Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Simple Search

Search Type: Criteria:

Papers Sept 2020 held in closed session due to Covid-19

Description: Date Time Location Chair Agenda - Trust Board Meeting 29/09/2020 9:00 - 16:00 Microsoft Teams Peter Hollins 1 Chair
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2020/papers-sept-2020-held-in-closed-session-due-to-covid-19.pdf

Records management policy

Description: Records Management Policy Date Issued: Review Date: Document Type: 9 May 2018 19 April 2021 Policy Version: 6 Contents Paragraph 1 2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/Policies/Records-management-policy.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 13 January 2026

Description: Date Time Location Chair Apologies Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 13/01/2026 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2026-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-13-January-2026.pdf

Annual ward staffing review January 2025

Description: [5.15] Report to the Trust Board of Directors, 7th January 2025 Title: Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review July 2024 – Octobe
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/performance/TB-6-monthly-staffing-review-report.pdf

UHS AR 21-22 Quality Account

Description: QUALITY ACCOUNT 2021/22 Part 1: QStaUteAmeLnItToYn qAuaClitCy fOroUm NtheTchief executive 2021/22 1.1 Chief executive’s statement and welcome
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/UHS-AR-21-22-Quality-Account.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 10 March 2026

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

Papers Trust Board - 7 January 2025

Description: Date Time Location Chair Observing Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 07/01/2025 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2025-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-7-January-2025.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 29 November 2022

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

Annual-report-2018-19

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

Annual report 2021-2022

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

1 to 10 of 10

Browse site A to Z

Search results

Papers Sept 2020 held in closed session due to Covid-19

Records management policy

Papers Trust Board - 13 January 2026

Annual ward staffing review January 2025

UHS AR 21-22 Quality Account

Papers Trust Board - 10 March 2026

Papers Trust Board - 7 January 2025

Papers Trust Board - 29 November 2022

Annual-report-2018-19

Annual report 2021-2022

Site policies

Contact details

Useful links