of suspension between one and two years. In all of these cases, the doctors ’ good character was noted and their probity unquestioned. What may have been different in the current surgical case that lead to the immediate imposition of custody? The conviction of Mr David Sellu, a 66 year old general surgeon, followed the death of a patient after routine orthopaedic surgery. The patient had developed abdominal symptoms post operatively, and had been seen by Mr Sellu on the evening of 11 February 2010. Having identified the possibility of gut perforation on a plain AXR, Mr Sellu arranged a CT scan for the following day, although the private hospital in which the patient was treated had a 24 hour CT service. The court found that Mr Sellu did not make the careful assessment of the patient on the following morning that was required, and that the necessary surgery was not performed until late in the evening of 12 February, more than 24 hours after presentation. The patient, Mr Hughes, later died. When sentencing remarks in a criminal case are published, their purpose is for the judge to explain the reasoning behind his sentence. In this case, at the end of his first paragraph 4 , he notes that he is able to distinguish between different matters in the Crown's evidence. The judge does this because although reminded by the defence that the defendant was not charged with altering medical records, he feels nevertheless that more general questions over the defendant's truthfulness have played a significant role in his sentencing decision. Firstly, he lays out how the defendant provided three different versions of whether he did or did not order the RMO to prescribe antibiotics; and how within those versions, there were contradictions. The judge found that no such instruction to prescribe was given, and from this we may deduce that the judge did not believe at least two of the defendant ’ s accounts. Mr Justice Nicol (the judge) hinted that he also doubted the defendant ’ s claim that he had visited the patient the following day, and later concluded that he had made numerous errors in his evidence, all of them putting himself in a better light; 'at the very least, .. [he] showed a lack of candour..' We cannot contradict the judge's assessment of the defendant ’ s truthfulness, since only he was able to read the investigatory and coronial reports; and to hear live evidence. It was then the task of the defence to provide mitigation for their client, attempting to persuade the judge to suspend the sentence. There were many colleagues from both the NHS and private sector who praised the defendant ’ s skill, ability and dedication in his care for patients. Such testimonials could have stood him in good stead, allowing him to receive the same suspension of a custodial sentence that his predecessors in this situation had enjoyed. Why the judge refused so to do appears, in terms, in his remarks. It seems that the defendant ’ s dishonesty, as found by the judge, outweighed the other mitigation pleaded on his behalf, and for this reason, his sentence was of immediate custody. Unless present in court and hearing the oral evidence and arguments unfold, it is not possible to go behind the reasons of a sentencing judge. The sentencing remarks in this case provide ample explanation why Mr Justice Nicol could not suspend the sentence. The case of Mr David Sellu does not provide an authority on which to base the proposition that the thresholds for prosecution, conviction or immediate imprisonment have altered in any way in England and Wales. From the sentencing remarks can be derived simple advice to all registered medical practitioners. Be scrupulously honest throughout any investigation into your practice, at every stage. This is as important in dealing with local and GMC investigations as it is when facing court procedure. Taking this approach, even facing a charge of gross negligence manslaughter, immediate imprisonment remains unlikely, because acting in good faith will allow you to benefit from the generous mitigation that will almost certainly be available to you. Update On 15 November 2016, Mr Sellu ’ s criminal conviction was appealed. The Court of Appeal did not believe that Mr Sellu had the benefit of sufficiently detailed directions to the jury in relation to the concept of gross negligence contained within the offence of gross negligence manslaughter. This failure was underlined by the way in which the experts had asserted gross negligence and aggravated by the absence of a route to verdict which would have focussed the jury members minds on the various stages to be considered. The court came to the clear conclusion that the way in which the issue of gross negligence manslaughter was approached (and, in particular, the consequential direction to the jury) was inadequate. As a result, the conviction was unsafe and was quashed. Subsequently, the GMC continued to pursue fitness for practice proceedings, but on 6 March 2018 the MPTS found none of the GMC ’ s allegations proved. R V Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 R v Holloway and Others (CA (Cr Div)) [1993] 4 Med LR 304 R v Prentice [1993] 4 All ER 935 CA, R v Sullman [1994] QB 302, R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79, R v Misra & Srivastava [2004] EWCA 2375. www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/r-v-sellu-sentencing-remarks (accessed 14 February 2014)
Url: /HealthProfessionals/Clinical-law-updates/Manslaughter-by-doctors.aspx

Deprivation of liberty in adults and children

Description: Governments encourage patients to believe they have choice, which may extend to the identity of their surgeon. Irrespective of whether this choice is illusory, patients often negotiate this system successfully.
Url: /HealthProfessionals/Clinical-law-updates/Deprivation-of-liberty-in-adults-and-children.aspx

Papers Trust Board - 10 March 2026

Description: Date Time Location Chair Apologies Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 10/03/2026 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre Jenni Douglas-Todd Steve Peacock 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 2 Patient Story The patient story provides an opportunity for the Board to reflect on the experiences of patients and staff within the Trust and understand what the Trust could do better. 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 13 January 2026 9:15 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 January 2026 4 Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions To discuss any matters arising from the minutes, and to agree on the status of any actions assigned at the previous meeting. 5 QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE Quality includes: clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee 9:20 Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer, for Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance, Investment & Cash Committee 9:25 David Liverseidge, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:30 Committee Jane Harwood, Chair 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee 9:35 including Interim Maternity and Neonatal Safety Report Tim Peachey, Chair 5.5 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:40 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 10 10:10 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer 5.7 Break 10:40 5.8 Finance Report for Month 10 10:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.9 ICB System Report for Month 10 11:05 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.10 People Report for Month 10 11:10 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.11 Freedom to Speak Up Report 11:20 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Christine Mbabazi, Equality & Inclusion Adviser/Freedom to Speak Up Guardian 5.12 11:35 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report and Update on 10-Point Plan Review and discuss the report and update Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2025-26 Quarter 3 Update 11:50 Review and feedback on the corporate objectives Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendee: Martin de Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 12:00 Review and discuss the update Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary 7 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors' (CoG) Meeting 29 January 2026 12:15 (Oral) Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair Page 2 7.2 Register of Seals and Chair's Actions Report 12:20 Receive and ratify the report In compliance with the Trust Standing Orders, Financial Instructions, and the Scheme of Reservation and Delegation. Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 7.3 Audit and Risk Committee Terms of Reference 12:25 Review and approve the Terms of Reference Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer, for Committee Chair Attendee: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary 7.4 Quality Committee Terms of Reference 12:30 Review and approve the Terms of Reference Sponsor: Tim Peachey, Committee Chair Attendee: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary 7.5 Remuneration and Appointment Committee Terms of Reference 12:35 Review and approve the Terms of Reference Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair Attendee: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary 8 Any other business 12:40 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 9 Note the date of the next meeting: 14 May 2026 10 Items circulated to the Board for reading 10.1 South Central Regional Research Delivery Network (SC RRDN) 2025-26 Q3 Performance Report Note the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer 11 Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair To agree, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust's Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. 12 Follow-up discussion with governors 12:45 Page 3 Agenda links to the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) 10 March 2026 – Open Session Overview of the BAF Risk 1a: Lack of capacity to appropriately respond to emergency demand, manage the increasing waiting lists for elective demand, and provide timely diagnostics, that results in avoidable harm to patients. 1b: Due to the current challenges, we fail to provide patients and their families / carers with a high-quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes. 1c: We do not effectively plan for and implement infection prevention and control measures that reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections and limit the number of nosocomial outbreaks of infection. 2a: We do not take full advantage of our position as a leading University teaching hospital with a growing, reputable, and innovative research and development portfolio, attracting the best staff and efficiently delivering the best possible treatments and care for our patients. 3a: We are unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to the unavailability of staff to fulfil key roles. 3b: We fail to develop a diverse, compassionate, and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive staff experience for all staff. 3c: We fail to create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs identified in the Trust’s longer-term workforce plan. 4a: We do not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in sub-optimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. 5a: We are unable to deliver a financial breakeven position, resulting in: inability to move out of the NHS England Recovery Support Programme, NHS England imposing additional controls/undertakings, and a reducing cash balance impacting the Trust’s ability to invest in line with its capital plan, estates/digital strategies, and in transformation initiatives. 5b: We do not adequately maintain, improve and develop our estate to deliver our clinical services and increase capacity. 5c: Our digital technology or infrastructure fails to the extent that it impacts our ability to deliver care effectively and safely within the organisation, 5d: We fail to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce our direct and indirect carbon footprint by 80% by 2028-2032 (compared with a 1990 baseline) and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045. Agenda links to the BAF No Item Linked BAF risk(s) 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 10 5.8 Finance Report for Month 10 5.9 ICB System Report for Month 10 5.10 People Report for Month 10 5.11 Freedom to Speak Up Report 5.12 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report and Update on 10-Point Plan 1a, 1b, 1c 5a 5a 3a, 3b, 3c 3b 3b Appetite (Category) Minimal (Safety) Current risk rating 4x5 20 Cautious (Experience) Minimal (Safety) 4x4 16 4x4 16 Open (Technology & Innovation) 3x4 12 Open (workforce) Open (workforce) Open (workforce) 4x5 20 4x3 12 4x4 16 Cautious (Effectiveness) 3x3 9 Cautious (Finance) 5x5 25 Target risk rating 4 x 2 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 3 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 27 4 x 3 Mar 12 30 4 x 2 Mar 8 30 3 x 2 Mar 6 29 3 x 2 Dec 6 25 3 x 3 Apr 9 30 Cautious (Effectiveness) Open (Technology & Innovation) Open (Technology & Innovation) 4x5 20 4x4 16 2x4 8 4 x 2 Apr 8 30 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 2 Dec 4 27 Does this item facilitate movement towards or away from the intended target risk score and appetite? Towards Away Neither x x x x x x Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date Time Location Chair 13/01/2026 9:00 – 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Jenni Douglas-Todd, Chair (JD-T) Keith Evans, Non-Executive Director (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 and Deputy Chair (JH) Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer (IH) Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer (AH) David Liverseidge, NED (DL) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer (NW) In attendance Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) James Allen, Chief Pharmacist (JA) (item 5.12) Julie Brooks, Deputy Director of Infection Prevention and Control (JB) (item 5.11) Blue Cunningham, Patient Engagement & Involvement Officer (item 2) John Mcgonigle, Emergency Planning & Resilience Manager (JMc) (item 6.1) Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience (JM) (item 5.10) Julian Sutton, Clinical Lead, Department of Infection (JS) (item 5.11) 4 governors (observing) 5 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 meetings she had held and events that she had attended since the previous Board meeting. 2. Patient Story Blue Cunningham was invited to present the Patient Story on behalf of Jade […], whose nine-year-old daughter, Lucy, had had a bowel resection at the Trust. It was noted that: • Lucy was a very structured child, who relied heavily on planning and knowing outcomes as well as having sensitivities to lots of different sensory inputs. Page 1 • In their treatment of Lucy, staff paid particular attention to Lucy’s needs and adapted their behaviour and took the time to make Lucy’s stay in hospital as comfortable as possible. • This Patient Story clearly demonstrated the Trusts’ values and the time taken in the handling of Lucy by staff likely saved time and effort in the long run by not distressing the patient and then having to manage this situation. 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 11 November 2025 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 11 November 2025, subject to reassigning action 1296 to James Allen. 4. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions The matters arising and actions were noted. • Action 1293: work had commenced on a broader MRI strategy. This work would be presented to the Quality Committee in due course – the action remained open. • Action 1294: this formed part of a larger piece of work, which would be addressed through the planning cycle. The action could be closed. • Action 1295: a solution had been developed, but the Trust was waiting on a third party to be able to implement the solution. The action could be closed. • Action 1296 was addressed as part of item 5.12 below. It was explained that the metric was based on day cases and national statistics and was intended to show usage levels of the most critical antibiotics. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance, Investment & Cash Committee David Liverseidge was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 24 November and 15 December 2025, the contents of which were noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had reported an in-month deficit of c.£5m and, at the end of November 2025, had reported a year-to-date deficit of £40m. • The committee had received an update in respect of the Trust’s theatres improvement plans, noting that there had been a 3% increase in utilisation and a 3% reduction in cancellations. • The committee had received a report on the Trust’s productivity based on the national framework and noted that further work was required to understand the metrics behind the national framework. • The committee had reviewed the Trust’s cash position and supported a proposal to request further cash support for January 2026. • The committee noted that whilst the Trust’s transformation plans were ambitious, they were nonetheless grounded in reality. • In its review of the proposed capital plans for 2026/27-2029/30, the committee noted the challenge of having to balance the Trust’s allocation of Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (CDEL) with the cash available to the Trust. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s medium-term plan ahead of the first submission to NHS England on 17 December 2025. It was noted that the assumed reductions in patients with no criteria to reside and mental health Page 2 patients were those reasonably considered to be within the Trust’s control rather than reductions which were dependent on third parties. • The committee supported a proposal for transforming the Southern Counties Pathology network. 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee Jane Harwood was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 21 November and 15 December 2025, the contents of which were noted. It was further noted that: • Whilst there had been reductions in the size of the substantive workforce, this had been offset by an increase in temporary staff due to a combination of demand, sickness absence, patients with no criteria to reside, and mental health patients. • The committee noted changes with respect to statutory and mandatory training, which would facilitate ‘passporting’ between NHS organisations. • The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s Inclusion and Belonging strategy, noting that progress had been slower than anticipated due to available resource. It was further noted that the external political environment had also created additional challenges in this area. • The committee received an update regarding the Trust’s refreshed approach to violence and aggression, noting a greater willingness to take action against violent/abusive patients and members of the public. It was further noted that the communications accompanying the new approach would be key. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s performance against the ten-point plan for resident doctors, noting that the Trust was, subject to a few exceptions, in a good position. • Whilst the results of the Staff Survey were still under an embargo, early indications were that the participation rate was lower than hoped for. • The Trust’s seasonal vaccination campaign had been successful with over 50% of staff having been vaccinated against influenza. 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee Tim Peachey was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 24 November 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee noted that the Trust’s Complaints service, particularly Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS), was fragile. There was a backlog of c.500 emails due to resource constraints. • The committee noted that despite the financial pressure the Trust was under, it had sought to maintain staff numbers to ensure patient safety. A significant proportion of the reduction in staff during the year had been from administrative staffing groups. Whilst the Trust had successfully reduced the size of the clinical administrative workforce, it had not been possible to transform how this service was delivered through technical or other means. Therefore, there was a risk of bottlenecks due to insufficient administrative staff with the high level of demand falling on a smaller number of staff. • NHS England had launched changes to maternity care reporting with additional reporting requirements with the aim of developing national standards and approaches. • The committee had reviewed the Trust’s Maternity and Neonatal Safety report for the second quarter and noted that the Trust had demonstrated compliance with the requirements for the NHS Resolution Maternity Incentive Scheme. Page 3 5.4 Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • NHS England had published latest segmentation and league tables under the NHS Oversight Framework for Quarter 2. The Trust had fallen slightly from 48 out of 134 to 51 out of 134. The Trust remained in segment 5 due to being in the Recovery Support Programme. • The number of patients waiting over 65 weeks in October 2025 had resulted in the Trust entering Tier 1 for elective performance. However, since that time, the Trust had successfully reduced the number of patients waiting over 65 weeks to c.80, with a target to reduce this number to nil by the end of March 2026. • The Employment Rights Bill received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025. The Act included a number of changes which would impact the Trust. These changes were to be reviewed in detail by the People and Organisational Development Committee. • During further strike action by resident doctors between 17 December and 22 December 2025, the Trust had met the national target of maintaining 95% of activity. Roughly one-third of resident doctors had taken part in the industrial action, which compared favourably to other trusts – some had reported a participation rate of 80-90%. • University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust had been fined in connection with the death of a patient with severe mental health problems who had absconded from a ward at the trust and subsequently committed suicide. This case was pertinent for the Trust given the number of mental health patients currently being cared for at the Trust in the absence of a more appropriate setting. It was noted that the Trust’s policy was clear on the approach to be taken in the event of a similar situation to that faced by University Hospitals Sussex NHS FT. • On 2 January 2026, the Trust had been informed that its endoscopy service had had its accreditation renewed until 1 November 2026 following an annual review by the Royal College of Physicians’ Joint Advisory Group on Gastro- Intestinal Endoscopy. • Alison Tattersall had been appointed as the Trust’s second Nominated Trustee on the board of the Southampton Hospitals Charity. • The Trust’s department of clinical law – a service established to deal with clinical questions relating to regulatory and legal principles within the Trust – had been in existence for 16 years. 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 8 Andy Hyett was invited to present the ‘spotlight’ report in respect of Cancer waiting time targets, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • There had been an increase in referrals over recent years, but despite this increase, the Trust had maintained performance, particularly in respect of the 28-day faster diagnosis pathway. • Consideration was being given in terms of demographic groups to be targeted in view of the success of the Targeted Lung Health Check programme and its efforts to target particular sections of the population. • The main challenge in terms of improving performance was in terms of diagnostic capacity, including access to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and other imaging services. Improving the diagnostics services remained a key priority, including development of a longer-term strategy for imaging. It was noted that MRI and computed tomography (CT) scan capacity in the UK was lower than that in comparable nations such as those in the US and EU. Page 4 • The Trust maintained a good relationship with the Wessex Cancer Alliance, which was an effective route for obtaining additional funding for cancer care. Action Andy Hyett agreed to provide Jane Harwood with further data regarding the stage at which cancer was diagnosed by socio-economic group. Andy Hyett was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 8, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s overall Referral To Treatment (RTT) waiting list for November 2025 had decreased by 0.9% and the Trust had made significant progress in reducing the number of patients waiting more than 65 weeks. • The number of patients waiting for diagnostics marginally increased, but the Trust had maintained its previous performance with c.80% of patients waiting under six weeks for the fourth month in a row. • The Trust’s performance against the four-hour emergency department target had improved by 5.8% since October 2025, achieving 60.4% in November 2025, which was above its in-year performance plan submitted at the beginning of 2025/26. The Board discussed the Performance KPI Report for Month 8. This discussion is summarised below: • In terms of the Trust’s RTT waiting list, it was forecast that there would be c.60,000 patients on this list by the end of March 2026 with performance against the 18-week target expected to be c.67%. • The Trust’s performance in respect of the number of mental health patients spending over 12 hours in accident and emergency was considered to be reflective of the need to admit mental health patients where there was no more appropriate venue available. This situation also gave rise to increased use of agency staff. A workshop had been held with Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (HIOWH) and an action plan had been agreed. It was noted that HIOWH was also experiencing challenges in terms of its ability to discharge patients. • The reduction in the percentage of virtual appointments as a proportion of all outpatient consultations compared to 2024/25 was being looked at. • As of 13 January 2026, there were 295 patients with no criteria to reside – equivalent to 12 wards – at Southampton General Hospital. Work was ongoing to create wards specifically for this cohort of patients. It was noted that Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System was ranked 39 out of 42 in terms of its number of patients with no criteria to reside. 5.6 Break 5.7 Finance Report for Month 8 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 8, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had reported a £4.9m deficit for Month 8 (£40.8m deficit, year-to- date), which was in line with its Financial Recovery Plan. This in-month deficit had also been maintained for Month 9, with the year-to-date deficit increasing to £45.6m. • The Trust’s underlying deficit remained at c.£6m per month with continued high numbers of patients with no criteria to reside and mental health patients coupled with operational pressures. Page 5 • The Trust had carried out between £20m and £30m of unfunded work during the year and had incurred £10m-15m of costs associated with patients with no criteria to reside and mental health patients. • The Trust expected to deliver £90m of savings under its Cost Improvement Programme against its target of £110m. • The Trust had requested £8.4m of additional cash support for January 2026 and expected to require a further £3m of support in March 2026. 5.8 ICS System Report for Month 8 Ian Howard was invited to present the ICS System Report for Month 8, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System had reported a year- to-date deficit of £65m, which represented a variance of £36m from plan. It was noted that the Trust was a significant contributor to this variance, but that other organisations were also now reporting variances to plan. • The Trust had achieved the best ambulance handover time performance in the system, but further work was ongoing across the system with South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS) to improve performance. 5.9 People Report for Month 8 Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 8, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The overall workforce fell marginally during November 2025, with reduction in substantive staff of 52 whole-time-equivalents (WTE) being partially offset by an increase in temporary staff usage due to operational pressures and sickness absence. • The Trust remained above its 2025/26 plan by 214 WTE despite a decrease of nearly 400 WTE since 31 March 2025. In order to meet its Financial Recovery Plan, the Trust’s workforce needed to reduce by a further 137 WTE. • Sickness absence continued to increase with 4.2% being reported during November and 4.8% being reported for December 2025. • The 2025 Staff Survey had closed. It was noted that the results were expected to be challenging. • The Trust had hit its target of 58% of staff having been vaccinated against flu, which placed the Trust in the top 15 nationally and second in the South East. • There was a significant amount of work ongoing to refresh the Trust’s approach and policies in respect of violence and aggression, including policy changes, training and communications. 5.10 Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 2 Report Jenny Milner was invited to present the Learning from Deaths report for the second quarter, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust continued to benchmark well against other organisations. It was one of only 11 trusts nationally with a lower than anticipated mortality rate based on its summary hospital-level mortality indicator (SHMI) score. • The Medical Examiner Service had reviewed a total of 1,078 deaths, of which 36% had occurred at the Trust’s sites. • Patients with learning disabilities remained an area of concern, although progress was being made in this area. The Trust was one of only a few Page 6 organisations to hold separate meetings to discuss deaths of patients with learning disabilities. • The Trust had procured a system to support organisation-wide learning from Morbidity and Mortality outcomes. 5.11 Infection Prevention and Control 2025-26 Quarter 2 Report Julian Sutton and Julie Brooks were invited to present the Infection Prevention and Control report for the second quarter, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • For the period covered by the report (July-September 2025), the Trust had exceeded all measures in terms of the annual limits for incidences of bacteraemia. The Trust was in a similar position to other organisations nationally. • There had been two cases of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and 34 cases of Clostridioides difficile (C-diff) during the period. • There had been a focus on invasive device care management (such as cannulas and catheters) and on hand hygiene. • The Trust had successfully managed the Candidozyma auris outbreak, with only three new cases identified since the beginning of 2025, the last of which was identified in April 2025. 5.12 Medicines Management Annual Report 2024-25 James Allen was invited to present the Medicines Management Annual Report 2024/25, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s expenditure on medicines during 2024/25 was £215m, a 2% reduction compared to 2023/24 and was on track to spend only £207m during 2025/26. These reductions indicated that the strategy of using less expensive generic and biosimilar medicines had been effective in reducing costs. • The number of approvals for clinical trials and research activity had continued to improve. • The Trust had completed work to decommission nitrous oxide manifolds, which was expected to reduce the Trust’s nitrous oxide emissions by 600,000 litres per year, equivalent to 354 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. • An area of focus was the deployment of digital systems. Action Ian Howard agreed to look at the level of savings achieved in terms of medicines costs and how costs of medicines were budgeted for. 5.13 Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 2025 Natasha Watts was invited to present the Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report set out the results of the ward staffing review undertaken between July and October 2025. • There was a renewed national focus on safe staffing. • Overall, the Trust’s staffing establishments remain appropriate and within recommended guidelines. Page 7 • Continued high levels of enhanced care demand, a significantly more junior workforce, managing additional surge areas, and the impact of financial controls had been highlighted as ongoing challenges. 6. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 6.1 Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) Jon Mcgonigle was invited to present the Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • NHS England required all trusts to complete an annual self-assessment against a number of core standards. In its assessment against 62 applicable core standards, the Trust was fully compliant with 56 and not yet fully compliant with 6 standards. • Of the areas where the Trust was not yet fully compliant, these related primarily to governance maturity, exercising and testing, workforce training consistency, and assurance evidence, rather than the absence of emergency response arrangements. • Since an initial report had been submitted to the Trust Executive Committee in November 2025, the Trust had completed development and approval of the Business Continuity Management System, completed the consultation and adoption of Protective Security and Emergency Lockdown arrangements, and had commenced consultation and system engagement for Evacuation and Shelter. • Training was scheduled to take place between February and May 2026 for on- call staff in charge. It was intended to hold a tabletop exercise during 2027. • It was noted that it had been some time since the Trust had practised a major incident response with other partners. • The Trust was on schedule to embed the ‘protect’ duty under the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 by March 2027. Action John Mcgonigle agreed to look at scheduling a major incident response exercise with other partners involved. 7. Any other business It was noted that the Trust had declared a critical incident on 10/11 December 2025 due to an IT system failure. It was noted that this was Keith Evans’ final formal meeting, as his second threeyear term as a non-executive director was due to expire on 31 January 2026. The Board expressed its thanks to Keith Evans for his service and support. 8. Note the date of the next meeting: 10 March 2026 Page 8 9. Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Decision: The Board resolved that, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust’s Constitution and the Standing Orders of the board of directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. The meeting was adjourned. Page 9 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 11/11/2025 - 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 1293. MRI scanners and imaging Hyett, Andy 10/03/2026 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to work on and present at either a future Board meeting or Trust Board Study Session the Trust’s longer-term strategy with respect to MRI scanners and imaging. TB 13/01/26: work had commenced on a broader MRI strategy. This work would be presented to the Quality Committee in due course – the action remained open. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 8 Any other business 1286. Organ donation Machell, Craig Explanation action item Craig Machell agreed to add organ donation to the agenda of a future Trust Board Study Session. 16/04/2026 Pending Update: Item deferred to TBSS on 16/04/26. Trust Board – Open Session 15/07/2025 - 5.11 Freedom to Speak Up Report 1267. Data Mbabazi, Christine 10/03/2026 Pending Explanation action item Christine Mbabazi to include data from other mechanisms for reporting concerns in future Freedom to Speak Up reports. Page 1 of 2 Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 13/01/2026 - 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 8 1311. Cancer diagnosis Hyett, Andy 10/03/2026 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to provide Jane Harwood with further data regarding the stage at which cancer was diagnosed by socio-economic group. Trust Board – Open Session 13/01/2026 - 5.12 Medicines Management Annual Report 2024-25 1312. Medicines costs Howard, Ian 10/03/2026 Pending Explanation action item Ian Howard agreed to look at the level of savings achieved in terms of medicines costs and how costs of medicines were budgeted for. Trust Board – Open Session 13/01/2026 - 6.1 Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) 1313. Major incident response exercise Mcgonigle, John Hyett, Andy 10/03/2026 Pending Explanation action item John Mcgonigle agreed to look at scheduling a major incident response exercise with other partners involved. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.1 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 10 March 2026 Committee: Audit & Risk Committee Meeting Date: 27 January 2026 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) • The committee considered the accounting policies and management judgements in respect of the 2025/26 annual accounts, noting the impact of the review of the Modern Equivalent Asset valuation estimation methodology. This review was to ensure that the valuation reflects specialised assets based on a modern, functionally equivalent facility at an alternative location, rather than simply replicating the current buildings and equipment. • The committee received an update in respect of the work on the Trust’s interim accounts, noting that there had been significant improvements in terms of use and recording of manual adjustments, with an objective of further reducing the use of manual adjustments in future. • The committee noted the work undertaken to address the issues identified in the production of the 2023/24 and 2024/25 accounts. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s compliance with the Code of Governance for NHS Provider Trusts, noting that the Trust was compliant in all areas or had appropriate explanations for areas of non-compliance, of which there were only a few. • The committee received a report on compliance with the Trust’s Standards of Business Conduct Policy, noting that the level of declarations of interest had remained largely static and that further work would be required to review the Trust’s approach in this area. • The committee received updates in respect of the internal audit programme, including the reports in respect of an audit of cyber security and the Trust’s core financial systems. • An update was provided in respect of the work of the counter-fraud team. It was noted that the risk of temporary worker impersonation was a particular area of focus. In addition, the committee noted the work undertaken to review the Trust’s compliance with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial N/A • All risks had been reviewed with the relevant executive director(s). • There had been no significant changes in ratings or target dates since the BAF had been last reviewed in October 2025. However, the committee challenged how realistic some of the target dates were on the basis that many of the actions required were reliant on third parties. • The committee suggested that the rating for risk 5c should be reconsidered in view of the increasing cyber risk. • It was noted that the actions from the internal audit on the Trust’s risk management maturity were on track. Page 1 of 2 Any Other Matters: 7.4 Audit and Risk Committee Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Terms of Reference Substantial N/A • The committee reviewed its Terms of Reference and no changes were proposed. • The committee recommended that the Board approve the revised Terms of Reference. N/A Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. No Assurance There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Not Applicable Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.2 i) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 10 March 2026 Committee: Finance, Investment and Cash Committee Meeting Date: 26 January 2026 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) • The committee received the Finance Report for Month 9. The Trust had reported an in-month deficit of £4.9m and continued to report in line with the Financial Recovery Plan. The Trust had also delivered £10.3m of savings under the Cost Improvement Programme during the month. The modern equivalent assets review had been completed, which delivered £3m of benefit during the month. • The committee carried out a deep-dive into the Trust’s underlying financial position, noting that there had been £15.8m of one-off adjustments and that the underlying deficit was £61.4m year-to-date. The monthly underlying deficit continued to be c.£6m and therefore the 2025/26 exit position was assessed to be £72m. • The committee received an update on the Trust’s medium term planning submission, noting that it was expected that the Trust would submit a non-compliant plan. There remained a significant gap between the level of performance required under the framework and the available funding and an absence of proposals from Specialised Commissioning. It was noted that the assumptions regarding noncriteria to reside numbers were based on factors within the Trust’s control, rather than those dependent on third parties. • The committee received an update on financial improvement, noting that the Trust was £4m behind its CIP plan for 2025/26, expecting to deliver £88m of savings by year end compared to the £110m target. The Trust was targeting £50m of CIP savings for 2026/27. Based on national data, the Trust had the tenth smallest opportunity for productivity savings. • The committee considered the Trust’s cash position as at 31 December 2025 and the forecast cash position for the remainder of the financial year. The Trust expected to require a further £2.9m of cash support in March 2026, which the committee supported. • The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s outsourced cleaning and catering services contract. N/A Any Other N/A Matters: 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. Page 1 of 2 Reasonable Assurance Limited Assurance No Assurance Not Applicable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.2 ii) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 10 March 2026 Committee: Finance, Investment and Cash Committee Meeting Date: 23 February 2026 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • • The committee received the Finance Report for Month 10 (see below). The committee received an update in respect of the impact of the fire at Southampton General Hospital on 1 February 2026, including in respect of the actions being taken to restore the lost services and the Trust’s claims under the NHS Resolution Property Expenses Scheme and under its commercial insurance policy. The committee received an update following the submission of the Trust’s medium term plan on 12 February 2026, noting that the Trust’s current proposed deficit made it an outlier. There remained a significant gap between the level of funding available from commissioners and the performance required under the framework. The committee enquired as to the possible route to resolve and supported the view that pricing of activity needed to be set at a level which did not create an increasing deficit as it currently does in critical care areas. Following the external review recommendations, the committee look forward to a deeper dive into the drivers of the increases in the Trust’s cost base over the past 5-6 years as this has increased at a greater rate than activity levels. This is planned for the March 2026 meeting. The committee received an update in respect of the Always Improving programme, noting that the fire had prompted something of a re-think in terms of organisational and system fundamentals. It was noted that there had been changes in the Trust’s risk appetite in terms of management of patients having no criteria to reside and outpatient appointments. Sustaining the improvements in these areas was considered to be a key priority. The committee received a report on the roll out of the MIYA system in the Trust’s emergency department, which went live on 8 October 2025. It was noted that whilst there had been some initial impact on performance during the first weeks, this had been expected, and the issues appeared to have been largely resolved. The system had delivered improvements in clinical management and in terms of data analytics. The committee noted that the Trust had been awarded £39m in capital funding for 2025/26. It was noted that this was a significant amount of funding to be used during the final months of 2025/26 and that work was ongoing to secure this funding through placing of orders and other activity. The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s proposed tender for car parking services. The committee supported the proposals to obtain mobile endoscopy units to address the loss of the Trust’s endoscopy service in the fire on 1 February 2026. The committee noted proposals in respect of changes to NHS Property Services. Page 1 of 3 Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Any Other Matters: 5.8 Finance Report for Month 10 Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust had submitted a revised forecast to NHS England of a deficit of £49.9m following a request for an ‘art of the possible’ reforecast. The Trust had since received additional funding, which reduced the 2025/26 forecast deficit to c.£45m. • The Trust had reported a year-to-date deficit of £44.8m, with the underlying monthly deficit remaining between £5.5-6m. The Trust expected additional one-offs during the final months, but there was significant risk associated with this. • The Trust was forecasting CIP delivery of £94m for 2025/26, with £78m achieved year-to-date. • Whilst there had been some increase in workforce numbers in December 2025 and January 2026, it was considered normal for this to occur during this period, however this was creating a deviation from the planned workforce numbers. This was explained as the result of the decision taken to address 65- and 52-week waits which had therefore impacted staff numbers. The resulting increased income from additional work had yet to register in the Trust's revenue numbers but was expected in February and March.. 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: N/A • Risk 5a remained the Trust’s highest-rated risk at 25 and the target date for reduction had been extended by six months due to continued uncertainty around the funding available during 2026/27 and the impact of the fire on 1 February 2026. • Risk 5b had been assessed following the fire, but it was considered that whilst there had been significant disruption, the event and subsequent activities had been well-managed and demonstrated the effectiveness of the Trust’s evacuation and business continuity plans. Accordingly, no changes were proposed to the rating. • There had been an increase in the rating of risk 5c, largely due to risks surrounding the age of the Trust’s digital infrastructure and uncertainty regarding the OneEPR programme. The committee reviewed the Trust’s cash position and forecast, and the committee supported the additional request to be submitted in February 2026 for cash support up to a maximum of £10m to be received in April 2026. The trajectory for cash support in 2026/27 was to be reviewed at the March 2026 meeting. 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 2 of 3 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 Trus
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2026-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-10-March-2026.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 15 July 2025

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

Finance and Performance Reports 2021-22 month 4 July 2021

Description: Report to the Trust Board of Directors Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Author: Date: Purpose Issue to be addressed: Finance Report 2021-22 Month 4 11.3 Ian Howard – Interim Chief Financial Officer Philip Bunting – Interim Deputy Director of Finance 26 August 2021 Assurance Approval or reassurance Ratification Information X The finance report provides a monthly summary of the key financial information for the Trust. Response to the issue: The Trust continues to report an on plan financial position of breakeven. In month £1.3m of non-recurrent benefits have however helped support breakeven achievement with ERF income significantly lower than expected. Elective Recovery Framework (ERF): • Elective Recovery Framework achievement of £0.35m is estimated in month, based on activity of circa 97% of pre-Covid levels of activity for Elective and Outpatients. This compares to a baseline expectation of 95%. (M3 achievement of 94% vs. 80% baseline target). Although this has marginally improved from June this is significantly lower than the anticipated forecast of £3m achievement (108%). The drivers behind this are as follows: o Increased levels of annual leave and staff isolating. Rates of self-isolation increased from 0.5% of workforce in April to June to 2.5% of workforce in July. This has had a significant impact on the availability of staffing and therefore activity. o Continued non-elective pressure (spells increasing 3% from M3 and reaching 99% of production plan levels) and ED activity (also 3% increase from M3). Operational bed pressures are particularly acute within critical care. o Increasing numbers of Covid-19 patients on wards which ended July with 48 Covid positive inpatients reported. This number remains above 40 in mid-August having started July at below 10 patients. • ERF achievement is below the 110% target for elective and outpatient activity by July as per the accelerator programme ambitions. M4 Forecast Review: • We undertake a quarterly review of the Trust forecast position. • Operational pressures in July and August have significantly dampened the trusts ERF forecast for H1 which has been revised down by £6.6m from £23.8m to £17.2m as a result. This poses a significant risk to financial performance over the remainder of H1 however the trust remains in a strong position to Page 1 of 17 manage this risk making an underlying margin on ERF in Q1. • Overall, given the stability of the year-to-date position and balance sheet, the Trust are in a strong position to manage the risks of quarter 2 and achieve a break-even plan position for H1. • The forecast for H2 will be reviewed as part of the H2 planning process. Capital: • CDEL reported spend is £1.5m behind plan YTD with spend in month £1.3m below plan. The trust remains confident however that the annual CDEL allocation of £49.8m will be spent in full. ICS finance position: • All organisations at month 3 were reporting a break-even position. A verbal update will be provided to the Committee on the underlying position within the ICS. An ICS finance report will be made available to the Committee but is not ready for UHS paper deadlines. Other financial issues: • The finance team continue to undertake investigations with Pharmacy regarding use of drugs that are included within block contracts. The value has reduced from previous months but is still £2m ahead of plan YTD. • Specialist commissioning have started informal consultation around the transfer of a proportion of activity to ICS level which will be funded on a population needs basis. The exact quantum of activity, funding envelope and scope of services is currently undecided. This is likely to be in shadow format in 22/23 and then permanently embedded in 23/24. UHS intends to work closely with NHS England and the provider network throughout the consultation period. Implications: (Clinical, Organisational, Governance, Legal?) • Financial implications of availability of funding to cover growth, cost pressures and new activity. • Organisational implications of remaining within statutory duties. Risks: (Top 3) of carrying out the change / or not: • Financial risk mainly linked to the uncertainty of H2 21/22 funding arrangements and ability to support long term decision making. • Cash risk linked to volatility above • Inability to maximise CDEL (which cannot be carried forward) if mitigations are not put into place Summary: Conclusion Trust Board is asked to note this report. and/or recommendation Page 2 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Report to: Board of Directors and Finance & Investment Committee July 2021 Title: Finance Report for Period ending 31/07/2021 Author: Philip Bunting, Interim Deputy Director of Finance Sponsoring Ian Howard, Interim Chief Director: Financial Officer Purpose: Standing Item The Board is asked to note the report Executive Summary: In Month and Year to date Highlights: 1. In July 2021, the Trust reported a breakeven position as planned. 2. Elective Recovery Framework (ERF) income is estimated at £0.35m for July; however this has not yet been confirmed and is dependent on wider system achievement and NHSI validation. This was down from £3.1m the previous month and reflects the revised activity achievement target of 95% now in place for Q2. Significant operational pressures have also dampened ERF achievement and forecast. 3. In month, £3.6m (£2.5m pay and £1.1m non pay) was incurred on additional expenditure relating to Covid-19. This was £0.6m lower than in June mainly due to lower Covid vaccination costs (down £0.5m). Within the trusts block funding is a non-recurrent fixed element for Covid costs which will continue throughout H1. Covid inpatient volumes increased in month to 48 diverting resources away from elective. 4. The main underlying themes seen in M4 were : – Elective activity in July represents 94% of planned income levels, up slightly from 93% in June. – Non Elective activity levels in July was at 99% of planned levels, down from 103% in June. A&E attendances continue to be high, back to pre-Covid levels. – Outpatient activity in July was at 107% of planned levels, down slightly from 108% in June. – Drugs and devices expenditure was high in month with £4.6m over performance reported on pass through items, higher than the £2.2m over performance in M3. This is mirrored by additional income. – Trust underlying performance deteriorated slightly although remains at close to breakeven levels after adjusting for one off items. 1 Page 3 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Finance: I&E Summary The financial position for M4 was breakeven as per plan. This position does however include £1.3m in non recurrent income. The Saliva testing finances are significantly distorting variances within income and expenditure categories as testing activity is not yet fully mobilised. Pay costs are £1.7m below plan in month and now £9.5m behind plan YTD. In addition to Saliva testing this is further driven by elective recovery costs that have not increased pay to the originally anticipated level. This is however offset by reduced ERF income. Agency costs spiked in month due partly to increased staff sickness due to covid self isolation notifications dramatically increasing. Block drugs costs were £0.2m above plan in M4 and remain under investigation as this remains an in year pressure having previously been pass through costs. Energy cost increases and overseas recruitment expenditure are the key areas of overspend within ‘other non pay’. NHS Income: Clinical Pass-through Drugs & Devices Other income Other Income excl. PSF Top Up Income Total income Costs Pay-Substantive Pay-Bank Pay-Agency Drugs Pass-through Drugs & Devices Clinical supplies Other non pay Total expenditure EBITDA EBITDA % Depreciation / Non Operating Expenditure Surplus / (Deficit) Less Donated income Add Back Donated depreciation Net Surplus / (Deficit) 2 Page 4 of 17 Current Month Cumulative H1 Plan Plan Actual Variance Plan Actual Variance Plan Forecast Variance £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m 69.1 65.4 3.8 275.1 266.4 8.6 412.8 406.4 6.4 8.5 13.1 (4.6) 33.9 44.0 (10.1) 50.9 61.6 (10.7) 15.2 13.2 2.0 60.6 52.1 8.6 90.9 77.8 13.1 0.8 1.1 (0.3) 3.1 4.6 (1.4) 4.7 6.9 (2.2) 93.6 92.7 0.8 372.8 367.1 5.7 561.4 552.7 6.7 46.9 45.4 (1.6) 187.7 180.9 (6.8) 281.5 273.0 (8.5) 4.0 3.5 (0.4) 15.8 14.0 (1.9) 23.7 21.8 (1.9) 1.2 1.6 0.3 5.0 4.2 (0.8) 7.5 5.2 (2.3) 4.3 4.5 0.2 17.4 19.4 2.0 26.0 30.4 4.4 8.5 13.1 4.6 33.9 44.0 10.1 50.9 61.6 10.7 11.2 6.4 (4.8) 43.2 31.9 (11.3) 65.1 51.9 (13.2) 14.2 15.2 0.9 56.9 60.6 3.7 85.4 90.9 5.5 90.4 89.7 (0.7) 360.0 354.9 (5.0) 542.2 534.9 (5.3) 3.2 3.0 0.2 12.8 12.1 0.7 19.2 17.8 1.4 3.4% 3.3% 0.1% 3.4% 3.3% 0.1% 3.4% 3.2% 0.2% 3.2 3.1 (0.1) 12.9 12.4 (0.4) 19.3 18.6 (0.6) (0.0) (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) (0.8) 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.3 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) (0.0) 0.3 (0.3) (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Monthly Underlying Position The graph shows the underlying position for the Trust from 2019/20 to present. This position is however heavily linked to the numbers of Covid positive patients the Trust is managing. We are now operating at a position where we would be earning marginally more under PbR than the current block. However, we are also earning ERF, which would not be payable under PbR for activity below 100% of contract. After adjusting the income position to be reflective of what would prevail under PbR it is clear that the underlying position is close to breakeven and has been throughout Q1. This has slightly deteriorated in July as staffing pressures together with non elective and covid pressures have suppressed elective activity and PbR equivalent income. 5.00 - -5.00 -10.00 -15.00 -20.00 -25.00 -30.00 With future funding arrangements unclear due to non recurrent ERF and additional Covid-19 funding, we exercise caution over the Trust’s underlying position going forwards. Monthly Underlying Position 2020/21 & 2021/22 Budget 2019/20 Underlying Actuals 2020/21 & 2021/22 Underlying Actuals 3 Page 5 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Clinical Income Clinical income for the month of July was £0.9m favourable to plan and including Non NHS income was £0.7m favourable to plan. Most of the Trust's income remains fixed with confirmed block contract funding in place for at least the first half of the financial year. July has seen a small increase in activity from June. Plans for 21/22 have been phased to account for the variation in calendar and working days in relevant POD Groups. Elective income increased to 94% of planned levels although this follows a dip in June having been over 100% in May. Overall non elective activity increased but against the working day adjusted plan reduced to 99% of planned level. A&E attendances continue to be high, back to pre-Covid levels having shown a downward trend for much of the previous financial year. Outpatient income remains strong at over 100% of planned levels although not as high against plan as in May. The graphs overleaf show trends over the last 16 months and the impact of Covid-19 as well as the recovery to pre Covid levels of activity in many areas. (Fav Variance) / Adv Variance POD GROUP NHS Clinical Income Elective Inpatients Non-Elective Inpatients Outpatients Other Activity Blocks & Financial Adjustments Other Exclusions Pass-through Exclusions Subtotal NHS Clinical Income Additional funding Covid block adjustments Total NHS Clinical Income Non NHS Clinical Income Private Patients CRU Overseas Chargeable Patients Total Non NHS Clinical Income In Month In Month Plan £000s Estimate £000s In Month Variance £000s 2021/22 YTD Plan £000s YTD Estimate £000s YTD Variance £000s £13,159 £19,474 £7,718 £11,864 £5,590 £8,003 £8,485 £74,292 £5,848 (£2,535) £77,605 £12,413 £20,140 £8,249 £11,571 £1,872 £5,648 £13,100 £72,993 £5,848 (£368) £78,473 £745 (£666) (£531) £294 £3,718 £2,355 (£4,616) £1,299 £0 (£2,167) (£868) £49,645 £76,638 £29,119 £46,239 £20,449 £31,543 £33,938 £287,571 £23,392 (£1,952) £309,011 £47,675 £78,250 £32,081 £45,770 £8,530 £31,105 £44,025 £287,438 £23,392 (£368) £310,462 £1,969 (£1,612) (£2,962) £469 £11,919 £438 (£10,087) £133 £0 (£1,584) (£1,450) £368 £235 £134 £208 £186 £23 £66 £64 £2 £643 £484 £158 £1,504 £833 £264 £2,601 £2,023 £683 £158 £2,864 (£519) £150 £106 (£263) 2019/20 YTD Actuals £000s £47,966 £71,796 £28,339 £42,701 £1,475 £1,260 £38,725 £232,262 £232,262 £1,394 £840 £651 £2,885 Grand Total £78,248 £78,958 (£710) £311,612 £313,325 (£1,713) £235,147 Income (£m) NHS Clinical Income £100 £80 £60 £40 £20 £0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Income Actual - Income 4 Page 6 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Clinical Income Activity ('000) Income (£m) Elective spells £16 8 £14 7 £12 2% 6 £10 5 £8 4 £6 3 £4 2 £2 1 £0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Activity Actual - Activity Plan - Income Actual - Income Activity ('000) Income (£m) Non elective spells £25 7 £20 3% 6 5 £15 4 £10 3 2 £5 1 £0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Activity Actual - Activity Plan - Income Actual - Income Outpatients £10 70 £8 -1% 60 50 £6 40 £4 30 20 £2 10 £0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Activity Actual - Activity Plan - Income Actual - Income Activity ('000) Income (£m) A&E £3 14 £2 3% 12 10 £2 8 £1 6 4 £1 2 £0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Activity Actual - Activity Plan - Income Actual - Income 5 Page 7 of 17 Activity ('000) Income (£m) 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Clinical Income Activity ('000) Income (£m) Adult critical care £6 4 £5 3 £4 2% £3 2 £2 1 £1 £0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Activity Actual - Activity Plan - Income Actual - Income Activity ('000) Income (£m) Neonatal & paediatric critical care £3 3 £3 5% £2 2 £2 £1 1 £1 £0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Activity Actual - Activity Plan - Income Actual - Income Tariff excluded drugs £14 1 £12 -8% £10 £8 £6 £4 £2 £0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Activity Actual - Activity Plan - Income Actual - Income Activity ('000) Income (£m) Tariff excluded devices £3 2 £3 -14% £2 £2 1 £1 £1 £0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020/21 2021/22 Plan - Activity Actual - Activity Plan - Income Actual - Income 6 Page 8 of 17 Activity ('000) Income (£m) 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Income and Activity The tables shown illustrate by division and care group the % of the activity and income plan being achieved across the first month of 2021/22 for Elective, Non Elective and Outpatient Activity. The plan for 2021/22 has been phased to reflect working day differences for Elective and Outpatient and calendar days for Non Elective. Elective activity in July represents 94% of planned income levels, up slightly from 93% in June. Recovery planning is targeting improvement in all areas but will be governed by clinical priority. Non Elective activity levels in July was at 99% of planned levels, down from 103% in June. It should be noted that non elective spells actually increased 3% month on month but due to July being a day longer the % of production plan delivered actually reduced slightly. Page 79 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Income and Activity Outpatient activity in July was at 107% of planned levels, down slightly from 108% in June. Page 180 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Elective Recovery Fund 21/22 The Elective Recovery Fund has been launched as part of the 21/22 planning guidance as a mechanism for distributing £1bn of national recovery funds for Elective and Outpatient activity. Providers are targeted with achieving threshold equivalent PbR income levels set at a % of pre-Covid income levels (Price x Activity). The graph shows both the trends through 20/21 and estimated performance for July. This indicates performance of 97% of baseline activity which is 2% over the revised target threshold of 95% in July. This would yield an estimate of £0.35m additional income if paid at tariff. It should be noted that this is an early estimate of this data and has dependencies on the performance of others from within the ICS. The 20% premium has already been agreed with ICS partners will be centrally pooled rather than allocated directly to providers. Elective Recovery Framework Performance 20-21-22 % 120% 100% Actual Activity 80% (OP & EL) 70% Threshold 60% (April-21) 85% Threshold 40% 20% 0% Month Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 YTD Total ERF Achievement - Elective/Daycase/Outpatients (£'000) Baseline Actuals Variance % £ 18,770 £ 18,575 -£ 195 99% £ 18,276 £ 19,673 £ 1,398 108% £ 21,464 £ 20,274 -£ 1,189 94% £ 20,780 £ 20,091 -£ 688 97% £ 37,046 £ 38,249 £ 1,203 103% ERF Top-up 100% Top Up 20% Top Up Total £ 5,436 £ 524 £ 5,960 £ 5,967 £ 828 £ 6,794 £ 3,104 £ 406 £ 3,510 £ 351 £ -£ 351 £ 14,506 £ 1,758 £ 16,264 9 Page 11 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 ICS Elective Recovery Fund 21/22 ICS current estimated performance and forecast is shown for the four main Providers for the Elective Recovery Framework (ERF). April – July numbers are all currently based on local assessment and awaiting national finalisation. It should be noted that the Q2 forecast reflects the recent increase to the baseline for Q2 moving from 85% to 95% hence the trajectory indicating below plan performance for these months. At M4 the ICS has collectively reported £38.9m in ERF income vs an original (unadjusted) plan of £35.1m. The H1 forecast is now £46.3m dropping from £55.3m last month, this is against an original (unadjusted) plan of £50.4m. This includes circa £3.4m estimated impact of accelerator programmes on ERF income. 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 ICS ERF - All Organisations Plan vs Estimates(M1-4) vs Forecast (M5-6) 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Plan Estimates/Forecast 10 Page 12 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Substantive Pay Costs Total pay expenditure in July was £50.5m. This was higher than in June (up by £0.9m). The main increase was nursing agency staff (£0.7m) due mainly to staff sickness backfill and increased staffing requirements due to non elective pressures and covid. There was also a small increase in substantive medical staff costs. Pay costs remain in excess of that seen last year prior to the second covid wave as the organisation continues to drive recovery. Substantive recruitment has been challenging however with workforce numbers remaining broadly flat since April 21. These will be monitored closely going forward as costs are expected to increase as new theatre capacity comes on board this summer, in addition to investment in recovery plans and accelerator programme initiatives which are fully funded. £m £m £m 53.0 51.0 49.0 47.0 45.0 43.0 41.0 39.0 37.0 35.0 Total Pay Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 18.0 Substantive Pay 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 Covid Agency Bank Substantive Plan Total Medical Nursing Other 48.0 Substantive Pay 46.0 44.0 42.0 40.0 Start Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Substantive Plan 21/22 Substantive Actual 21/22 Substantive Actual 20/21 11 Page 13 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Temporary Staff Costs Agency spend has increased sharply month on month by £0.7m. All staff groups increased spend but the majority was in nursing (£0.5m) which was driven by increased short notice sickness (covid self isolation) plus bed pressures due to non elective and covid forcing ward costs higher. Expenditure on bank staff has fallen slightly month on month (£0.2m) with the largest fall in nursing. The plan adjustment within the bank graph relates to staffing requirements to deliver elective recovery that were forecast to increase the need for bank staffing. 1,700,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2021/22 Agency Total Spend 2021/22 Bank Total Spend Page1142of 17 Total Agency Nursing Medics Scient & Tech Admin & Estates NHSI Plan Nursing Medics Scient & Tech Admin & Estates Total Bank 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Cash The cash balance decreased slightly in July to £117.3m. This continues the marginal downward trend as cash reserves are used to deliver capital expansions. There are no foreseen material movements forecast now the cash regime has adjusted back to pre-covid levels with block income paid in the month for which it is due. We may however see some in-month volatility as we move to a more “normal” period and the working capital position stabilises. A gradual reduction is expected over the next two years as capital expenditure plans exceed depreciation. 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 - Cash Position Actual Minimum Cash Holding 13 Page 15 of 17 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Capital Expenditure Expenditure on internally funded capital schemes YTD is £14.6m against budget of £16,2m. Total expenditure including externally funded schemes is £16m against budget of £17,4m, £1.4m behind plan. Significant expenditure in M4 included the vertical extension theatres scheme, which is nearing completion, the ED expansion scheme, where phase 1b of the works has commenced and the Ophthalmology Outpatients scheme where significant expenditure was incurred this month. The Trust continues to forecast to spend all of the Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (CDEL) funding. The forecast shows expenditure of £2.46m over plan based on the expectation of receiving £2m of external funding for community diagnostic hubs and an allowable overspend of £0.46m on medical equipment as part of the accelerator funding scheme . Forecast variances on individual schemes include the vertical extension theatres scheme (-£1m), the ED expansion scheme where unforeseen generator and VAT costs were incurred (+£0.7m), IISS leases (£2.5m slippage) and equipment leases, where additional leases have been authorised. (Fav Variance) / Adv Variance Month Year to Date Full Year (Forecast) Plan Actual Var Plan Actual Var Plan Actual Var Scheme £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's Fit out of E level. Vertical Extension - Theatres 2,460 1,056 1,404 9,463 7,174 2,289 11,941 10,950 991 Strategic Maintenance 258 242 16 1,032 1,087 (55) 6,183 6,183 0 ED Expansion and Refurbishment 827 428 399 2,908 1,642 1,266 5,791 6,489 (698) Wards 0 17 (17) 0 17 (17) 4,000 4,000 0 Ophthalmology OPD 737 718 19 787 937 (150) 3,303 3,098 205 Maternity Induction Suite 0 0 0 0 (0) 0 2,000 2,000 0 NICU Pendants 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 896 355 541 Oncology Ward 0 2 (2) 861 430 431 861 751 110 Decorative / Environment Improvements 21 0 21 84 0 84 500 500 0 Side Rooms 0 5 (5) 490 517 (27) 490 537 (47) Information Technology Programme 250 137 113 1,000 810 190 5,000 5,000 0 Other Projects 175 374 (199) 1,208 1,073 135 3,060 2,803 257 Pathology Digitisation 59 5 54 236 22 214 1,171 1,171 0 Medical Equipment 42 64 (22) 168 476 (308) 1,000 2,016 (1,016) Accelerator Funded Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 460 (460) Slippage (516) 0 (516) (2,464) 0 (2,464) (5,035) (3,143) (1,892) Total Trust Funded Capital excl Finance Leases 4,313 3,049 1,264 15,773 14,185 1,588 41,161 43,170 (2,009) Finance Leases - IISS 0 0 0 0 32 (32) 5,230 2,765 2,465 Finance Leases - MEP 92 0 92 368 179 189 2,200 1,183 1,017 Finance Leases - Other Equipment 75 104 (29) 300 159 141 1,500 3,083 (1,583) Finance Leases - Opthalmology OPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,166 1,166 0 Finance Leases - Divisonal Equipment 25 (25) 50 75 82 (7) 475 500 (25) Donated Income (88) (32) (56) (352) (49) (303) (1,921) (1,596) (325) Total Trust Funded Capital Expenditure 4,417 3,096 1,321 16,164 14,588 1,576 49,811 50,271 (460) Fit out of E level. Vertical Extension - Theatres 140 140 0 538 538 0 700 700 0 Maternity Care System (Wave 3 STP) 96 243 (147) 384 753 (369) 1,917 1,776 141 Digital Outpatients (Wave 3 STP) 41 47 (6) 164 72 92 814 955 (141) LIMS Digital Enhancement 38 (0) 38 152 (0) 152 455 455 0 Community Diagnostic Hub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 (2,000) Total CDEL Expenditure 4,732 3,526 1,206 17,402 15,950 1,452 53,697 56,157 (2,460) Page 16 of1147 2021/22 Finance Report - Month 4 Statement of Financial Position The July statement of financial position illustrates net assets of £443.6m which has decreased £7.6m compared to June 2021. This is however within the bounds of normal month on month volatility. The downward movement on inventories is driven by a reduction in Pharmacy stock (£2m). The Payables reduction of £5.3m was primarily due to the clearing of aged trade payables and also a reduction in capital creditors. Payables is becoming a greater focus area for the NHS and an improvement plan is being developed to help tackle this down to Better Payment Practice Code (BPPC) compliant levels. The Receivables increase of £4.6m was due to Chilworth invoicing. Statement of Financial Position Fixed Assets Inventories Receivables Cash Payables Current Loan Current PFI and Leases Net Assets Non Current Liabilities Non Current Loan Non Current PFI and Leases Total Assets Employed Public Dividend Capital Retained Earnings Revaluation Reserve Other Reserves Total Taxpayers' Equity 15 Page 17 of 17 2020/21 YE Actuals £m 415.4 14.7 71.3 129.0 (171.5) (2.8) (9.0) 447.1 (18.3) (8.5) (36.3) 384.0 246.0 114.0 24.0 0.0 384.0 (Fav Variance) / Adv Variance M3 Act £m 425.6 15.9 77.9 123.6 (180.2) (2.7) (8.8) 451.3 (17.5) (7.8) (34.7) 391.3 246.0 121.3 24.0 0.0 391.3 2021/22 M4 Act £m 426.9 13.8 82.5 117.3 (185.5) (2.7) (8.6) 443.6 (18.1) (7.5) (34.3) 383.7 246.0 113.7 24.0 0.0 383.7 MoM Movement £m 1.3 (2.0) 4.6 (6.4) (5.3) 0.0 0.2 (7.6) (0.6) 0.3 0.4 (7.6) 0.0 (7.6) 0.0 0.0 (7.6) Report to the Trust Board of Directors Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Date: Purpose Integrated Performance Report 2021/22 Month 4 11.2 Chief Executive 26 August 2021 Assurance Approval or reassurance Y Ratification Information Issue to be addressed: The report aims to provide assurance: • Regarding the successful implementation of our strategy • That the care we provide is safe, caring, effective, responsive, and well led Response to the issue: The Integrated Performance Report reflects the current operating environment and is aligned with our strategy. Implications: This report covers a broad range of trust services and activities. It is (Clinical, Organisational, intended to assist the Board in assuring that the Trust meets regulatory Governance, Legal?) requirements and corporate objectives. Risks: (Top 3) of carrying out the change / or not: Summary: Conclusion and/or recommendation This report is provided for the purpose of assurance. This report is provided for the purpose of assurance. Page 1 of 29 Integrated KPI Board Report covering up to July 2021 Sponsor - Andrew Asquith, Director of Planning, Performance and Productivity, andrew.asquith@uhs.nhs.uk Page 2 of 29 Chart Type Cumulative Column Example Cumulative Column Year on Year Line Benchmarked Line & bar Benchmarked Control Chart 100% 0% 49.0% Variance from Target Report Guide Explanation A cumulative column chart is used to represent a total count of the variable and shows how the total count increases over time. This example shows quarterly updates. A cumulative year on year column chart is used to represent a total count of the variable throughout the year. The variable value is reset to zero at the start of the year because the target for the metric is yearly. The line benchmarked chart shows our performance compared to the average performance of a peer group. The number at the bottom of the chart shows where we are ranked in the group (1 would mean ranked 1st that month). 72.09% The line shows our performance and the bar underneath represents the range of 0.72 performance of benchmarked trusts (bottom = lowest performance, top = highest performance) A control chart shows movement of a variable in relation to its control limits (the 3 lines = Upper control limit, Mean and Lower control limit). When the value shows special variation (not expected) then it is highlighted green (leading to a good outcome) or red (leading to a bad outcome). Values are considered to show special variation if they -Go outside control limits -Have 6 points in a row above or below the mean, -Trend for 6 points, -Have 2 out of 3 points past 2/3 of the control limit, -Show a significant movement (greater than the average moving range). Variance from target charts are used to show how far away a variable is from its target each month. Green bars represent the value the metric is achieving better than target and the red bars represent the distance a metric is away from achieving its target. 2 Page 3 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Introduction The Integrated Performance Report is presented to the Trust Board each month. The report aims to provide assurance: • Regarding the successful implementation of our strategy • That the care we provide is safe, caring, effective, responsive, and well led The content of the report includes the following: • The ‘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, performance concerns, and requests from the Board • An ‘NHS Constitution Standards’ section, summarising the standards and performance in relation to service waiting times • An ‘Appendix’, with indicators presented monthly, aligned with the five themes within our strategy This month, several of the new indicators have commenced reporting and further development is also taking place. Our indicators and this report structure will continue to be regularly reviewed, and feedback would be welcome. 3 Page 4 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Summary This month the ‘Spotlight’ section features: 1. Clostridium Difficile Infection (C. diff) There have been 25 infections compared to a ‘target’ limit of 20 year to date, whilst in 2020/21 there were 63 infections compared to a limit of 64. UHS performance remains good compared to peer hospitals. The spotlight discusses variability in infection rates, the link to antibiotic prescribing, and actions being taken to further reduce the number of C. diff infections. 2. Diagnostic waiting time target Diagnostic waiting times have experienced major impacts during the pandemic, and 17% of patients are currently waiting longer than the national 6-week target. Trends at UHS are similar to those at peer hospitals. The spotlight discusses current performance and forecast recovery timescales for different test types, alongside strategic issues, and opportunities for diagnostics. Highlights to note in the appendix containing indicators by strategic theme include: • A further decline in Emergency Department performance to 78.4% and an increase in attendances to a new maximum • An increase to 129 inpatients who had been medically optimised for discharge but were waiting for care at home / in the community • Staff sick absence remains close to target (although COVID-19 absence including isolation of COVID-19 ‘contacts’ reached a peak of 2.5% during July) • Excellent research performance across a range of measures. 4 Page 5 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Spotlight Spotlight Subject - Clostridium Difficile Infection (C. diff) C. diff infections are caused by an imbalance of gut microbiota. The person must have been exposed to C. diff spores either from food or from acquisition from the healthcare environment. The toxigenic C. diff spores reside in the large intestine for months to years. In the case of exposure to a broad-spectrum antibiotic, or cancer chemotherapy, the toxigenic spores start to produce toxins causing clinical disease manifesting with diarrhoea. In 2020/21 UHS reported 63 infections compared to a limit of 64. In 2021/22 to date, the monthly limits have been exceeded. The graph below shows the most recent 12 month period in blue, and prior 12 months in yellow. UHS ranks 3rd out of 16 self-selected peer acute trusts, with a rate of 16.2 cases/ 100,000 bed days. Reporting criteria are standardised across trusts. 5 Page 6 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 In 2021/22 there were 19 Community Onset – Hospital Attributable (COHA), 44 Hospital Onset – Hospital Attributable (HOHA) cases. The total number of infections has varied significantly in the past 18 months. The reasons for peaks are unclear but a possible reason might relate to the pandemic, C. diff infections appear to have peaked three months after both the first and second waves. Spotlight It is likely that C. diff rates relate to rates of antibiotic use, possibly in the community as well as hospital; hospital antibiotic usage has been at higher levels during COVID-19 peaks. Underlying trends are of stable / reducing antibiotic use, and the use of ‘broad-spectrum’ antibiotics is particularly closely managed. The average length of an antibiotic course at UHS has also reduced from 7.5 days in 2018/19 to 6.7 in 2020/21. 6 Page 7 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Spotlight A wide range of other potential influences upon C. diff infection have been examined including: Infection control – most cases are not part of a cluster or outbreak Infection control – infections in chemotherapy patients appear to relate to their treatment, not an association between the patients themselves or the care environment Cleaning – Audited and generally found to be of a high standard; some opportunities for improvement identified with those items that are to be cleaned by clinical staff Hand hygiene – Improved during the pandemic, and is audited, though a minority of areas still require improvements Physical environment – UHS has relatively few individual rooms, which risks delay in isolation in patients with symptoms which might indicate an infection i.e. loose stools A range of measures are in place, and further actions have been taken, which are expected to impact upon C. diff infection rates and maintain them within acceptable levels: All inpatient cases are reviewed by the infection prevention team to ensure all elements of the care bundle were followed. All hospital acquired cases are reviewed by a Consultant microbiologist/Infection control doctor. The Antimicrobial Review Group reviews cases for appropriate antibiotic use and duration. An updated C. diff policy was approved in July, including changes to the required prevention, treatment and infection control measures. The care plan documentation was expanded. Additional individual rooms have been built in 2020 and 2021, within adult and paediatric wards, and the new Cancer Care ward (C2). This need will remain an important focus for the Trust. Improvements in the turnaround time for stool samples has helped to achieve appropriate isolation of infected patients / closure of bays, whilst making effective use of available bed capacity. Further innovation in point of care testing and rapid laboratory testing are expected to deliver additional improvement in 2021/22. Investment in equipment, and 24/7 operation of the microbiology laboratory, have significantly improved the turnaround time for blood cultures for patients with bacteraemia, and enabled earlier implementation of more specific antibiotics which are less likely to promote C. diff infection. The ongoing review of anti-microbial guidelines and high-risk broad-spectrum antibiotics had been disrupted by the pandemic, and by the resource requirements of the COVID-19 vaccination programme. This is expected to be addressed during the remainder of 2021/22. 7 Page 8 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Spotlight Spotlight Subject - Diagnostic waiting time target The national target is that at least 99% of the patients waiting for an elective diagnostic test will have waited less than 6 weeks / no more than 1% will have waited more than 6 weeks. 15 different tests are reported at the end of each month, although Trust performance is normally assessed for the group of tests as a total. UHS is not currently achieving the target, largely due to the impact of COVID-19. During the pandemic, diagnostic services have experienced postponement of nonurgent patients, staff shortages, and reduced productivity due to enhanced infection control measures. Performance is gradually improving, although 17% patients currently waiting have still waited more than 6 weeks. UHS performance is typical of the NHS, UHS is currently 7th best amongst a peer group of large teaching hospitals. As referral volumes recovered following a steep drop when the pandemic started (referrals come from both primary and secondary care clinicians, dependent upon the test), the total number of patients on the waiting list increased beyond pre-pandemic levels (Feb 2020 = 7907), but this is currently relatively stable. 8 Page 9 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Spotlight Diagnostic activity levels, as a whole, have recovered and are now above pre-pandemic levels. 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Diagnostic activity per month The following table show the position at end July, ordered by the number of patients waiting over 6 weeks. There are significant differences between the size and duration of the waiting lists for each of the tests. Tests also require different professions and equipment to perform them (although there are some resources in common e.g. Radiographers and Radiologists shared between MRI and CT, Endoscopy rooms shared between Colonoscopy, Gastroscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy). Diagnostic Area NEUROPHYSIOLOGY - PERIPHERAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING NON-OBSTETRIC ULTRASOUND GASTROSCOPY CARDIOLOGY - ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY CYSTOSCOPY COLONOSCOPY RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY - SLEEP STUDIES FLEXI SIGMOIDOSCOPY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY URODYNAMICS - PRESSURES & FLOWS DEXA SCAN CARDIOLOGY - ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY AUDIOLOGY - AUDIOLOGY ASSESSMENTS BARIUM ENEMA Breach 6 Week Target Within 6 Week Target Grand Total % achieved within 6 weeks 499 629 1128 55.76 425 1583 2008 78.83 175 2779 2954 94.08 150 233 383 60.84 84 370 454 81.5 69 145 214 67.76 44 292 336 86.9 40 89 129 68.99 22 90 112 80.36 18 937 955 98.12 13 27 40 67.5 9 311 320 97.19 9 4 13 30.77 1 110 111 99.1 1 65 66 98.48 9 Page 10 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Spotlight All services are forecasting recovery of their pre-pandemic performance by the end of October 2021, with the exception of Neurophysiology and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Neurophysiology waiting times were substantially impacted by a two month cessation of most investigations at the start of the pandemic in order to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, and also by subsequent staff shortages - due to vacancies and role changes to protect staff at high risk from COVID-19, and reductions in productivity in outpatients as a result of additional infection control measures. The service is now fully staffed, but capacity to increase activity is constrained by physical space, ability to recruit further, and limited capacity amongst staff to undertake further overtime / additional sessions. Further opportunities to improve productivity, and test new working practices, continue to be investigated. MRI waiting times are at risk because our scanners are already operated for extended hours each day, both Radiographers and Radiologists are difficult to recruit in sufficient numbers, and capacity is currently being supported by scanner time contracted from Independent Sector suppliers which is not secure in the long term. A business case is being prepared which will propose an option to replace existing older scanners without the loss of capacity that would normally be experienced during decommissioning / commissioning, and to upgrade an existing scanner to extend its life and increase the number of UHS operated scanners by one. Strategic issues and opportunities related to diagnostic services include: Community Diagnostic Hub (CDH) - The NHS Long Term Plan recognised a need for radical investment and reform, and an Independent Review of Diagnostic Services* in Oct 2020 recommended ‘Community Diagnostic Hubs’ be established away from Acute Hospital Sites. UHS is currently part of a collaborative bid which, if successful, would provide an additional NHS CT scanner and Ultrasound room in Southampton. Further NHS CDH investment is likely, and UHS will consider this as part of the Estate Strategy. Growth in Demand – Significant (national) growth rates include CT (6.8%), MRI (5.6%), Colonoscopy (5.3%) and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (8.4%). Diagnostic activity rates are also often significantly below international comparators. Further growth in demand should be anticipated and planned for, for example recommendations* that CT scanning capacity should be increased by 100% within 5 years, and that at least 200 new endoscopy rooms are required in NHS trusts. Capacity Expansion and Innovation – is supporting the current recovery. For example, national funding supported construction of an additional UHS endoscopy room which opened in April, and the purchase of equipment which enables ‘sleep studies’ to be performed in greater volumes and in a patient’s home rather than in the hospital. * https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/diagnostics-recovery-and-renewal-independent-review-of-diagnostic-services-for-nhs-england2.pdf 10 Page 11 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 NHS Constitution Standards for Access to services within waiting times The NHS Constitution* and the Handbook to the NHS Constitution** together set out a range of rights to which people are entitled, and pledges that the NHS is committed to achieve, including: The right to access certain services commissioned by NHS bodies within maximum waiting times, or for the NHS to take all reasonable steps to offer you a range of suitable alternative providers if this is not possible o Start your consultant-led treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral for non-urgent conditions o Be seen by a cancer specialist within a maximum of 2 weeks from GP referral for urgent referrals where cancer is suspected The NHS pledges to provide convenient, easy access to services within the waiting times set out in the Handbook to the NHS Constitution o All patients should receive high-quality care without any unnecessary delay o Patients can expect to be treated at the right time and according to their clinical priority. Patients with urgent conditions, such as cancer, will be able to be seen and receive treatment more quickly The handbook lists 11 of the government pledges on waiting times that are relevant to UHS services, such pledges are monitored within the organisation and by NHS commissioners and regulators. Performance against the NHS rights, and a range of the pledges, is summarised below. Further information is available within the Appendix to this report. * https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-constitution-for-england/the-nhs-constitution-for-england ** https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supplements-to-the-nhs-constitution-for-england/the-handbook-to-the-nhs-constitution-for-england 11 Page 12 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 NHS Constitution Standards for Access to services within waiting times Monthly May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul target YTD % Patients on an open 18 week 100% 72.1% UT28-N pathway teaching (within 18 weeks ) with hospital min-max range and 49.0% ≥92% rank (of 20) 14 7 6 7 7 10 10 10 9 9 8 7 8 8 30% 100% 96.3% % Patients following a GP referral for - suspected cancer seen by a specialist within 2 weeks 83.8% ≥93% 80% Cancer waiting times 62 day standard - Urgent referral to first definitive 100% 87.8% UT34-N treatment (Latest data held by UHS) ≥85% - with teaching hospital min-max range 73.5% 4 3 1 1 1 9 10 9 3 4 2 1 4 6 and rank (of 20) 30% Patients spending less than 4hrs in ED - 93% 94.1% SGH Main ED (Type 1 and UCH) UT25-N Major Trauma Centres (Type 1) 85% 77% 78.4% ≥95% - Rank of 8-> 5 3 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 703.28% % of Patients waiting over 6 weeks for 80% 35.4% UT33-N diagnostics with teaching hospital min- 16.9% ≤1% - max range and rank (of 20) 7 7 9 13 14 14 11 12 9 10 10 10 9 7 0% 12 Page 13 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Outstanding Patient Outcomes, Safety and Experience Outcomes UT1-N HSMR - UHS HSMR - SGH UT2 HSMR - Crude Mortality Rate May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 83 77 3.1% 78.3 77.9 2.9% 2.6% 800 597 UT3 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital 627 200 Monthly target ≤100 - - UT4-L Cumulative Specialities with Outcome Measures Developed 54 56 56 57 61 +1 260 285 305 332 396 100% UT5 Developed Outcomes RAG ratings 81% 75% 79% 77% 76% 80% - 50% Appendix YTD YTD target 13 Page 14 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Outstanding Patient Outcomes, Safety and Experience Safety May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Cumulative Clostridium difficile UT6-N This year vs. last year 2732 3039 3543 4250 4852 5455 6057 7063 57 1116 1521 1825 35 Healthcare-acquired COVID infection: UT7 COVID-positive sample taken > 14days 39 after admission (validated) 0 12 1 0 0 0 8 0 10 2 5 0 0 0 3 Probable hospital-associated COVID 80 UT8 infection: COVID-positive sample taken > 7 days and 70.28% 533422111233333 05:00 UT26 Average (Mean) time in Dept - nonadmitted patients 02:14 03:06 - 01:00 05:00 03:17 UT27 Average (Mean) time in Dept - admitted patients 04:13 - 01:00 100% % Patients on an open 18 week pathway 72.1% UT28-N (within 18 weeks ) with teaching 49.0% ≥92% hospital min-max range and rank (of 20) 14 7 6 7 7 10 10 10 9 9 8 7 8 8 30% 42,500 Total number of patients on a waiting 42149 UT29 list (18 week referral to treatment 33401 - pathway) 30,000 21,000 Patients on an open 18 week pathway UT30 (waiting 52 weeks+ ) with teaching 951 2309 - hospital min-max range and rank (of 20) 0 13 11 11 11 10 9 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 6 Appendix YTD YTD target - - - - - - - - - - 17 Page 18 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Outstanding Patient Outcomes, Safety and Experience May Jun 1000 UT31 Patients on an open 18 week pathway (waiting 78 weeks+ ) 0 11,000 UT32 Patients waiting for diagnostics Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 799 7 7875 9223 Monthly target - - 4,000 80% % of Patients waiting over 6 weeks for UT33-N diagnostics with teaching hospital min- max range and rank (of 20) 7 0% Cancer waiting times 62 day standard - Urgent referral to first definitive 100% UT34-N treatment (Latest data held by UHS) with teaching hospital min-max range 4 and rank (of 20) 30% 100% 31 day cancer wait performance - UT35-N decision to treat to first definitive treatment (Latest data held by UHS) 80% 100% 31 day cancer wait performance - UT36-N Subsequent Treatments of Cancer (Latest data held by UHS) 80% 35.4% 7 9 13 14 14 11 12 9 87.8% 3 1 1 1 9 10 9 3 97.6% 98.6% 10 10 10 9 16.9% 7 73.5% 4 2 1 4 6 96.0% 96.2% ≤1% ≥85% ≥96% ≥95.2% Appendix YTD YTD target - - - - - - - - - - 18 Page 19 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Pioneering Research and Innovation PN1-L Comparative CRN Recruitment Performance - non-weighted May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 2 5 9 10 10 9 Monthly target Top 10 PN2-L Comparative CRN Recruitment Performance - weighted 2 2 5 3 7 8 Top 5 PN3-L Comparative CRN Recruitment contract commercial 7 13 17 PN4-L Achievement compared to R+D Income 160% Baseline Monthly income increase % YTD income increase % -50% 2 12 11 Top 10 46.0% 152.0% 55.0% -22.0% 45.0% ≥5% Appendix YTD YTD target 19 Page 20 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 World Class People Appendix Workforce Capacity May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Monthly target 14% Substantive Staff - Turnover WR1-L -R12M turnover % -Leavers in month (FTE) 10% 12.6% 80 200 12.7% R12M 100 =92.0% 84.5% > =76% 20 Page 21 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 World Class People Staff survey engagement score WR8-L National NHS Staff Survey May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 8 7.3 0 WR8-L - Maximum score = 10, Average of “Acute and Acute&Community”, group is 7 Compassion and Inclusion 11% WR9-L % of Band 7+ staff who are Black and Minority Ethnic 9.21% 7% WR10 14% % of Band 7+ Staff who have declared a disability or long term health condition 13.7% WR11 12% Pulse survey % of staff recommend UHS as a place to work- White British staff compared with all other ethnic groups combined Data available from August 2021 - new monthly staff survey 10.19% 13.5% WR12 Pulse survey % of staff recommend UHS as a place to work- Disabled compared with non disabled / prefer not to answer Data available from August 2021 - new monthly staff survey WR13 Pulse survey % of staff recommend UHS as a place to work- Sexuality = Heterosexual compared with all other groups combined Data available from August 2021 - new monthly staff survey Appendix Monthly target YTD YTD target 15% by 2023 - 21 Page 22 of 29 Report to Trust Board in August 2021 Integrated Networks and Collaboration Local Integration Number of inpatients that were NT1 medically optimised for discharge (monthly average) May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Monthly target 150 129 92 ≤80 50 Emergency Department NT2 activity - type 1 This year vs. last year Percentage of virtual appointments as a NT3 proportion of outpatient consultations This year vs. last year 15,000 9,482 9,077 5,000 70.00% 44.40% 15.6% 0.00% 11,722 - 8,456 51.5% - 28.1% Appendix YTD YTD target - - - - - - 22 Page 23 of
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2021-Trust-document/Finance-and-performance-reports/Finance-and-Performance-Reports-2021-22-Month-4-July-2021.pdf

1 to 10 of 17

Previous 1 2 Next

Browse site A to Z

Search results

Papers Trust Board - 5 November 2024

Vulnerable with capacity

UHS modern slavery statement 2023-2024

Virtual consultation, actual peril

Papers Trust Board - 25 July 2024

Manslaughter by doctors

Deprivation of liberty in adults and children

Papers Trust Board - 10 March 2026

Papers Trust Board - 15 July 2025

Finance and Performance Reports 2021-22 month 4 July 2021

Site policies

Contact details

Useful links