Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Simple Search

Search Type: Criteria:

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
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2026-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-13-January-2026.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

WDES report and action plan 2024

Description: Workforce Disability Equality Standard Annual Report 2024 1 Executive Summary The Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES) is a set of ten metrics t
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Equality-reports/UHS-WDES-report-and-action-plan-2024.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 9 September 2025

Description: Date Time Location Chair Apologies Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2025-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-9-September-2025.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 7 January 2025

Description: Date Time Location Chair Observing Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 07/01/2025 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd Fatemeh Jenabi, Specialty Registrar (shadowing Joe Teape) 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 2 Patient Story The patient story provides an opportunity for the Board to reflect on the experiences of patients and staff within the Trust and understand what the Trust could do better. 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 5 November 2024 9:15 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 November 2024 4 Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions To discuss any matters arising from the minutes, and to agree on the status of any actions assigned at the previous meeting. 5 QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE Quality includes: clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee 9:20 Dave Bennett, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:25 Committee Jane Harwood, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee 9:30 Tim Peachey, Chair including Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 5.4 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:40 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 8 10:00 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Break 10:35 5.7 Finance Report for Month 8 10:45 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.8 ICB Finance Report for Month 8 10:55 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.9 People Report for Month 8 11:05 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.10 Freedom to Speak Up Report 11:15 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Christine Mbabazi, Equality & Inclusion Adviser/Freedom to Speak Up Guardian 5.11 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 11:25 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant 5.12 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 11:35 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendees: Natasha Watts, Deputy Chief Nursing Officer/Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience 5.13 Infection Prevention and Control 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 11:45 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Julian Sutton, Lead Infection Control Director/Julie Brooks, Deputy Director of Infection Prevention & Control 5.14 Annual Medicines Management 2023-24 Report 11:55 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: James Allen, Chief Pharmacist 5.15 Annual Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 2024 12:05 Discuss and approve the review Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Rosemary Chable, Head of Nursing for Education, Practice and Staffing Page 2 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 12:15 Review and discuss the update Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary/Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager 7 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency 12:25 Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer Attendees: John Mcgonigle, Emergency Planning & Resilience Manager/ Danielle Sinclair, Deputy Emergency Planner 7.2 Register of Seals and Chair's Actions Report 12:30 Receive and ratify In compliance with the Trust Standing Orders, Financial Instructions, and the Scheme of Reservation and Delegation. Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 8 Any other business 12:35 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 9 Note the date of the next meeting: 11 March 2025 10 Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair To agree, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust's Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. 11 Follow-up discussion with governors 12:45 Page 3 Agenda links to the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) 7 January 2025 – Open Session Overview of the BAF Risk 1a: Lack of capacity to appropriately respond to emergency demand, manage the increasing waiting lists for elective demand, and provide timely diagnostics, that results in avoidable harm to patients. 1b: Due to the current challenges, we fail to provide patients and their families / carers with a high-quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes. 1c: We do not effectively plan for and implement infection prevention and control measures that reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections and limit the number of nosocomial outbreaks of infection. 2a: We do not take full advantage of our position as a leading University teaching hospital with a growing, reputable, and innovative research and development portfolio, attracting the best staff and efficiently delivering the best possible treatments and care for our patients. 3a: We are unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to the unavailability of staff to fulfil key roles. 3b: We fail to develop a diverse, compassionate, and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive staff experience for all staff. 3c: We fail to create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs identified in the Trust’s longer-term workforce plan. 4a: We do not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in sub-optimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. 5a: We are unable to deliver a financial breakeven position, resulting in: inability to move out of the NHS England Recovery Support Programme, NHS England imposing additional controls/undertakings, and a reducing cash balance impacting the Trust’s ability to invest in line with its capital plan, estates/digital strategies, and in transformation initiatives. 5b: We do not adequately maintain, improve and develop our estate to deliver our clinical services and increase capacity. 5c: Our digital technology or infrastructure fails to the extent that it impacts our ability to deliver care effectively and safely within the organisation, 5d: We fail to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce our direct and indirect carbon footprint by 80% by 2028-2032 (compared with a 1990 baseline) and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045. Agenda links to the BAF No Item Linked BAF risk(s) 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 8 5.7 Finance Report for Month 8 5.8 ICB Finance Report for Month 8 5.9 People Report for Month 8 5.10 Freedom to Speak Up Report 5.11 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 5.12 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 5.13 Infection Prevention Control 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report 5.14 Annual Medicines Management 2023-24 Report 5.15 Annual Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 2024 7.1 Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPPR) 1a, 1b, 1c 5a 5a 3a, 3b, 3c 3b 3a, 3b 1b 1c All 1b, 3a 1a, 3a, 5b, 5c Appetite (Category) Minimal (Safety) Current risk rating 4x5 20 Cautious (Experience) Minimal (Safety) 3x3 9 4x4 16 Open (Technology & Innovation) 3x3 9 Open (workforce) Open (workforce) Open (workforce) 4x5 20 4 x3 12 4x3 12 Cautious (Effectiveness) 3x3 9 Cautious (Finance) 3x5 15 Target risk rating 4 x 2 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 26 2 x 3 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 25 4 x 3 Mar 12 26 4 x 2 Mar 8 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 25 3 x 2 Apr 6 25 3 x 3 Apr 9 25 Cautious (Effectiveness) Open (Technology & Innovation) Open (Technology & Innovation) 4x5 20 3x4 12 2x3 6 4 x 2 Apr 8 27 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 2 Dec 4 24 Does this item facilitate movement towards or away from the intended target risk score and appetite? Towards Away Neither x x x x x x x x x x x Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date 05/11/2024 Time 9:00 – 11:30 Location The Ark Conference Centre, HHFT/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Dave Bennett, NED (DB) Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer (GB) Keith Evans, Deputy Chair and NED (KE) David French, Chief Executive Officer (DAF) Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer (PG) Steve Harris, Chief People Officer (SH) Jane Harwood, NED/Senior Independent Director (JH) Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer (IH) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer (JT) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) In attendance Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships (MDeS) (item 5.1) Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Ali Keen, Head of Cancer Nursing (AK) (item 4.11) Kelly Kent, Head of Strategy and Partnerships (KK) (item 5.1) 4 governors (observing) 2 members of staff (observing) 2 members of the public (observing) Apologies Diana Eccles, NED (DE) 1. Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting. There were no interests to declare in the business to be transacted at the meeting. It was noted that apologies had been received from Diana Eccles. The Chair provided an overview of her activities since September 2024, including visits to hospital departments, meetings with peers and other key stakeholders. 2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 10 September 2024 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 10 September 2024. 3. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions In respect of action 1175, it was noted that there had been an increase in the number of incidents of delays in giving of medication or pain relief, missed symptoms, and insufficient staffing numbers. However, in part the increase in numbers of incidents was considered to be due to efforts to encourage reporting of such incidents, and the situation had improved more recently. It was agreed to close this action. Page 1 It was noted that there were no other matters arising or overdue actions. 4. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 4.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee The chair of the Audit and Risk Committee was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 14 October 2024, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee reviewed the lessons learned from the 2023/24 annual accounts, and noted that the issues encountered should be resolved in time for the 2024/25 accounts due, largely, to the implementation of a new finance system. • The committee also received a report in respect of the risk of impersonation fraud for bank/agency staff and the procedures that had been put in place to mitigate this risk. 4.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee The chair of the Finance and Investment Committee was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 21 October 2024, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee had reviewed the Finance Report for Month 6 (item 4.7) and discussed the Trust’s re-commitment to its 2024/25 plan in support of its request for deficit support funding from NHS England. • The position in respect of cash was challenging and the committee discussed what the Trust should do in the final quarter of 2024/25. It was noted that the rules on when and how much cash support could be requested were somewhat unclear. • The committee discussed a potential expansion of the activities of UHS Pharmacy Limited, although it was subsequently noted that the specific potential opportunity had since failed to materialise. • The committee also discussed the Trust’s financial recovery programme. 4.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee The chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 21 October 2024, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had been below its plan in terms of whole-time-equivalent (WTE) numbers, although this position would change from October 2024 onward due to the onboarding of newly qualified nurses and the failure of the Integrated Care System transformation plans to deliver in terms of reduction in patients having no criteria to reside and mental health support. • The committee noted the cumulative impact on staff of having to balance staff numbers, performance, and patient experience. • Whilst noting that the annual appraisal rate remained low, it was suspected that more appraisals than recorded had taken place, but that these had not been recorded on the Electronic Staff Record. 4.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee The chair of the Quality Committee was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 14 October 2024, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: Page 2 • Patients’ access to a rehabilitation and recovery service during and after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was limited due to a lack of service provision. The Trust was non-compliant with national guidance in this area. • Due to resource constraints the Trust was unable to systematically roll out the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPS) 2. However, it was noted that a solution to this issue was being considered. • There had been no significant improvement in terms of the Trust’s system partners in respect of supporting the Trust with mental health admissions. • The committee also reviewed the Maternity and Neonatal Safety Report, based on data available at September 2024, and including the NHS Resolution Maternity Incentive Scheme Year 6 progress update, the local response to the Care Quality Commission’s National Report Review of Maternity Services in England 2022-2024, and the Antenatal and Newborn Screening Annual Report 2023/24. 4.5 Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Whilst the commitment in the Autumn Statement to additional funding for the NHS was welcomed, it was unclear at this stage what this additional funding will mean in practice and how it would be allocated. • There had been recent media coverage of the Trust’s ongoing dispute with its porters following a press release by the UNITE union. • Arbitration proceedings were expected to commence in respect of a long- running dispute with BAM Construction relating to the construction of the east wing annex building. • Significant changes in employment legislation were anticipated between now and 2026, although, due to the nature of employment conditions in the NHS, it was not anticipated that these changes would have a significant impact on the Trust. • The new combined community provider, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust was launched on 1 October 2024. • A meeting had been held with the now independent hospital charity to discuss priorities over the medium term. • The national NHS staff survey had launched on 20 September 2024 and would run until 28 November 2024. It was noted that the participation rate thus far had been below that seen in previous years. • The Trust’s quality and patient safety partners programme had won the ‘Patient Involvement in Safety’ award at the Health Service Journal’s Patient Safety Awards on 16 September 2024. • There was a concern that the Government’s intended 10-Year Plan for the NHS, which was expected to redirect focus on prevention and community healthcare, could result in an immediate loss of funding for acute providers, i.e. before the longer-term preventative measures had had an opportunity to take effect. 4.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 Joe Teape was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s overall performance was good compared to other teaching hospitals. In August 2024, the Trust was first for its 65-week wait performance, and second for the 60-day cancer metric. Page 3 • The month of October was proving to be challenging with increased bed occupancy and surge capacity having to be opened. Type 1 Emergency Department attendance was over 400 per day. • Whilst there had been improvements in the length of stay, the impact of this had largely been negated by the high demand being experienced. • The ‘W-45’ initiative was to be implemented at the end of November 2024, whereby ambulances would automatically hand over patients to emergency departments after 45 minutes. It was noted that this policy would potentially put strain the relationship between the Emergency Department and the South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS). • It was noted that there were potential issues with the data presented in terms of the number of virtual appointments and use of MyMedicalRecord. The Board discussed the high levels of attendance in the Emergency Department. It was noted that: • The Trust’s winter plans did not assume 400 attendances per day. • Attendances were typically of higher acuity, and did not appear to be as a result of patients being unable to access GP services. • The Trust had a number of projects underway in order to direct patients to alternative routes into the hospital, such as through the Same-Day Emergency Care service. • The importance of ensuring the wellbeing of staff during such a period of sustained demand was also noted. • In addition, the Trust had requested funding for GPs in the Emergency Department as had occurred in previous years as a means of reducing demand on the Emergency Department. Action: Joe Teape agreed to investigate the data in respect of virtual appointment and MyMedicalRecord numbers presented for Month 6. 4.7 Finance Report for Month 6 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had received additional funding in respect of 2023/24 Elective Recovery Fund (ERF) performance, funding for industrial action costs, and deficit support funding from NHS England. As a result, the Trust had recorded a year-to-date deficit of £8m, a variance of -£4.7m against plan. • The Trust’s underlying deficit continued to be £5-6m per month. • The Trust had 200-220 patients with no criteria to reside at any one time, and expected reductions in mental health demand had not been realised due to non-delivery of system programmes. • The Trust had also undertaken £17m of unpaid activity in the first half of 2024/25. • The Trust had recorded 130% ERF performance in month and 128% year-to- date. It also continued to maintain low bank and agency use, and had delivered £32m of Cost Improvement Programme benefits. • There was significant financial pressure throughout the NHS in England. 4.8 ICB Finance Report for Month 6 Ian Howard was invited to present the ICB Finance Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report tabled to the meeting had been prepared by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (ICB) for all providers in the system. Page 4 • The system’s 2024/25 plan targeted a deficit of £70m. • During the first half of 2024/25, the system had received £55m in deficit support funding from NHS England and a surplus of £20m would be required during the second half of the year in order to be able to meet its 2024/25 target. • Meeting the 2024/25 target would likely be challenging. • The system had yet to see any significant benefit from the six transformation programmes. • It was noted that the ICB report would benefit from additional information in respect of workforce and equality, diversity and inclusion. 4.9 Recovery Support Programme (RSP) Undertakings – Self Assessment Ian Howard was invited to present the paper ‘Recovery Support Programme (RSP) Undertakings – Self-Assessment’, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In June 2024, the Trust, along with all other organisations in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System (ICS) under the Recovery Support Programme had submitted a self-assessment in respect of the undertakings entered into in 2023. NHS England had provided feedback in respect of these self-assessments in August 2024. • All providers had been asked to provide a further self-assessment, which would then be incorporated into a system-wide response in January 2025. • The evidence supplied by the Trust in support of its self-assessment indicated significant engagement by the Trust’s Board with the organisation’s undertakings under the RSP as well as progress against these undertakings since the previous submission. • Factors such as the number of patients having no criteria to reside and other matters beyond the Trust’s control remained a concern in terms of the Trust’s ability to fully meet the undertakings. • The action plans for the ICS transformation programmes should be included as part of the Trust’s response to the request for a self-assessment. Decision Having discussed the proposed response by the Trust, the Board agreed the proposed self-assessment, and authorised David French and Ian Howard to submit it to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board, subject to there being no material changes prior to submission. 4.10 People Report for Month 6 Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust was currently under its 2024/25 plan by 249 whole-time-equivalents (WTE). However, this situation was expected to change in October 2024 due to the impact of onboarding of newly qualified nurses and midwives, and also due to non-delivery of ICS transformation programmes in non-criteria to reside and mental health, which assumed a reduction of 167 WTE. • The Trust benchmarked well in terms of its sickness absence rate and turnover. • The Trust had plans to transfer recording of appraisals from the Electronic Staff Record to the Visual Learning Environment platform, which was considered to be more ‘user friendly’ and was therefore expected to improve recorded appraisal numbers. Page 5 • The Trust was in active negotiations with Unison in respect of the Band 2/3 pay dispute. • The People and Organisational Development Committee was to examine the overall workforce picture in more detail. 4.11 Cancer Patient Experience Survey Results 2023 Ali Keen was invited to present the Cancer Patient Experience Survey Results 2023, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The survey involved 132 trusts, and had a 58% response rate at UHS (1,064 patients). • At the Trust 15 out of 59 questions scored above the expected range, which indicated that the Trust was a positive outlier when compared to trusts of a similar size and demographic. • Patients with longer-term health conditions and women tended to have worse experiences than other groups. • The care by and quality of staff at the Trust were rated highly. • There were opportunities for improvement in some areas such as administration and communication around appointments. 5. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 5.1 Corporate Objectives 2024-25 Quarter 2 Review Martin De Sousa and Kelly Kent were invited to present the Corporate Objectives 2024/25 Quarter 2 review, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report now incorporated a forecast for the end of year. • The overall picture was positive with 12 objectives shown as ‘green’, two as ‘amber’, and two as ‘red’. • The main areas of risk in terms of the objectives concerned the deliverability of a stretching financial plan. • The completion of year two of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme was also at risk due to the state of steam duct tunnels, which required substantial remediation ahead of work commencing on the low temperature hot water system. 5.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Craig Machell was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework Update, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In September and October 2024, the Board’s committees had reviewed the BAF risks assigned to them, and the Audit and Risk Committee had reviewed the entire BAF. • As a result of these reviews, it had been agreed to increase the risk rating for Risk 1c (Infection Prevention Control) and to extend the target date. In addition, the target dates for all risks were to be reviewed to ensure that they were realistic. • The Board agenda now included an annex, which indicated where papers were linked to a BAF risk and the impact of any decision by the Board on the Trust’s achievement of its target risk rating. Furthermore, Board papers now Page 6 had a clear link to any relevant BAF risk included as part of the new cover sheet. 6. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 6.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors’ (CoG) Meeting 23 October 2024 The Chair provided an overview of the meeting of the Council of Governors held on 23 October 2024. It was noted that the meeting had addressed the following matters: • Attendance at Council of Governors meetings • Appointment of a member of the Governors’ Nomination Committee • Planning for the Governors’ strategy session in December 2024 • Membership engagement • Feedback from the Working Groups • The external auditor’s report on the Annual Accounts In addition, on 31 October 2024, the Council of Governors had met with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB to discuss future plans for the system and opportunities for collaboration between providers. 6.2 Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report The paper ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’ was presented to the meeting, the content of which was noted. Decision: The Board agreed to ratify the application of the Trust Seal to the documents listed in the ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’. 7. Any other business There was no other business. 8. Note the date of the next meeting: 7 January 2025 9. Items circulated to the Board for reading The item circulated to the Board for reading was noted. There being no further business, the meeting concluded. 10. Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Decision: The Board resolved that, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust’s Constitution and the Standing Orders of the board of directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. The meeting was adjourned. Page 7 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 06/06/2024 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 1 1152. Digital Teape, Joe Explanation action item JT agreed to include Digital as an agenda item at a future Trust Board Study Session. 27/02/2025 Pending Update: Item tentatively scheduled for TBSS on 27/02/2025 Trust Board – Open Session 25/07/2024 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee (Oral) 1163. Impact of technology Machell, Craig 27/02/2025 Pending Explanation action item Craig Machell agreed to add an item covering the impact of technology over the next 5-10 years to a future Trust Board Study Session agenda. Update: Item tentatively scheduled for 27/02/25 Study Session. Trust Board – Open Session 05/11/2024 4.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 1181. MyMedicalRecord (MMR) Teape, Joe 07/01/2025 Completed Explanation action item Joe Teape agreed to investigate the data in respect of virtual appointment and MyMedicalRecord numbers presented for Month 6. Update: The issue was related to the MMR – drop-in logins in month and the increase in the previous month which was noted in the Month 6 report, as oncology had been added to the system and all patients notified in that month driving a surge in logins. Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 5.1 i) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 7 January 2025 Committee: Finance & Investment Committee Meeting Date: 25 November 2024 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • For month 7, the Trust had reported an in-month deficit of £4.5m and a £12.5m year-to-date deficit. The Trust was £9.2m behind plan. The non-delivery of system-wide transformation programmes represented approximately half of the overall deficit. The recent pay awards resulted in an additional £2m cost pressure. Elective Recovery performance was 125%, which was lower than previously due to operational challenges in October 2024, high levels of annual leave, and the performance achieved in October 2019 on which in-month performance was based. The Trust’s workforce numbers were beginning to increase as anticipated as newly qualified staff members were onboarded. The ongoing discussions with Unison in respect of the Band 2/3 pay dispute would likely lead to additional one-off costs as well as recurring costs if any pay increase were agreed. It was expected that the Trust would be below the NHS England minimum cash holding during Quarter 4. It was forecast that the Trust would deliver £67.7m of CIP for 2024/25 against £84.9m of identified schemes. The Trust’s Always Improving programme had succeeded in delivering a 3.6% reduction in length of stay. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Not applicable. Any Other Matters: • The committee received a quarterly update from Estates, Facilities and Capital Development. • The committee supported the Trust’s bid for external funding in support of the Southampton Elective Hub. Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. Page 1 of 2 No Assurance Not Applicable Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.1 ii) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 7 January 2025 Committee: Finance & Investment Committee Meeting Date: 16 December 2024 Key Messages: • • • • The Trust’s financial position remains difficult despite significant levels of savings being delivered in areas such as patient flow, theatres, and outpatients. The main contributor to the Trust’s deficit continues to be non-delivery of system-wide transformation programmes, especially those concerning patients having no criteria to reside. The Trust was forecasting to achieve c.£67m of its cost improvement programme target for 2024/25, a shortfall of £17m against the identified opportunities. However, much of the unachieved amount assumed delivery of system transformation programmes. The Trust’s cash balance was initially expected to fall below the NHS England minimum holding level during Quarter 4. However, the Trust has received £12m of additional cash, which now means that the Trust’s cash balance should not fall below minimum required levels until Quarter 1 of 2025/26. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 5.7 Finance Report for Month 8 Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust’s in-month deficit was £5.7m and a year-to-date deficit of £18.2m, £14.8m behind plan year-to-date. • The Trust has carried out £21m of unfunded activity during the year. • The Trust continues to benchmark well in terms of value for money, and continues to apply measures to ensure financial grip and governance with strong controls in place. 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial N/A • Risks 5a, 5b and 5c have been updated, following discussions with the respective Executive Director(s). • The risk rating for Risk 5a has been increased from 15 to 20 due to the deteriorating cash balance and the ongoing financial pressures. Any Other Matters: • The committee reviewed the outputs of the review of non-pay expenditure carried out by Deloitte. • The committee supported the outline strategy for a possible private patient unit. • The committee gave its support in principle for the Trust to bid for £1.75m of funding in support of the Trust’s Same-Day Emergency Care service. Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Page 1 of 2 Limited Assurance No Assurance Not Applicable Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda item 5.2 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 7 January 2025 Committee: People & Organisational Development Committee Meeting Date: 13 December 2024 Key Messages: • • • • • The Trust’s substantive workforce grew by 7 whole-time-equivalents (WTE) during November 2024 in line with forecast. However, an adjustment has also been made to the substantive numbers being reported due to the status of a hosted network (the CRN), which expanded following a TUPE transfer of staff. The rate of bank staff usage had increased in November 2024 due to the need to open surge capacity. This was expected to continue during the remainder of the year. Reduction in bank benefit has been assumed though, commencing in January linked to NQNs exiting supernumerary periods. The non-delivery of system-wide transformation programmes continues to pose a significant risk to the Trust’s delivery of its 2024/25 workforce plan. A Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme (MARS) has been approved by NHS England, which was expected to deliver a reduction in workforce of c.20 WTE by March 2025. The Trust was forecasting a total workforce of 13,464 WTE at the end of the year – broadly flat compared with the end of 2023/24. Increases in substantive workforce has been forecasted during December and January. Due to the volatility of predicting start dates during the Christmas period, a reforecast may take place in January. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 5.9 People Report for Month 8 Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust is above its 2024/25 workforce plan by 77 WTE due to a combination of the planned increases in substantive staff as newly qualified employees are onboarded, and the assumed reduction in workforce requirements due to delivery of system-wide transformation programmes. • The system-wide transformation programmes assumed a reduction in workforce of 218 WTE. Non-delivery of these programmes therefore poses a significant risk to the Trust’s achievement of its overall 2024/25 workforce plan. • The Trust’s sickness absence rate was 3.3% against the target of 3.9%, and turnover was lower than expected. • The response rate to the Staff Survey was low compared to the national average. 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial N/A • Risks 3a, 3b and 3c have been updated, following discussions with the respective Executive Director(s). • The financial situation and uncertainty in respect of the NHS long-term workforce plan poses a significant underlying risk, and it was suggested that increasing the rating of risk 3c should be considered to reflect this. Any Other Matters: • A detailed update was provided in respect of the ongoing industrial dispute with the porters and in respect of the Band 2/3 pay dispute. Page 1 of 2 • The need to manage ongoing industrial disputes was impacting the Trust’s People team’s capacity to make progress on other areas, such as those relating to transformation. Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. No Assurance There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Not Applicable Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda item 5.3 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 7 January 2025 Committee: Quality Committee Meeting Date: 25 November 2024 Key Messages: • • • • • • • There had been seven never events reported during 2024/25. There had been a decrease in the number of category 2 pressure ulcers, which was possibly due to increased training rates. Three prostate patients had been lost to follow up, and there were concerns in respect of capacity within the prostate service. Overall, the Quality Indicators show a system under pressure. There were also concerns in respect of cardiac surgery services due to staffing levels and culture within the team, which had led to cancellations and increased waiting lists. The PALS/complaints service had had 2,135 interactions during Quarter 2. The top themes related to clinical treatment, patient care, and communication. The number of Inquests was increasing, which was putting pressure on services. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 5.12 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial Medium • Whilst the overall death rate had increased, this was in line with national trends. The Trust was performing well, and was one of 13 trusts scoring below the expected figure. • A mobile application to share the outputs of mortality and morbidity meetings was being reviewed. • The lack of available side rooms was leading to an increasing number of patients dying on wards rather than in a private environment. 5.13 Infection Prevention and Control 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The Trust was expected to miss most bacteraemia targets for 2024/25. • The Trust was mid-table compared with other teaching hospitals. • The rate of MRSA had increased to 4-5 cases per annum from 2020 onwards, compared with 0-2 per annum between 2015 and 2020. • An audit of hand washing had raised concerns about the compliance rate. • The loss of experienced staff since the COVID-19 pandemic was considered to be a significant contributor to the decline in performance. Any Other Matters: The committee reviewed the Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report and noted the following: • Caesarean section rates remained high. • The Trust’s post-partum haemorrhage rate remained above the national expectations, but no key themes had been identified following review of this matter. • In a review of third- and fourth-degree tears, no key themes had been identified. • One maternal death was under investigation. Page 1 of 43 Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. No Assurance There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Not Applicable Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 43 Agenda Item 4.6 Report to the Quality Committee, 25 November 2024 Title: Sponsor: Author: Purpose Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 2 Report Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Alison Millman, Quality Assurance and Safety Midwifery Matron Jessica Bown, Quality Assurance and Safety Midwifery Matron Hannah Mallon, Quality Assurance and Safety Neonatal Matron Marie Cann, Maternity and Neonatal Safety Lead Emma Northover, Director of Midwifery (Re)Assurance Approval Ratification Information x x x Strategic Theme Outstanding patient outcomes, safety and experience Pioneering research and innovation World class people Integrated networks Foundations for the and collaboration future x Executive Summary: NHS Resolution (NHSR) requires that the Maternity & Neonatal (MatNeo) service reports to our Trust Quality Committee each time it meets. This Quarter 2 (Q2) 24-25 MatNeo services safety report will continue to be adapted and responsive to safety concerns or issues within our service providing assurance around safety improvements impacting our families, services, and staff. The information provided is for assurance and reassurance, whilst meeting the requirements of NHSR Maternity Incentive Scheme (MIS)Year 6 and highlights the safety improvement work and learning from all aspects of the services. We ask members to continue to support the MatNeo Services and provide monitoring and scrutiny as required. Contents: This report provides an update in relation to the following areas for Quarter 2 2024/25: 1. Perinatal Quality Surveillance – Maternity & Neonatal Dashboard (Appendix 1) 1.1. Scheduled Caesarean Section Capacity 1.2. Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPHs) 1.3. Episiotomy 1.4. 3rd and 4th degree tears 1.5. ITU transfers 1.6. Apgars 500ms (43.58%) NMPA target is 1500mls (5.8%) NMPA target is 35% Global majority booked CoC Model – Q2 compliance 19.5%, National target is > 35% The most vulnerable families are still supported by our Needing Extra Support Teams (NEST) and as we progress workstreams around future workforce plans, the service aspires to develop new and more sustainable CoC models of care. To give assurance we monitor and audit outcomes to ensure that groups most likely to be offered a CoC model are not showing as exceptions in our data or when clinically reviewing adverse outcomes. 1.9 FFT recommenders as % of responders Current compliance: 83.9% of responders would recommend our service. This has fallen slightly from Q1 (87.4%). As mentioned in the previous Committee report, the % of responders who would recommend our postnatal ward dropped to 67% in September 2024. This was escalated to the inpatient matrons and an improvement plan focusing on two areas has been developed (Appendix 2). These areas are: • Partner or someone else involved in service users care being allowed to stay with them as much as the service user wanted during their stay in hospital. • After the birth, ensure that women and birthing people are given the opportunity to ask any questions they may have about their labour and birth. 1.10 Maternity Opel 4 Diverts There has been an increase in the number of occasions when the Maternity Service has moved through escalation and ultimately declared OPEL 4. There are escalation processes and policies in place that aim to ensure appropriate decision making and the safety of our families and workforce. This issue has been widely monitored through Birthrate Plus reporting and reviewed within safety incident investigations and is on our Risk Register (Risk 259 High Red). As per the Trust’s PSIRF plan, harm tools are completed for each Opel 4 exceeding 24 hours to review the wider impact and harm associated with the service being on
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2025-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-7-January-2025.pdf

Expressions of interest in SoAR Associate Director role JD and PS 24-4-2023

Description: Southampton Academy of Research (SoAR) Associate Director: Call for expressions of interest University of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHSFT) and University of Southampton (UoS) are inviting expressions of interest for the role of Southampton Academy of Research (SoAR) Associate Director with particular responsibility for nurses, midwives, allied health professions, pharmacists and health care scientists, hereafter referred to as the health professions (commonly referred to as NMAHPPs). We are, given expansion in SoAR’s commitments, looking to appoint two individuals, anticipating that each individual will commit 0.2 WTE. The Southampton Academy of Research launched in 2016 to ensure Southampton's healthcare research community grows and thrives through: • building capacity and capability of our workforce through the coordination and provision of highquality research training • promoting a culture that encourages and enables individuals to develop research-related skills, knowledge and experience and apply these skills in practice to advance and improve patient care. The Trust’s new Research for Impact strategy seeks to create an environment where staff have the time and skills to take part in research. The SoAR team will play a considerable role in operationalising commitments in the new strategy around workforce development and culture. Only thoughts were around thinking about the wider workforce research engagement piece in terms of how do we create opportunities? / Initiatives for all healthcare professions to engage at all levels with research. SoAR exists to inspire and support early career researchers in all health-related disciplines across the Southampton partnership, providing a focal point for research-related career development and training and a hub for Southampton’s vibrant and inspiring health-related research community. The partnership seeks to appoint two individuals to work with SoAR’s Executive Director and Associate Director with responsibility for doctors and research scientists. These individuals will lead the development and delivery of implementation plans to realise the relevant strategic goals of UHSFT’s Research for Impact strategy and contribute to the broader ambitions of the strategic partnership between the Trust and University. Post holders will contribute to development of opportunities and initiatives designed to facilitate engagement of our healthcare professional workforce in many and varied ways, recognising every role and every professional is important - whether they're leading research in their field of interest, a co-applicant or principal investigator for studies, advising sponsors or sites about the shape and feasibility of their research, or taking a leading and essential role in recruitment and delivery of studies. Specifically, we wish to appoint two individuals employed by either UHSFT or University of Southampton, and an appreciation and passion for developing the research careers and contribution of nurses, midwives, allied health professions, pharmacists, and healthcare scientists. The portfolio of responsibility for each Associate Director will be negotiated on an annual basis, ensuring there is parity of activity and responsibilities across the two roles. These roles are being made available for 24 months in the first instance, potentially renewable. The successful candidates will have leadership and management skills, a PhD and a track-record of involvement in activities designed to build health research capacity and capability. Expressions of interest should be made through submission of a curriculum vitae (CV) and covering letter to Soar@uhs.nhs.uk. The covering letter should detail your reasons for applying, and what you would bring to the role. The deadline for submissions of expressions of interest is Friday 19th May 2023. Expressions of interest will be shortlisted. A short interview will be scheduled via MS Teams for shortlisted applicants. Contact Helen Down on h.down@soton.ac.uk to make an appointment to discuss this opportunity with Professor Alison Richardson, the Executive Director of SoAR See Appendix 1 for Role descriptor and Person Specification. Appendix 1 - Southampton Academy of Research (SoAR) Associate Director Role Descriptor and Person Specification Role title: Southampton Academy of Research (SoAR) Associate Director Time commitment: 0.2 WTE Role accountable to1: SoAR Executive Director UHS Director of R&D Posts works closely with: SoAR Associate Director with responsibility for doctors, research scientists and fellows, UoS Associate Dean for Research FoM, Deputy Head of School (Research) SoHS, R&D Head of Nursing & Health Professions, Chief Nurse and senior leaders of the health professions , Southampton BRC Academic Career Development Lead, ARC Wessex Academic Career Development Lead, Clinical Research Facility Director, Associate Medical Director of R&D, Southampton Centre for Research Impact and Engagement (SCRIE) team members, SoAR Office Manager and Administrator, R&D Finance and Grants team. Posts responsible for: None Background World-leading healthcare research requires excellent researchers. There is a need to build capacity and capability of our workforce through the coordination and provision of high-quality research training and career development. This requires a culture that encourages and enables individuals to develop their careers and apply their skills within professional practice to advance patient care. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHSFT) and University of Southampton host significant NIHR infrastructure. Building on our experience, we are well placed to lead the development of an increasingly coordinated approach to research training embedded within a busy NHS Foundation Trust, collaborating with partners across Wessex and nationally with similar initiatives, working in the spirit of ‘One NIHR’. Reflecting our commitment to career development SoAR established Associate Director roles to take responsibility for programmes of work focussed on building the Trust’s research capacity and capability through education, training, and career development of our research workforce, under the guidance and oversight of SoAR’s Executive Director. Vision UHSFTs ambition is to be a leading teaching hospital with a growing, reputable, and innovative research and development portfolio that attracts the best staff and efficiently delivers the best possible research, treatments and care for our patients. Establishing and sustain an environment where ‘our staff excel, bringing tomorrow's world-class care closer to today’. 1 Line management arrangements for the substantive post held by the individual will remain unchanged Key primary responsibilities 1. Provide leadership and management of SoAR’s contribution to Trust’ Research for Impact Strategy, under the oversight of, and support from, Executive Director 2. Take responsibility for the design, delivery and evaluation of initiatives focussed on building research engagement and research capacity and capability of the Trust’s health professions workforce. 3. Together with SoAR’s other Associate Director’s and SoAR administrative team, and where relevant infrastructure academic career development leads, develop and deliver SoAR designed events and resources, for example the Spring/Autumn School, co-designed and delivered with NIHR ARC Wessex. 4. Maintain and develop Southampton’s reputation as a leading centre for health research talent management. Work with colleagues in SCRIE and SoAR administrative team to promote the research-related achievements of SoAR ECR aligned community. 5. Attend, contribute to, and on occasion when delegated by the Executive Director, lead regular SoAR management meetings. 6. Manage SoAR’s group of early career researcher champions, providing support and encouragement to develop and deliver an annual plan of activities. 7. In conjunction with the Executive Director work collaboratively with relevant University Associate Deans/Heads for Research and Education, Trust R&D Director, BRC, CRF and ARC academic career development leads and senior managers to address challenges to clinical academic career progression 8. Together with the Executive Director advise the Trust on strategic direction for research training and education in context of national strategy and policy, representing in particular the career development needs of health professions pursuing, or wishing to pursue, a clinical academic career pathway. 9. Manage development and delivery of relevant aspects of SoAR business plan and associated budget 10. Work effectively with SoAR office manager and SoAR administrator to achieve an effective office function, providing day to day support and advice to team as required. Liaise with line manager of SoAR office staff to ensure a robust, timely and continuous administrative function is provided. 11. Oversee the budget, administration, monitoring and production of metrics relevant to work of SoAR in conjunction with other Associate Directors and R&D staff. 12. On rotation with other Associate Directors attend Joint Executive Group - Research to present reports (written and verbal) to report on progress against implementation plan and budget position for SoAR 13. Promote SoAR through public speaking, public engagement, and networking. Key primary responsibilities 14. Contribute to the integrated approach to research governance and management upholding standards of research governance through facilitating training and education opportunities. PERSON SPECIFICATION Criteria Qualifications, knowledge and experience Essential PhD or equivalent professional qualifications and experience in health research Detailed knowledge of health research A record of excellence in teaching and learning activities in health research Record of capacity building in research through championing, supporting and mentoring individuals and programmes Desirable Membership of national or international advisory bodies learned societies Involvement in national and international academies of science and organisations Membership of national committees that manage fellowship schemes, training and career development initiatives Experience of career mentoring Planning/Leadership Proven ability to champion and lead research and organising capability and capacity building activities, grants and awards Proven leadership ability in University, NHS and other settings Qualification in leadership Problem solving and Proven ability to implement successful change initiative management initiatives and formulate plans that reflect and support the priority needs of SoAR, NHS, University, UHS/UoS research partnership and other local stakeholders. Management and teamwork Proven ability to oversee people and resource management processes in order to deliver key activities. Proven ability to make contribution to leadership at a senior level. Proven ability to demonstrate leadership abilities in multiple settings and to raise performance standards through own work areas. Proven ability to recognise and deal with obstacles and difficulties so a team can deliver. Communicating and Proven ability to establish and build influencing relationships with stakeholders. Able to contribute to the development of the UHS/UoS partnership profile. Proven ability to use influence to develop strategies and plan. Other skills and behaviours Compliance with relevant Health & Safety issues Positive attitude to colleagues and students Special requirements Able to attend regional and national meetings if required The post holder must hold a substantive appointment at either UHSFT or UoS. If the contract is with UoS they will either have, or be willing to make an application for an honorary contract with UHSFT.
Url: /Media/Southampton-Clinical-Research/Downloads/Expressions-of-interest-in-SoAR-Associate-Director-role-JD-and-PS-24-4-2023.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 11 November 2025

Description: Date Time Location Chair Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 11/11/2025 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre Jenni Douglas-Todd 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 2 Patient Story (item deferred) The patient story provides an opportunity for the Board to reflect on the experiences of patients and staff within the Trust and understand what the Trust could do better. 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 9 September 2025 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 September 2025 4 Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions To discuss any matters arising from the minutes, and to agree on the status of any actions assigned at the previous meeting. 5 QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE Quality includes: clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee 9:05 Keith Evans, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance, Investment & Cash Committee 9:10 David Liverseidge, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:15 Committee Jane Harwood, Chair 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee 9:20 Tim Peachey, Chair 5.5 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:25 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 10:00 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer 5.7 Break 10:40 5.8 Finance Report for Month 6 10:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.9 ICB System Report for Month 6 11:05 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.10 11:10 People Report for Month 6 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.11 NHSE Audit and review of 'Developing Workforce Safeguards' including 11:20 UHS Self-Assessment Return Review and approve the self-assessment return Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer 5.12 11:30 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report and Update on 10-Point Plan Review and discuss the report and update Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant 5.13 Annual Clinical Outcomes Summary Report 11:45 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendees: Lucinda Hood, Head of Medical Directorate/Kate Pryde, Clinical Director for Improvement and Clinical Effectiveness 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2025-26 Quarter 2 Review 11:55 Review and feedback on the corporate objectives Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendee: Martin de Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 12:05 Review and discuss the update Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary/Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager Page 2 7 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors' (CoG) meeting 28 October 2025 12:15 (Oral) Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 7.2 Register of Seals and Chair's Actions Report 12:25 Receive and ratify In compliance with the Trust Standing Orders, Financial Instructions, and the Scheme of Reservation and Delegation. Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 7.3 Health and Safety Services Annual Report 2024-25 12:30 Receive and discuss Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Vickie Purdie, Head of Patient Safety/Scott Spencer, Health and Safety Adviser 8 Any other business 12:40 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 9 Note the date of the next meeting: 13 January 2026 10 Items circulated to the Board for reading 12:45 10.1 South Central Regional Research Delivery Network (SC RRDN) 2025-26 Q2 Performance Report Note the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer 11 Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair To agree, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust's Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. 12 Follow-up discussion with governors 12:45 Page 3 Agenda links to the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) 11 November 2025 – Open Session Overview of the BAF Risk 1a: Lack of capacity to appropriately respond to emergency demand, manage the increasing waiting lists for elective demand, and provide timely diagnostics, that results in avoidable harm to patients. 1b: Due to the current challenges, we fail to provide patients and their families / carers with a high-quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes. 1c: We do not effectively plan for and implement infection prevention and control measures that reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections and limit the number of nosocomial outbreaks of infection. 2a: We do not take full advantage of our position as a leading University teaching hospital with a growing, reputable, and innovative research and development portfolio, attracting the best staff and efficiently delivering the best possible treatments and care for our patients. 3a: We are unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to the unavailability of staff to fulfil key roles. 3b: We fail to develop a diverse, compassionate, and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive staff experience for all staff. 3c: We fail to create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs identified in the Trust’s longer-term workforce plan. 4a: We do not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in sub-optimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. 5a: We are unable to deliver a financial breakeven position, resulting in: inability to move out of the NHS England Recovery Support Programme, NHS England imposing additional controls/undertakings, and a reducing cash balance impacting the Trust’s ability to invest in line with its capital plan, estates/digital strategies, and in transformation initiatives. 5b: We do not adequately maintain, improve and develop our estate to deliver our clinical services and increase capacity. 5c: Our digital technology or infrastructure fails to the extent that it impacts our ability to deliver care effectively and safely within the organisation, 5d: We fail to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce our direct and indirect carbon footprint by 80% by 2028-2032 (compared with a 1990 baseline) and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045. Agenda links to the BAF No Item Linked BAF risk(s) 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 5.8 Finance Report for Month 6 5.9 ICB System Report for Month 6 5.10 People Report for Month 6 5.11 Workforce Safeguards Self-Assessment 5.12 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 5.13 Clinical Outcomes Summary Report 1a, 1b, 1c 5a 5a 3a, 3b, 3c 1a, 3a 3a, 3b 1a, 1b Appetite (Category) Minimal (Safety) Current risk rating 4x5 20 Cautious (Experience) Minimal (Safety) 4x4 16 4x4 16 Open (Technology & Innovation) 3x4 12 Open (workforce) Open (workforce) Open (workforce) 4x5 20 4x3 12 4x4 16 Cautious (Effectiveness) 3x3 9 Cautious (Finance) 5x5 25 Target risk rating 4 x 2 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 3 Apr 6 27 3 x 2 Mar 6 27 4 x 3 Mar 12 30 4 x 2 Mar 8 30 3 x 2 Mar 6 29 3 x 2 Dec 6 25 3 x 3 Apr 9 30 Cautious (Effectiveness) Open (Technology & Innovation) Open (Technology & Innovation) 4x5 20 3x4 12 2x4 8 4 x 2 Apr 8 30 3 x 2 Apr 6 27 2 x 2 Dec 4 27 Does this item facilitate movement towards or away from the intended target risk score and appetite? Towards Away Neither x x x x x x x Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date 09/09/2025 Time 9:00 – 13:00 Location Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Diana Eccles, NED (DE) Keith Evans, Deputy Chair and NED (KE) Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer (PG) Steve Harris, Chief People Officer (SH) Jane Harwood, NED/Senior Independent Director (JH) Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer (IH) Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer (AH) David Liverseidge, NED (DL) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) In attendance Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (LA) (item 6.1) Danielle Honey, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Children (DH) (item 5.14) Lucinda Hood, Head of Medical Directorate (LH) (item 5.15) Duncan Linning-Karp, Deputy Chief Operating Officer (DL-K) (item 5.6) Corinne Miller, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Adults (CMi) (item 5.14) Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience (JM) (items 5.11-5.12) 1 member of the public (item 2) 30 members of staff (observing) 6 members of the public (observing) Apologies Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer (GB) David French, Chief Executive Officer (DAF) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) 1. Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting. There were no interests to declare in the business to be transacted at the meeting. It was noted that apologies had been received from Gail Byrne, David French and Tim Peachey. The Chair provided an overview of meetings she had held and events that she had attended since the previous Board meeting. 2. Patient Story Aelwen Emmett, a volunteer at the Trust and former patient was invited to present her experience, focusing particularly on her work to improve the standard of food offered to patients. 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 15 July 2025 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 15 July 2025. Page 1 4. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions The matters arising and actions were noted. In respect of action 1246, it was noted that virtual outpatient appointments had now been built into the Trust’s programme. Furthermore, meetings were to be held with commissioners and the cancer network to improve the quality of referrals. It was noted that action 1246 could be closed. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee David Liverseidge was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 21 July and 2 September 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In July 2025, the Trust had reported that it was £1.1m adverse to its plan, but that the underlying trajectory was improving. • The committee received an update from Wessex NHS Procurement Limited, noting that the company was on track in terms of its Cost Improvement Programme target. • The committee had received an update in respect of both the proposed Hampshire and Isle of Wight elective hub and a possible Urgent Treatment Centre at Southampton. • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 4 (item 5.8), noting that the Trust had reported a year-to-date deficit of £19.5m, which was £5.8m adverse to plan. Key drivers for the Trust’s financial position included the lack of improvement in the number of patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients, the continued difference between funded and actual activity under block contracts, lower than anticipated income, and higher than planned workforce numbers. • The Trust was ahead of its plan on Cost Improvement Programme delivery. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s proposed Financial Recovery Plan and noted the need to ensure that the long-term impact of decisions needed to be taken into account. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s cash position and noted that cash support would be required in the Autumn and that the committee would be amending its terms of reference to expand its role in terms of cash monitoring and oversight. • The committee reviewed the Board Assurance Framework risks within its remit, noting that Risk 5a had increased to 25 due to the risk associated with the Trust’s cash position (item 6.1). 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee Jane Harwood was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 21 July and 1 September 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee reviewed the People Report for Month 4 (item 5.10), noting that there continued to be significant demands on the Trust’s workforce, especially due to the number of patients having no criteria to reside and patients with a primary mental health need. Whilst the Trust’s substantive workforce had reduced, there had been an increase in the number of temporary staff resulting in the Trust reporting that it was 55 whole-time- equivalents above its plan. Page 2 • The committee considered the impact of the recruitment controls on the administrative and clerical workforce and the potential for shortages in these areas causing issues elsewhere. • The committee received an update in respect of the Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme (MARS), noting that 65 applications had been approved. • The committee received an update on the recruitment of newly qualified nurses, noting that the Trust had pre-empted the announcement of a ‘guarantee’ by the Secretary of State. • The committee reviewed the workforce related elements of the Trust’s Financial Recovery Plan, noting the challenges in delivering what was required and the Trust’s reliance on improvements in patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients. • The committee reviewed its terms of reference, proposing to make only minor changes (item 7.2). 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee Diana Eccles was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 18 August 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee considered the proposal to revise enhanced rates paid to temporary staff in certain areas to remove the enhancement and bring rates into line with Agenda for Change rates. The committee noted the impact on staff and the concerns expressed by staff members. However, it was further noted that the enhancements were not intended to be permanent. • The committee received the Experience of Care report and noted a continuation in the trend observed during Quarter 4 of staff attitudes featuring as a reason for complaint. It was considered likely that this was indicative of the pressures on staff. • The committee reviewed the Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2025-26 Quarter 1 Report, noting that an action plan was in place in respect of the Maternity Triage Line to address some shortcomings identified in the process. • The committee received the Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 1 Report (item 5.11), noting that the Trust was one of only 11 trusts out of 119 with a lower-than-expected death rate during the period. • The committee reviewed the Safeguarding Annual Report 2024-25 and Strategy 2025-26 (item 5.14), noting that activity levels remained consistent with prior years, but the complexity of cases had increased. 5.4 Chief Executive Officer’s Report Paul Grundy was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The NHS league tables for 2025 had been published on 9 September 2025. The Trust had ranked 48th out of 134 and had been placed in segment 3 of the NHS Oversight Framework due to the effect of the ‘financial override’. The Trust was temporarily in segment 5 due to being in the Recovery Support Programme. • Trusts were required to submit self-assessments for the Provider Capability Assessment during October 2025. This would inform decisions relating to which organisations to place in the Performance Improvement Programme. • Resident doctors undertook strike action between 25 and 30 July 2025. Approximately one-third of those eligible at the Trust took part in the industrial action and the Trust had performed well in terms of mitigating the impact on activity. Page 3 • The Royal College of Nursing had published results of its analysis of violence and aggression against nursing staff in emergency departments, noting that the number of incidents had increased from 2,093 in 2019 to 4,054 in 2024. • NHS England had published a series of urgent and emergency care improvement guides to assist organisations with managing the winter period. • A number of changes to the organisation of local councils in Hampshire and Southampton were proposed as part of national plans to create unitary councils in place of existing county and district/borough councils. 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 4 Andy Hyett was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had reported an increase in the number of patients waiting over 52, 65 and 78 weeks alongside an increase in the overall waiting list. The Trust had entered Tier 2 escalation for Referral To Treatment performance. • The Trust had been placed in Tier 1 escalation due to the gap between its current Emergency Department performance and its performance plan for 2025/26. However, indicative data for August and September 2025 showed improved performance. • Work was ongoing to improve flow with task and finish groups established to review the discharge process and to implement rapid improvements. • The number of patients having no criteria to reside and those with a primary mental health need remained high. A workshop had been set up with Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust in respect of mental health patients. • Steps were being undertaken to reduce the number of inappropriate attendances in the Emergency Department with patients potentially redirected to other areas. However, an Urgent Treatment Centre would be key to alleviating pressure on the Emergency Department in the longer term. The Board discussed the Trust’s performance against national standards. This discussion is summarised below: • Performance against the 62-day standard for cancer waiting times was an area of focus to ensure more consistent performance. • Work was ongoing to extend shared decision-making in order to involve patients in decisions about their care and treatment, noting however that this was more of a challenge with inpatients. • There was a challenge in terms of managing the demand for patients requiring diagnostic services. It was noted that there had been issues with availability of equipment over the summer period. It was acknowledged that diagnostics performance also impacted other areas such as cancer and Emergency Department metrics. • The percentage of over 65s attending the Emergency Department was expected to be a key metric to monitor over the winter period. Actions Andy Hyett agreed to look at the roll out of Pharmacy First. Andy Hyett agreed to carry out a deep-dive into Diagnostics to be either provided as a ‘Spotlight’ in the Performance KPI Report or via a Trust Board Study Session. Page 4 5.6 UHS Operating Plan 2025-26 and Board Assurance Statement Andy Hyett was invited to present the Operating Plan 2025-26 and Board Assurance Statement, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Operating Plan provided a summary of plans from October 2025 to September 2026, sitting alongside other key policies such as those relating to infection prevention control, major incidents, and influenza. • The Operating Plan would also serve as the Trust’s winter plan, which was recognised as a period of increased pressure. The Board discussed the proposed Operating Plan for 2025/26, this discussion is summarised below: • It was considered likely that, even with delivery of the demand management schemes being led by the Integrated Care Board (ICB), there would be a gap between demand and capacity over the winter period in particular. Therefore, further interventions to improve discharge rates and to reduce the number of patients having no criteria to reside would be necessary. In addition, the Trust would be required to make potentially difficult decisions in respect of prioritisation of patients and possible cancellation of elective procedures. • Concerns were expressed in relation to the trend of low uptakes of seasonal vaccinations, such as that against influenza, which had been seen since the COVID-19 pandemic. This situation would likely create further challenges due to patients with seasonal illnesses requiring additional infection prevention control measures. Furthermore, low uptake by staff members would likely result in increased rates of staff sickness and, accordingly, reduced capacity and/or increased expenditure on temporary staffing. • It was understood that there was a NHS campaign to encourage staff in particular to be vaccinated against influenza, and that plans were in place for senior leaders to visibly support this campaign through being vaccinated. • The Board challenged whether the Trust could meet the targets set out in the Operating Plan given the financial and other pressures currently experienced. • It was additionally noted that the Trust was reliant on external support and delivery of external demand management programmes led by the ICB in order to be able to meet the performance targets, especially in terms of management of the number of patients having no criteria to reside and those with a primary mental health need. • Furthermore, the Trust’s financial position was such that it was required to produce a financial recovery plan, which would require additional financial savings to be made. • It was agreed that the Board should fully consider whether to approve the Operating Plan once it had considered the Trust’s financial recovery plan in the Closed Session of the meeting. [Note: the matters below forming part of item 5.6 were discussed following the approval of the Trust’s financial recovery plan in the Closed Session.] Noting that the Board had discussed and supported the Trust’s financial recovery plan, subject to certain caveats, the Board again discussed the proposed Operating Plan for 2025/26. This discussion is summarised below: • The Trust’s financial recovery plan would need to be supported by NHS England and would also need to deliver in order for the Trust to be able to meet the performance targets set out in the Operating Plan. • The Trust continued to have significant dependence on third parties, especially other providers, the Integrated Care Board, and local authorities, to be able to successfully reduce the number of patients having no criteria to Page 5 reside or number of mental health patients. Without these reductions, the Trust would face significant capacity constraints, which would impact its performance, especially during periods of high demand. Decision Noting the discussions in the Closed Session in respect of the financial recovery plan, and having reviewed the proposed Operating Plan 2025-26 and accompanying Board Assurance Statement, the Board approved the Operating Plan 2025-26 and its submission, subject to the following: • delivery of system-wide programmes to manage demand and reduce numbers of non-criteria to reside and mental health patients, • appropriate support being provided by third parties, including local providers, the Integrated Care Board, and local authorities, especially in terms of supporting discharges and managing numbers of non-criteria to reside and mental health patients, and • support from NHS England for and delivery of the Trust’s financial recovery plan. In addition, the Board authorised the Chair and Chief Executive Officer to sign the Board Assurance Statement. 5.7 Break 5.8 Finance Report for Month 4 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust had reported an in-month deficit of £6.8m (£4.8m above plan), although the underlying deficit was showing improvement, reducing to £6.6m. However, this trajectory was not sufficient to deliver the plan. • The Trust was carrying out approximately £2.5m of unfunded activity per month. In order to tackle some of this amount, the Trust had conducted negotiations with other providers and systems to address underfunding on contracts. • There were concerns about whether the Trust’s elective over-performance during the first half of the year would be fully funded. Whilst agreement had been reached in respect of funding three months of over-performance, it was not clear whether this would be replicated in the future. • The Trust would be seeking an activity management plan, which would detail which activities to cease to perform on the basis that the Trust continuing to over-perform against agreed funded activity levels was financially unsustainable and that it was not reasonable that the Trust should be criticised for falling performance in areas such as waiting lists as it sought to manage its finances. • The Trust’s cash position remained an area of concern with cash support to be requested from NHS England. • There appeared to be an emerging risk of slippage against the Trust’s capital programme, which was to be discussed at the Finance and Investment Committee. 5.9 ICS Operational Delivery Report for Month 4 Ian Howard was invited to present the ICS Operational Delivery Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust was the only organisation within the system currently reporting being off plan. However, there were indicators from other providers with Page 6 significant risks being highlighted about organisations’ abilities to meet their 2025/26 plans. • There was an error in the report in respect of the Trust’s workforce numbers. A correction to the report had been requested. • The Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICS plan was for a breakeven position at the end of 2025/26. However, this was reliant on receipt of £60m of deficit support funding from NHS England, which was at risk because the Trust was no longer reporting being on plan. 5.10 People Report for Month 4 It was noted that two questions had been received from members of the public prior to the meeting (see Annex A), both of which related to the decision to remove the enhancement from NHS Professionals rates paid to staff in certain areas of the Trust such as in Theatres and in the Emergency Department. It was further noted that: • A discussion had also been held with staff prior to the Board meeting, at which a number of other questions had been raised. In particular, staff had expressed concerns about their feeling valued by the organisation. • The reasoning behind the decision to remove the enhancement previously paid on temporary staffing rates was explained as being to provide consistency with other staffing groups and with other providers by aligning rates paid with Agenda for Change rates. This change was part of a package of measures to improve the financial position of the Trust. • The decision to remove the enhancement was supported by an Equality and Quality Impact Assessment as part of the Trust’s process for making decisions of this nature. [Post meeting note: Following the meeting, the Royal College of Nursing, on behalf of its members in the affected areas, submitted a collective dispute. The questions raised in advance of the meeting, together with other related points, were to be addressed as part of the collective dispute process.] Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 4, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s plan for 2025/26 was for a reduction in whole-time-equivalents (WTE) by 765. Whilst the Trust had reduced the size of its workforce, it was still 55 WTE off-plan. • The Trust had reduced the number of divisions from four to three and had implemented recruitment controls whereby only 70% of clinical posts would be recruited to and a prohibition on recruitment to non-clinical posts. • The Trust had also carried out a Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme (MARS) and had made some redundancies in discrete areas. It was noted, however, that there was a lack of funding for severance payments, which limited the Trust’s options with respect to steps it could take to reduce its workforce. • Temporary staffing was a particular area of focus, both in terms of numbers of temporary staff but also in terms of the cost paid for such staff. This aligned with the work of the South East temporary staffing collaborative which aimed to reduce the price of temporary labour in both bank and agency. Page 7 • Despite its challenges during 2025/26, the Trust had proactively offered roles to newly-qualified nurses ahead of the Secretary of State’s announcement of a ‘graduate guarantee’ on the basis that, from a strategic perspective, the Trust needed to take into account its future workforce requirements. Action Steve Harris and Andy Hyett agreed to respond to the questions and points raised at the meeting held with staff in respect of the NHS Professionals rates matter. 5.11 Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 1 Report Jenny Milner was invited to present the Learning from Deaths 2025/26 Quarter 1 Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s summary hospital-level mortality indicator (SHMI) score continued its downward trajectory and was the lowest value recorded since 2018. As such, the Trust was one of only 11 trusts nationally to achieve a lower-thanexpected mortality rate. • Work was ongoing to disseminate lessons from end-of-life care and an additional module for the Ulysses system had been purchased to facilitate data capture and standardisation for Morbidity and Mortality meetings. Action Jenny Milner was to provide further information to the Board in respect of why the Trust’s SHMI score remained low. 5.12 Annual Complaints Report 2024-25 Jenny Milner was invited to present the Annual Complaints Report 2024/25, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report provided details of complaints received between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 and was the first full year of reporting against the new standard introduced by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). • Complaints activity had increased by 40% and the Trust was not currently meeting response targets. • The Trust benchmarked higher than others in terms of complaints not upheld. The Board discussed the Trust’s approach to complaints handling and, in particular, whether the Trust was an outlier in terms of the number of complaints not upheld. The Board challenged whether complaints deemed as ‘not upheld’ ought, in some instances, to be considered ‘partially upheld’. Consideration should therefore be given to reviewing the Trust’s complaints against PHSO referrals and outcomes. Action Jenny Milner was to provide further information regarding how the Trust was planning to meet complaints response times. Page 8 5.13 Medical Appraisal and Revalidation Annual Report including Board Statement of Compliance Paul Grundy was invited to present the Medical Appraisal and Revalidation Annual Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The framework published by NHS England was designed to allow the Trust to provide assurance that its professional standards processes meet the relevant statutory requirements and support quality improvement. • Feedback in respect of the appraisals process had been largely positive. • Appraisal compliance rates had continued to rise across the year with a current average of 88.8%. • The Board was required to approve a Statement of Compliance confirming that the Trust was compliant with the Medical Profession (Responsible Officers) Regulations 2010 (as amended). Decision Having considered the Medical Appraisal and Revalidation Annual Report tabled to the meeting, the Board authorised the Chair or Chief Executive Officer to sign the Statement of Compliance. 5.14 Safeguarding Annual Report 2024-25 and Strategy 2025-26 Danielle Honey was invited to present the Safeguarding Annual Report 2024/25 and Strategy for 2025/26, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The report summarised the activity of the Trust’s safeguarding service in 2024/25. It was noted that the service had contributed to reviews of 56 patients where a statutory review had been considered. • The number of referrals under section 42 of the Care Act 2014 caused by Southampton City Council had reduced following the implementation of the council’s new processes. This was not reflective of a reduction in the number of UHS referrals or the complexity of the referrals responded to. • There had been an increase in the number of open cases with Southampton City Council and there had been a 13% increase in the number of patients subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. • There had also been an increase in the number of scoping reviews compared to prior years, although fewer were progressing to formal reviews. • Following a survey of staff, work was underway to improve the visibility of the team and there was a focus on team wellbeing with support from the psychology team. • The situation in respect of expected changes in the role of integrated care boards was being monitored due to the potential for changes in the team’s scope and remit. Page 9 6. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Lauren Anderson was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework update, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • All risks had been reviewed by the relevant executive directors since July 2025. • The revised risk appetites agreed by the Board in July 2025 were being embedded. • The rating of Risk 5a had increased from 20 to 25 due to the lack of agreement for cash support. However, once this agreement had been obtained and the Financial Recovery Plan was in place, it was expected that this risk would again reduce to 20. • An audit of the Trust’s risk management maturity by the Trust’s internal auditors was near to completion. 7. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors’ (COG) Meeting 16 July 2025 The Chair presented a summary of the Council of Governors’ meeting held on 16 July 2025. It was noted that the meeting had considered the following matters: • Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Report • The Trust’s 2025/26 Operating Plan • Council of Governors’ Terms of Reference • Membership Engagement • Feedback from the Governors’ Nomination Committee Furthermore, the Council of Governors approved the extension of the appointment of Tim Peachey as a non-executive director for a period of 12 months. 7.2 People and Organisational Development Committee Terms of Reference Craig Machell was invited to present the proposed changes to the People and Organisational Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The People and Organisational Development Committee had reviewed its terms of reference at its meeting on 1 September 2025. • It was proposed to make only minor changes to remove reference to the Charitable Funds Committee, which no longer existed. Decision Having considered the proposed amendments to the People and Organisational Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, the Board approved the changes. Page 10 8. Any other business It was noted that it was organ donation week during 22-28 September 2025. Action Craig Machell agreed to add organ donation to the agenda of a future Trust Board Study Session. 9. Note the date of the next meeting: 11 November 2025 10. Items circulated to the Board for reading The item circulated to the Board for reading was noted. There being no further business, the meeting concluded. 11. Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Decision: The Board resolved that, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust’s Constitution and the Standing Orders of the board of directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. The meeting was adjourned. Page 11 Annex A Questions: 1. The Board has agreed a cut in bank pay rates for nursing staff, resulting in local staff being unlikely to maintain their bank roles in this organisation, (based on a survey of over 450 nurses within the affected areas). Currently these roles provide staffing in areas such as theatres and other specialised areas, the impact being these departments can use local skills and knowledge to provide seamless operational delivery. How can the board provide assurance that, a) this will not impact on safety for patients, and b) they truly value nurses for the professional skills they provide for this Trust. 2. Our Emergency Department has recently been placed under Tier 1 monitoring by NHS England, reflecting serious national concerns about safety and performance. The department is already regularly understaffed, with patient care frequently delayed as a result. In light of this, how can the Trust justify reducing NHSP pay rates for Emergency Department nurses — a decision that risks deterring skilled staff from covering shifts and further compromising patient safety and the delivery of safe, timely care? What specific steps will the Trust take to mitigate these risks to patients and staff if the changes go ahead? Page 12 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 15/07/2025 - 5.11 Freedom to Speak Up Report 1267. Data Mbabazi, Christine Watts, Natasha 13/01/2026 Pending Explanation action item Christine Mbabazi to include data from other mechanisms for reporting concerns in future Freedom to Speak Up reports. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 4 1281. Pharmacy First Hyett, Andy 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to look at the roll out of Pharmacy First. 1282. Diagnostics Hyett, Andy 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to carry out a deep-dive into Diagnostics to be either provided as a ‘Spotlight’ in the Performance KPI Report or via a Trust Board Study Session. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 5.10 People Report for Month 4 1283. NHS Professionals rates Harris, Steve Hyett, Andy 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Steve Harris and Andy Hyett agreed to respond to the questions and points raised at the meeting held with staff in respect of the NHS Professionals rates matter. Page 1 of 2 Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 5.11 Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 1 Report 1284. SHMI score Milner, Jenny Watts, Natasha 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Jenny Milner was to provide further information to the Board in respect of why the Trust’s SHMI score remained low. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 5.12 Annual Complaints Report 2024-25 1285. Response times Milner, Jenny Watts, Natasha 11/11/2025 Pending Explanation action item Jenny Milner was to provide further information regarding how the Trust was planning to meet complaints response times. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 8 Any other business 1286. Organ donation Machell, Craig 18/12/2025 Pending Explanation action item Craig Machell agreed to add organ donation to the agenda of a future Trust Board Study Session. Update: To be scheduled 18/12/25 or 03/02/26. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.1 Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 11 November 2025 Committee: Audit & Risk Committee Meeting Date: 13 October 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • • The committee reviewed and discussed the outputs of a ‘lessons learned’ activity following the late publication of the Trust’s annual report and accounts. It was noted that a number of actions had been agreed and that a trial run would be conducted at Month 9. The committee noted the proposal to tender for new valuers for 2025/26 and the review of the Modern Equivalent Asset estimation methodology that would be carried out during the year. The committee agreed with a proposal to write off historical debt from private (mostly overseas) patients on the basis that it was irrecoverable. There had been 68 waivers of competitive tendering during the first half of 2025/26, most of which related to continued service provision. It was noted that the submission as part of the National Cost Collection exercise had been completed in July 2025 and that the Trust was 7% more efficient than the average based on the data. An update was received in respect of Information Governance. The Trust’s Data Security and Protection Toolkit was now rated as ‘approaching standards’ and progress had been made in respect of the backlog in subject access requests. The committee received an update in respect of legal expenditure and claims during 2024/25. The committee reviewed the internal audit reports on the Data Security and Protection Toolkit, CQC Readiness, and risk maturity. The committee received an update on the progress of the Trust’s local counter-fraud team against the plan for 2025/26, noting that imposter fraud was an area of focus. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) 6.2 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial N/A • The committee had last reviewed the BAF in March 2025, and there had been a definite increase in the level of risk with the ratings of four of the risks having increased since then. • Approximately 25% of the risks on the Trust’s operational risk register were rated ‘critical’ (i.e. 15 or above). • The internal audit of risk management had been positive and the Trust’s risk management framework was considered as being mature. Any Other N/A Matters: Page 1 of 2 Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. No Assurance There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Not Applicable Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.2 i) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 11 November 2025 Committee: Finance and Investment Committee Meeting Date: 22 September 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 5. The Trust had reported an in-month deficit of £5.9m and £25.4m deficit year-todate. The in-month deficit was £4.2m above the original plan, but was in line with the trajectory in the Financial Recovery Plan. The Trust’s underlying deficit had continued to improve, reducing to £6.2m, although this improvement was not yet at the pace required. The main drivers of the variance to plan were variances in income compared with what had been expected during 2025/26 and variances in terms of pay costs. The Trust was expecting to be 95 whole-timeequivalents above plan at year end based on current assumptions. It was noted that the Trust had identified 100% of Cost Improvement Programme savings at Month 5 and 76% of schemes were fully developed. Approximately £37m of savings had been delivered between Months 1 and 5, although higher than anticipated levels of non-recurrent savings had been delivered. The committee reviewed the Trust’s capital forecast, noting that there was a risk of a shortfall against the Trust’s internal CDEL. An update was received regarding the Urgent and Emergency Care transformation programme. The committee received the annual assurance report from UHS Pharmacy Limited, noting the company’s performance during the year and the work being done to expand services internally and externally. The committee considered the Trust’s cash forecast for Month 5, noting that the Trust’s underlying deficit was steadily eroding the Trust’s cash balance. The Trust had introduced strict treasury management measures and had previously received advance payments from the ICB as a means to mitigate the cash position. However, it had been necessary to submit a request for revenue support from NHS England in September 2025 and further such applications would be required from November 2025 onwards. In order to increase the focus on and governance of cash-related matters, the committee reviewed its terms of reference to strengthen the cash-related provisions and agreed to recommend to the Board that the committee be re-constituted as the Finance, Investment and Cash Committee with an Operating Cash Group reporting into the committee. Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) N/A Any Other Matters: The revised terms of reference for the committee were reviewed and approved at the Board meeting held on 7 October 2025. Page 1 of 2 Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. Reasonable There is a series of controls in place, however there are potential risks that Assurance may not be sufficient to ensure that the individual objectives of the process are achieved in a continuous and effective manner. Improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls to mitigate these risks. Limited Assurance Controls in place are not sufficient to ensure that the organisation can rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Significant improvements are required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls. No Assurance There is a fundamental breakdown or absence of core internal controls such that the organisation cannot rely upon them to manage the risks to the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process. Immediate action is required to improve the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. Not Applicable Where assurance is not required and/or relevant. Risk Rating: Low Medium High Not Applicable Based on the report considered by the committee, there is little or no concern that the Trust will be unable to meet its stated objectives and/or plans. There is some concern that the Trust might not be able to fully meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. There is a significant risk that the Trust will not be able to meet its stated objectives and/or plans based on the information contained in the report considered by the committee. Where risk rating is not relevant. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.2 ii) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 11 November 2025 Committee: Finance, Investment and Cash Committee Meeting Date: 3 November 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • • • • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 6 (see below). The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s performance against its Financial Recovery Plan, noting that progress had been made in terms of putting plans in place regarding patients with no criteria to reside and mental health patients. Good progress had also been made in respect of the ‘grip and control’ measures. At Month 6, the Trust remained on track with the Financial Recovery Plan. An overview of the recently published Medium Term Planning framework was provided. It was noted that the first submission of the Trust’s three-year plan was due before
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2025-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-11-November-2025.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 10 September 2024

Description: Agenda Trust Board – Open Session Date 10/09/2024 Time 9:00 - 13:00 Location Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd Apologies Diana Eccles (10:00-12:00) In attendance Jessica Bown, Midwifery Quality Assurance and Safety Matron (shadowing Gail Byrne) 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 2 Patient Story The patient story provides an opportunity for the Board to reflect on the experiences of patients and staff within the Trust and understand what the Trust could do better. 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 25 July 2024 9:15 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 July 2024 4 Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions To discuss any matters arising from the minutes, and to agree on the status of any actions assigned at the previous meeting. 5 QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE Quality includes: clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee (Oral) 9:20 Dave Bennett, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:25 Committee (Oral) Jane Harwood, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee (Oral) 9:30 Tim Peachey, Chair 5.4 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:35 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.5 Patient Safety and Quality of Care in Pressurised Services 9:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer Attendee: Duncan Linning-Karp, Deputy Chief Operating Officer 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 4 10:05 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.7 Finance Report for Month 4 10:30 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.8 Break 10:40 5.9 People Report for Month 4 10:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.10 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 11:10 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Diana Hulbert, Emergency Medicine Consultant and Guardian of Safe Working Hours 5.11 Learning from Deaths 2024-25 Quarter 1 Report 11:25 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience 5.12 Medical Appraisal and Revalidation Annual Report including Board 11:40 Statement of Compliance Receive and note the Annual Report. Approve the Statement of Compliance. Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer 5.13 Safeguarding Annual Report 2023-24 11:55 Receive and discuss Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Corinne Miller, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Adults/ Danielle Honey, Named Nurse for Safeguarding Children 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update 12:10 Review and discuss the update Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary/Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager Page 2 7 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Register of Seals and Chair's Actions Report 12:20 Receive and ratify In compliance with the Trust Standing Orders, Financial Instructions, and the Scheme of Reservation and Delegation. Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 7.2 Health and Safety Annual Report 2023-24 12:25 Receive and discuss Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Jane Fisher, Head of Health and Safety Services 7.3 People and Organisational Development Committee Terms of Reference 12:35 Review and approve Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 8 Any other business 12:40 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 9 Note the date of the next meeting: 5 November 2024 10 Items circulated to the Board for reading 10.1 CRN: Wessex 2024-25 Q1 Performance Report Note the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer 11 Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair To agree, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust's Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. 12 Follow-up discussion with governors 12:45 Page 3 Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date Time 25/07/2024 9:00 – 13:00 Location Anaesthetic Seminar Room (CE95/99)/Microsoft Teams Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Dave Bennett, NED (DB) Jenni Douglas-Todd, Chair (JD-T) Diana Eccles, NED (DE) Keith Evans, Deputy Chair and NED (KE) David French, Chief Executive Officer (DAF) Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer (PG) Steve Harris, Chief People Officer (SH) Jane Harwood, NED/Senior Independent Director (JH) Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer (IH) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) (until 12:00) Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer (JT) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) Natasha Watts, Interim Deputy Chief Nursing Officer (NW) (for G Byrne) In attendance Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships (MDeS) Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (LA) (item 6.3) Kelly Kent, Head of Strategy and Partnerships (KK) (item 6.1) Marie Nelson, R&D Head of Nursing and Health Professions (MN) (item 6.2) Karen Underwood, Director of R&D (KU) (item 6.2) Kerrie Montoute, Head of Programmes, CDO Directorate at NHSE (shadowing JDT) 1 member of the public (item 2) 3 governors (observing) 3 members of staff (observing) 2 members of the public (observing) Apologies Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer (GB) 1. Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting. There were no interests to declare in the business to be transacted at the meeting. It was noted that apologies had been received from Gail Byrne. The Board welcomed Alison Tattersall, who joined the Board as a non-executive director on 1 June 2024. The Chair provided an overview of her activities since June 2024, including visits to hospital departments, meetings with peers and other key stakeholders. 2. Patient Story Georgia Blackman and her parents were invited to relate their story following Georgia’s admission with serious head and abdominal injuries after a car accident in November 2023. She had not been expected to survive, but had instead made Page 1 a very good recovery and was undergoing rehabilitation and had regained some sight. The family related their experience of being told that their daughter was going to die and the importance of how this message is delivered was highlighted. It was further noted that where a patient is between 16 and 18 years old it was necessary to consider whether they are managed as a child or as an adult in terms of their care. 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 6 June 2024 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 6 June 2024. 4. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions It was noted that there were no matters arising or overdue actions. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee The chair of the Audit and Risk Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 27 June 2024 and the subsequent meeting of a committee authorised to approve the final annual report and accounts for 2023/24 held on 16 July 2024. It was noted that the annual report and accounts had been submitted to NHS England on 19 July 2024 and that the Trust’s external auditor had provided a ‘clean’ audit opinion. 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee The chair of the Finance and Investment Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 22 July 2024. It was noted that: • The committee had reviewed the Finance Report for Month 3 (item 5.8). • The committee had examined the Trust’s progress on its transformation programme, and noted in particular the success in reducing length of stay by 5% for P0 patients as part of the discharge programme. • The committee received a report on the Trust’s productivity and noted that the national methodology used created a confusing position and did not incorporate the impacts of certain factors which should be included. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s activities in the digital space and noted that capital in this area was primarily used for maintenance rather than development and that there was a significant infrastructure risk due to the Trust’s current data centre set up. It was further noted that better understanding of the benefits of digital development and timescales was required. • The Trust had agreed to participate in establishing a separate legal entity to seek investment to exploit intellectual property rights jointly developed by the Trust and the University of Southampton. 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee The chair of the People and Organisational Development Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 22 July 2024. It was noted that: • The committee reviewed the revised People Report for Month 3 (item 5.9), noting that the workforce plan was at risk if there was no reduction in patients having no criteria to reside and mental health demand. • The committee had reviewed the Trust’s Employee Relations activities and received an update on an investigation into comments made on social media. Page 2 5.4 5.4.1 5.5 • In its review of the Board Assurance Framework (item 6.3), it was agreed that culture also needed to be reflected in the people-related risks. Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee The chair of the Quality Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 15 July 2024. It was noted that: • In its report from the Quality Governance Steering Group, the committee noted that there were two new never events under investigation. In addition, there were national shortages of certain medicines. The committee also noted an increase in violence and aggression linked to the increasing number of patients with mental health issues. • The committee reviewed the Fundamentals of Care programme and noted that it was very comprehensive. • The committee also received updates following a visit by Southern Health and the impact of demand by patients with mental health issues on the Trust. • The committee also noted a report by the Royal College of Radiologists on the Trust’s radiotherapy department, which provided positive feedback, and noted the expansion in use and scope of the service. • In its review of the Board Assurance Framework (item 6.3), the committee noted that the risk of staff availability could be due to both unaffordability as well as national lack of availability of qualified individuals. Action Craig Machell agreed to add an item covering the impact of technology over the next 5-10 years to a future Trust Board Study Session agenda. Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024-25 Quarter 1 Report The chair of the Quality Committee was invited to provide an overview of the Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2024/25 report for the first quarter, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Under the terms of the NHS Resolution Maternity Incentive Scheme, the Board had delegated review of the report to the Quality Committee. • There had been sustained improvement in meeting the required timescales for booking of appointments and screening since April 2024. • The continuity of carer need should be focused where it could make the most difference. • Appointment of a community partner by the Integrated Care Board was expected soon. • The Trust was approximately 40 members of staff short. However, plans were in place to address this deficit, including use of newly qualified nurses on rotations and the 36 new entrants expected between November 2024 and March 2025. Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • David French had met with the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 19 July 2024 where the Secretary of State had outlined his priorities in terms of urgent and emergency care and addressing the backlog in elective care through using private sector capacity. In addition, it was noted that the intention for the longer term was to focus on preventative health and digital. • Following the General Election, there were also a number of new Members of Parliament for the area served by the Trust. Page 3 • On 1 July 2024, the new pathology laboratory information management system had been rolled out across the region. There had been some initial issues with providing information to primary care providers. • David French had been asked and had agreed to remain as the provider representative on the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board until September 2024. • A new referral system for Ophthalmology had been launched, which would use A/I in supporting the booking process. 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 3 Joe Teape was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 3, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s performance was in the top quartile for six out of nine measures and the top half for two others. • There had been a fairly stable period with better occupancy levels and improvements in timings of discharges. • There were ~220 patients no longer meeting criteria to reside during June 2024, and the Trust was considering a new plan with local partners for a local system delivery plan. • The Trust’s cancer performance continued to be impacted by the challenge posed by increasing demand. • The Trust’s performance against the 31-day standard had fallen to the third decile, with capacity issues in radiology and prostate services. • Further understanding of who was being referred under cancer pathways was required, as this could identify health inequality concerns in terms of who was accessing the Trust’s services. • Increases in referrals could be due to national campaigns which raise public awareness of certain forms of cancer and the possible symptoms. 5.7 Break 5.8 Finance Report for Month 3 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 3, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Nationally, the NHS’s deficit was above £1bn, representing 4-5%. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board had recorded a £57m deficit (6%) for month 3. The average deficit for university teaching hospitals was 4.1%. • The Trust had recorded a £13m deficit (year-to-date) and an in-month deficit of £4.5m. • There had been some early signs of improvement with the underlying position having improved since month 1. • The Trust’s elective recovery performance was 128% and there had been improvements in length of stay. • The Trust’s workforce numbers and pay costs were below plan, and agency numbers had halved since summer 2023. • The underlying monthly deficit was c.£5m, with approximately £1m of this attributable to unfunded pay awards and costs of industrial action. • Meeting the Trust’s plan for Quarter 2 of 2024/25 was expected to be challenging, as it assumed that the Integrated Care System’s transformation programmes would begin to deliver. • The Trust’s cash reserves were now below £30m, and the Trust might need to consider the need for additional cash from NHS England. • The Trust would continue to focus on its transformation programmes. Page 4 • The level of the anticipated pay award for 2024/25 and a likely shortfall in funding for the award was a risk to the Trust’s financial position. 5.9 People Report for Month 3 Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 3, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • A number of improvements were in the process of being made to the report to incorporate a ‘heat map’ and provide additional focus on culture. • The Trust was under its overall workforce plan by 313 whole-time equivalents (WTE) at the end of June 2024. However, in terms of its overall plan, ~200 WTE were reliant on improvements in the non-criteria to reside and mental health position. • Violence and aggression remained a key concern, with increasing use by the Trust of its warning and exclusion policy. • Work was ongoing to review the number of statutory and mandatory training courses with a view toward rationalising the number. • The ‘We Are UHS’ Champions award ceremony was to be held in October 2024. • The Integrated Care Board recruitment control panel appeared to be limiting the number of requests for recruitment likely due to improved filtering taking place by the individual trusts. 5.10 Annual Complaints Report 2023-24 Natasha Watts was invited to present the Annual Complaints Report for 2023/24, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The number of complaints received had decreased slightly compared to the previous year, and the number of complaints upheld or partially upheld had decreased compared to the previous year and remained lower than the national average. • There had been four cases reviewed by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, of which two were closed and two were partially upheld. • The overall quality of responses to complaints had improved. 6. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2024-25 Quarter 1 Review Martin De Sousa was invited to present the Corporate Objectives 2024/25 Quarter 1 Review, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s performance was largely positive with 11 (out of 16) objectives on track to be delivered in full. • The major risks for achievement of the objectives were the Trust’s financial position and the possible impact of this on the workforce, and the Trust’s ability to reduce the number of patients not having criteria to reside. • Inclusion of a predicted future rating for each objective in reports was to be considered. Page 5 6.2 Research and Development Plan 2024-25 Karen Underwood was invited to present the Research and Development Plan for 2024/25, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • During 2023/24, the Trust had recruited its 250,000th participant and had launched its Research for Impact strategy. • Income for 2024/25 was predicted to be lower than previously due to the impact of Covid-19-related studies on prior years. • Vacancies and the reliance on clinical support services would be a challenge for 2024/25. Decision Having discussed the proposal, the Board approved the Research and Development Plan for 2024/25. Action Ian Howard agreed to obtain clarification regarding the discrepancy between the Return on Investment table and Appendix 4 in the plan. 6.3 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Lauren Anderson was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • All risks had been reviewed by the Executive leads since June 2024. • The recorded gaps and controls were being checked and the BAF would differentiate between actions and aspirations in terms of the Trust’s steps to mitigate or address areas of risk. • It was intended to more closely link the BAF risks to the Board’s agenda. • The maturity assessment undertaken during 2023/24 as part of the audit of risk management carried out by KPMG would be reviewed to determine where the Trust would be against its aspirations by the end of the year. 7. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors’ (CoG) Meeting 24 July 2024 The Chair provided an overview of the meeting of the Council of Governors held on 24 July 2024. It was noted that the meeting had addressed the following matters: • The appointment of Shirley Anderson as the new Lead Governor. • Reports from the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. • The Trust’s annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024. 7.2 Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report The paper ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’ was presented to the meeting, the content of which was noted. Decision: The Board agreed to ratify the application of the Trust Seal to the documents listed in the ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’. 8. Any other business There was no other business. Page 6 9. Note the date of the next meeting: 10 September 2024 10. Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Decision: The Board resolved that, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust’s Constitution and the Standing Orders of the board of directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. The meeting was adjourned. Page 7 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 28/03/2024 4.14 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 1127. Junior Doctors Grundy, Paul 24/10/2024 Pending Explanation action item Paul Grundy and Diana Hulbert agreed to include an item regarding junior doctors on a future Trust Board Study Session agenda. Due to industrial action on 27 June, this item has been deferred to the next TBSS on 24/10/2024. Trust Board – Open Session 06/06/2024 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 1 1152. Digital Teape, Joe Explanation action item JT agreed to include Digital as an agenda item at a future Trust Board Study Session. 24/10/2024 Pending This item is tentatively scheduled for TBSS on 24/10/2024. Trust Board – Open Session 25/07/2024 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee (Oral) 1163. Impact of technology Machell, Craig 27/02/2025 Pending Explanation action item Craig Machell agreed to add an item covering the impact of technology over the next 5-10 years to a future Trust Board Study Session agenda. Update: Item tentatively scheduled for 27/02/25 Study Session. Page 1 of 2 Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 25/07/2024 6.2 Research and Development Plan 2024-25 1165. Discrepancy Howard, Ian 10/09/2024 Pending Explanation action item Ian Howard agreed to obtain clarification regarding the discrepancy between the Return on Investment table and Appendix 4 in the plan. Page 2 of 2 Report to the Trust Board of Directors Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Date: Purpose: Issue to be addressed: Response to the issue: Chief Executive Officer’s Report 5.4 David French, Chief Executive Officer 10 September 2024 Assurance Approval or reassurance Ratification Information X My report this month covers updates on the following items: • NHS Pay Offers • National Unison Campaign – Collective Pay Grievance for Healthcare Support Workers • Civil Unrest • Hampshire Together • Maternity Services and Sustainable Staffing • CQC Annual Hospital Inpatients Survey • Annual Regulation and Oversight Survey • Cass Review Implementation • Aseptic Preparation Audit • Human Tissue Authority inspection The response to each of these issues is covered in the report. Implications: Any implications of these issues are covered in the report. (Clinical, Organisational, Governance, Legal?) Summary: Conclusion The Board is asked to note the report. and/or recommendation Page 1 of 9 NHS Pay Offers On 29 July 2024, the Government announced that it would accept in full pay review body advice on NHS staff salaries and would make a pay offer to junior doctors in an attempt to end the ongoing industrial action. The Government accepted the 2024/25 recommendations of the NHS Pay Review Body for a 5.5% increase, backdated to 1 April 2024, for all Agenda for Change staff. This increase is expected to be reflected in October pay. In addition, intermediate pay bands will be created for Band 8 and 9 staff. In line with national guidance UHS will also offer back pay payments to be spread out over six months if individuals request this to help mitigate any impact on universal credit. The offer made to the junior doctors represents a 22.3% uplift over two years. This comprises an additional average of 4.05% for 2023/24 on top of the existing 8.8% implemented last year, taking the average uplift to 13.2%. In addition, 2024/25 pay would increase by an average of 12.4% against current 2023/24 payscales. The British Medical Association junior doctors committee recommends acceptance of this offer. Voting opened on 19 August and closes on 15 September 2024. The Government has also announced its intention to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which provides a mechanism to require workers in particular sectors, such as health, education, fire and rescue, and transport, to guarantee certain minimum levels of service during periods of industrial action. This will form part of a range of employment law modifications the government is considering, and the Board will be updated with further details once these are finalised. National Unison Campaign – Collective Pay Grievance for Healthcare Support Workers During August, UHS formally received a collective grievance relating to pay for Healthcare Support Workers (HCSWs). This is a national campaign led by UNISON pushing for recognition of duties carried out by these staff, formal re-grading of pay band, and appropriate back pay. UHS has over 1,200 individuals in these roles. The Chief People Officer is formally meeting with UNISON to discuss how the matter can be resolved. Whilst this is a national campaign, we have been told not to expect national resolution and Trusts have been directed to resolve locally as appropriate. Civil Unrest The nation experienced significant violent and racially motivated civil unrest during August. Farright anti-immigration rallies were planned in a number of cities across the UK, including Southampton. Healthcare workers had been directly targeted in some parts of the country by farright groups. This understandably generated fear and concern from our black, minority ethnic communities which was raised through various routes to leaders at the Trust. Communication was sent by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Nursing Officer to all staff setting out our stance on the situation and proposed practical measures, coupled with local support from managers to those who were concerned. Led by the Chief Nurse through the Trust's incident management process, we rapidly implemented practical measures in addition to wider wellbeing and psychological support. Measures included additional security, additional transport and other local actions to help with people's safe journey to work on the day of planned demonstrations. Friday prayers were also attended by the Chief Medical Officer and the Director of OD and Inclusion to provide support to our Muslim communities. The unsavoury events have also triggered a collective drive to push again to focus on the violence and aggression issues at UHS. Staff still experience unacceptable violence, aggression and hate crimes by patients and service users at UHS and across the whole NHS. A multistakeholder workshop, including police partners, is planned for 2 October 2024 to re-energise Page 2 of 9 delivery of our existing commitments. We also want to use the expertise and advice of a range of people to explore and plan where we can go further and be bolder with this important agenda. At the national level, NHS England wrote to all integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, GP and dental practices, pharmacy contractors, and general ophthalmic service contractors on 12 August 2024 emphasising the NHS position that ‘discrimination is unacceptable, and the NHS should have a zero tolerance of racism towards our patients and colleagues’. NHS England also sets out some guidance in the following areas for organisations to listen to and support affected staff: • Ensuring staff can access the support they need • Involving staff networks in the organisational response • Dealing with instances of racism and discrimination • Demonstrating ongoing commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion The response can be read at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/nhs-response-to-2024-riots/ Hampshire Together HM Government has announced that it is pausing approval of the business cases for the ’40 new hospitals’, of which Hampshire Hospitals is one. Public consultation had recently been completed and submission of the final business case was anticipated before the end of this year but the timing of submission and approval of the business case is now uncertain pending the national review. Separately, the ‘Save Winchester Action Group’ has written to board members of HIOW ICB with concerns regarding the proposed changes at Winchester Hospital, specifically around the loss of acute services from the Winchester site. The overall programme was discussed at the ICS board meeting on 4 September 2024. The executive has a planned session with Hampshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust executives at the end of September to discuss ideas around future models for services across all sites. Maternity Services Safe and Sustainable Staffing In August 2024, the Trust produced a briefing paper for the Care Quality Commission which provided a summary of the Trust’s action plan in respect of staffing of its Maternity services. The paper is attached as Appendix A. CQC Annual Hospital Inpatients Survey On 21 August 2024, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) published its adult inpatient survey for 2023. The survey examines the experiences of people over 16 who stayed at least one night in hospital during November 2023. The results showed a deterioration in people’s experiences of inpatient care since 2020, although the results for 2023 remained broadly consistent with those in 2022 and 2021. Most respondents reported a positive experience in their interactions with doctors and nurses, such as being treated with respect, dignity, kindness and compassion and being included in conversations. However, discharge from hospital remains a challenging part of people’s experience of care, with 29% saying that they had little to no involvement in decisions about their discharge, and only 48% saying that they were given enough notice about when they were going to leave. In addition, 23% of elective patients said they would have liked to have been admitted ‘a bit sooner’ and 19% ‘a lot sooner’, and 43% of elective patients believed that their health had deteriorated while waiting to be admitted. Page 3 of 9 The survey results can be viewed at: https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/surveys/adult-inpatientsurvey Annual Regulation and Oversight Survey NHS Providers published the results of its annual regulation and oversight survey on 8 August 2024. According to the survey, trust leaders had reported an increased regulatory burden during the year, particularly noting a lack of coordination between regulators and questioning whether reporting requirements are proportionate or realistic. There were also questions as to whether regulators appropriately recognised the level of risks trusts had been absorbing in balancing the demands of financial and operational performance. Seventy-two per cent of trust leaders believed that the burden of integrated care board (ICB) regulation had increased, compared to 48% from NHS England and 36% from CQC. Less than a third of trusts were comfortable with the role of ICBs as performance managers and 62% saw their activity as duplicating that of NHS England. Respondents also questioned CQC’s credibility, feeling its judgements were not objective enough and inspection teams lacked sector-specific expertise. In addition, the majority of trust leaders would like to see a move away from the CQC’s one-word ratings, seeing it as too simplistic, often demoralising for staff, and confusing for patients. The survey report can be viewed at: https://nhsproviders.org/a-pivotal-moment-for-regulationregulation-and-oversight-survey-2024 Cass Review Implementation On 7 August 2024, NHS England published its plan to implement the advice from the Cass Review – the review of gender identity services for children and young people. This plan includes establishment of regional centres and changes to the referrals process to help trusts to deliver holistic, therapeutic and evidence-based care. The implementation plan can be read at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/children-andyoung-peoples-gender-services-implementing-the-cass-review-recommendations/ The Trust continues discussions with NHS England regarding whether Southampton could or should be one of these new regional centres. Aseptic Preparation Audit On 1 August 2024, the Trust was informed of the outcome of the external audit of unlicensed preparation of medicines for the pharmacy aseptic unit at Southampton General Hospital conducted on 4 June 2024. The unit’s operation was assessed as posing a low risk with respect to the quality of the medicines produced within it. The report also stated that the unit ‘is well managed and has good pharmaceutical quality systems in place’. Human Tissue Authority (HTA) inspection The HTA conducted an inspection of our mortuary arrangements in August. The formal feedback report has not been received but informal feedback has been shared by the inspection team. We expect the report to have no significant findings but we do anticipate a number of minor procedural and documentation recommendations. The inspection team advised us that the failings at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells mortuary which enabled criminal activity to go unnoticed have triggered a recent ‘raising of the bar’, particularly regarding security / access arrangements. We will share the final inspection report when it is received, along with our response and action plan. Page 4 of 9 Appendix A UHS Briefing Paper to CQC Title: Maternity Services Safe and Sustainable Staffing Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Author(s): Emma Northover, Director of Midwifery Carly Springate, Head of Midwifery Marie Cann, Maternity and Neonatal Safety Lead Date: August 2024 Purpose: The purpose of this report is to note the current challenges in maternity staffing and provide assurance on the mitigations to maintain appropriate and safe staffing levels, which, in turn, ensures the delivery and support of high-quality care. Issue(s) to be addressed: Over recent weeks and months our Maternity Service has faced significant operational challenges, leading to more frequent than usual service diversions. This has led to impacts not only on the experience of our families and staff but across the wider Local Maternity and Neonatal System (LMNS). As from the beginning of July 2024, UHS Maternity Services have escalated to OPEL 4 on 23 occasions from the start of this year. Across the whole of 2023 OPEL 4 was declared 28 times. This shows a significant increase in service pressure that our Maternity Service is experiencing with staffing and acuity accounting for the majority of incidents. Whilst we are compliant with providing 1:1 care in active labour and we are safe, we are seeing an increase in other reportable red flags such as delays in induction and being unable to facilitate birthplace choices. In terms of our current position, staffing levels across the Maternity Service have remained challenging with vacancy rates across the registered workforce currently sit around 14%, equating to around 30 Whole Time Equivalents (WTE). Addressing these staffing challenges will require a coordinated effort and it is hoped that by collaborating with our partners we can develop a more comprehensive and effective approach to improving workforce provision. The enclosed plan of action sets out to address the staffing issues as much as possible until the newly qualified midwives start and vacancy is significantly reduced The DoM and the Senior Midwifery Leadership Team are committed to ensuring safe and sustainable staffing levels across UHS Maternity Services. We remain open and honest around our changing clinical environment as well as being sensitive and responsive to any rapidly changing picture. Escalation processes and frameworks are robust and well established. Further to this we have excellent engagement from our 1|Page Page 5 of 9 Maternity Safety Champions with whom we meet with regularly. This includes full support from Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer and Executive Maternity Safety Champion, and Tim Peachey, Non-Executive Director and Maternity Safety Champion, who together ensure that the DoM has a platform and a voice at Trust Board. Despite the immediate challenges in respect of the Maternity Services workforce at UHS, we are looking to offer assurances to the CQC in terms of the actions both short and longer term that are being taken and the mitigations in place to reduce harm and maintain safety to our service users. Risks (top 3) of carrying out the change or not: Summary/ conclusion • 285 - Red 20 Maternity Staffing during peaks of activity • 259 - Red 16 Capacity and Demand in Maternity Services • 617 - Orange 12 Lack of postnatal care provision (staffing) • 815 - Red 15 Poor compliance with NICE guidance for Antenatal Bookings The CQC are asked to review this report and the mitigations in place and seek further assurance if required. Page 6 of 9 2|Page Maternity Staffing Action Plan Issue/Action Progress Lead Date 1. Following a successful newly • Our current preceptorship programme (18 months in hos- Practice Aug 2024 qualified midwife recruitment pital) has been recently reviewed in terms of content and Education lead drive, 34 WTE band 5 midwives structure to ensure that these staff are retained. to join UHS Maternity Services in November 2024. 2. Utilisation of contingency • Provides contingency measures in releasing and redeploy- Head of Aug 2024 framework ing additional staff. Midwifery RAG G 3. Utilise birthrate plus as a • The last assessment of UHS Maternity Services by BR+ in Director of framework for workforce planning 2018 suggested an overall clinical establishment based on Midwifery and strategic decision making a midwife V birth ratio of 1:24, calculated against an annual birth rate of 5500 births. This is soon to be recalculated Sept 2024 A 4. Increased staff support in the • We have retained 100% of our newly qualified preceptees Head of Aug 2024 G clinical environment in addition to who started with us in November 2023. Midwifery pastoral and psychological Practice support to enhance retention of Education Lead the workforce. 5. The senior leadership team, • To review how we maintain this going forward to ensure Director of Aug 2024 G including the Director of sustainability Midwifery / Chief Midwifery (DoM), commit to a Nursing Officer high number of out-of-hours on- calls to support the service when in escalation and when staffing does not match the acuity and activity across the acute clinical areas. 3|Page Page 7 of 9 6. Two fixed term matron roles have • This provides additional cushioning to the matron team and Director of been appointed to oversee a development opportunity for our existing workforce. Midwifery antenatal and postnatal pathways. 7. Development of a systematic • This live data is reflective of total staff unavailability in- Maternity process for workforce planning in clude vacancy rates, sickness ratios, maternity leave, and Business the form of a monthly dashboard. study time, all of which is compared alongside the budg- Support eted versus actual staffing establishment overall. Manager 8. The labour ward coordinator will • This enables the labour ward coordinator to have continu- Head of not take responsibility for any ous oversight of their clinical environment and oversee Midwifery patients, or cover breaks for other safety. members of staff. 9. An extensive listening exercise • To align with current service needs, and with staff wellbe- Director of has been undertaken place to ing as a central focus, the DoM and Senior Midwifery Midwifery help inform the future direction Leadership Team are reviewing the way the service is de- and structure of the Maternity livered with the potential of a workforce restructure. Service workforce. 10. 12 – 16 Registered nurses are to • Divisions seeking staff who are interested in supporting Director of be seconded to maternity in this and with the right skillset. Midwifery interim period to help release midwife time with roles such high • A review will be undertaken to see if this could be a dependency, vaccination, longer-term proposition to support the maternity workforce fundamentals of care 11. Dedicated programmes for career • Our prime focus is to consider new ways in which we can Director of development starting at band 2 future proof our Maternity Services going forward, whilst Midwifery and progressing to band 9. investing in our people. 12. A NHSP Incentive Scheme has been agreed to run over the summer months • This action has enabled staff to feel valued and appreciated Director of for all their gestures of good will and their contributions to Midwifery Page 8 of 9 Aug 2024 G Aug 2024 G Aug 2024 G Aug 2024 A Aug 2024 A Aug 2024 A Aug 2024 A 4|Page the workforce that are worked outside of contractual commitments. 13. A review to look at tipping points • Contact to be made with the ED to review learning and any Head of (as happens in Emergency processes and systems. Midwifery Department) to be scoped introduced 14. A roster review will be • Full review of the roster template to ensure fit for purpose Maternity undertaken to ensure the correct and staff allocated correctly. Business staffing levels and skills are in Support place. Manager Aug 2024 A Aug 2024 A 15. To introduce legacy midwives • Review of legacy midwives roles and recruitment Director of Aug 2024 A (recently retired midwives) to processes. Midwifery support newly qualified staff and Practice education Education Lead R Red: Immediate remedial action required A Amber: Action in progress G Green: Complete Page 9 of 9 5|Page Report to the Trust Board of Directors Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Author: Date: Purpose: Issue to be addressed: Patient Safety and Quality of Care in Pressurised Services 5.5 Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer Duncan Linning-Karp, Deputy Chief Operating Officer 10 September 2024 Assurance Approval or reassurance X Ratification Information Urgent and Emergency Care (UEC) services are under significant pressure nationally, with some high-profile cases of poor care highlighted, including in the press. In response NHSE has asked Trust Boards to assure themselves that they are doing all they can to: • Provide alternatives to emergency department attendance and admission, especially for those frail older people who are better served with a community response in their usual place of residence. • Maximise in-hospital flow with appropriate streaming, senior decision-making and board and ward rounds regularly throughout the day, and timely discharge, regardless of the pathway a patient is leaving hospital or a community bedded facility on. Response to the issue: This paper will outline UHS’s response to the above issues, including the improvement programmes focused on flow and the Emergency Department, the response to the UEC recovery plan year two document, work taking place across the local system and mitigations that take place when the Emergency Department becomes over-crowded. Implications: Clinical, organisational, governance, legal (Clinical, Organisational, Governance, Legal?) Risks: (Top 3) of carrying out the change / or not: • Harm to patients in the Emergency Department through prolonged waits and / or overcrowding. • Harm to patients who remain in hospital longer than necessary because of delayed discharge. • Harm to patients on an elective waiting list who are delayed because of a lack of capacity due to high levels of patients not meeting the criteria to reside. Summary: Conclusion Trust Board is asked to note this report. and/or recommendation Page 1 of 10 Introduction NHS England wrote to all NHS Trusts (see Appendix 1) to ask Trust Boards to assure themselves that Trusts, and wider systems, were doing all they can to reduce demand on Emergency Departments, improve flow across the UEC pathways including out of hospital, ensure basic standards of care are in place across all care settings and ensure executive visibility and leadership, and non-executive presence. This paper provides assurance to the Board, addressing the key requests outlined in the letter and benchmarks UHS’s response to the year two UEC plan. It also outlines work taking place in the local system to support admission avoidance and reduce delayed discharge. Finally, it outlines mitigations the organisation has put in place to manage risk at times when the Emergency Department (ED) is overcrowded, and to support flow through the hospital. Patient Safety and Quality of Care in Pressurised Services NHSE wrote to all Trusts to outline key actions Boards were required to assure themselves on to ensure patient safety and quality of care is maintained in pressurised services. The table below outlines those actions and UHS’s compliance against them. Request Provide alternatives to emergency department attendance and admission, especially for those frail older people who are better served with a community response in their usual place of residence. Maximise in-hospital flow with appropriate streaming, senior decision-making and board and ward rounds regularly throughout the day, and timely discharge, regardless of the pathway a patient is leaving hospital or a community bedded facility on. Their organisations and systems are implementing the actions set out in the UEC Recovery Plan year 2 letter. Basic standards of care, based on the CQC’s fundamental standards, are in place in all care settings. Services across the whole system are supporting flow out of ED and out of hospital, including making full and appropriate use of the Better Care Fund. Executive teams and Boards have visibility of the Seven Day Hospital Services audit results, as set out in the relevant Board Assurance Framework guidance. There is consistent, visible, executive leadership across the UEC pathway and appropriate escalation protocols in place Assurance There are community alternatives in place, including Urgent Community Response and virtual wards. More work is taking place to set-up Integrated Neighbourhood Teams. In-hospital flow is something UHS is continuously seeking to improve via the inpatient flow programme, focusing on all aspects of flow within the hospital’s control and ensuring patients only remain in hospital when necessary. Ward rounds take place daily with appropriate input from a senior decision maker. UHS is compliant with these actions, outlined in the following section. Fundamentals of care standards have been rolled out across the organisation. A CQC Oversight Group, chaired by the CNO, provides assurance on compliance against the standards. The wider system does support flow out of ED and the wider hospital, and the Better Care fund is used. However, the system continues to struggle with a high number of patients remaining in hospital who do not meet the criteria to reside. Seven Day Hospital Services are reported via the annual Quality Account to the Board and the Trust is compliant. A further audit is due in 2024. There is consistent, visible executive leadership across the UEC pathway including a fortnightly ED meeting chaired Page 2 of 10 every day of the week at both trust and system level. Regular non-executive director safety walkabouts take place where patients are asked about their experiences in real time and these are relayed back to the Board. by the Chief Executive, a monthly UEC Board chaired by the COO, a monthly CQC Oversight meeting chaired by the CNO and regular executive walkabouts. UHS has an internal escalation plan as does the wider system. The Trust appointed a clinical Director for Urgent and Emergency Care. Non-executive directors undertake walkabouts as part of Trust Board. Year two UEC Plan Benchmarking against the second year of the UEC plan shows that UHS is compliant against the key metrics. There has, however, been a reduction rather than an increase in some out of hospital capacity because of the financial challenges facing the ICB, Local Authorities and wider system. Request 1A. Maintain acute G&A beds at the level funded and agreed through operating plans in 2023/24. 1B. Maintain ambulance capacity and support the development of services that reduce ambulance conveyances to acute hospitals. 1C. Focus on reduction in ambulance handover delays to support system flow. 1D. Expand bedded and non-bedded intermediate care capacity, to support improvements in hospital discharge and enable community step-up care. 1E. Improve access to virtual wards through improvements in utilisation, access from home pathways, and a focus on frailty, acute respiratory infection, heart failure, and children and young people. 2A. Focus on reductions in admitted and non-admitted time in ED. Assurance UHS’s 2024/25 plan included the dual aspirations of halving the number of patients not meeting the criteria to reside and reducing length of stay by 5%. If these were both met, it is unlikely that we would require all current beds. However, while beds that are not needed would not be staffed, they will remain available if needed. In recent months routine surge capacity has remained closed b
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2024-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-10-September-2024.pdf

UHS AR 22-23-6

Description: 2022/23 Incorporating the quality account University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25(4)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 © 2023 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Contents Welcome from our chair and chief executive 6 Overview and performance 8 Performance report 9 Overview 10 Accountability report 33 Directors’ report 34 Remuneration report 57 Staff report 71 Annual governance statement 91 Quality account 106 Statement on quality from the chief executive 107 Priorities for improvement and statements of assurance from the board 110 Other information 188 Annual accounts 222 Statement from the chief financial officer 223 Auditor’s report 224 Foreword to the accounts 230 Statement of Comprehensive Income 231 Statement of Financial Position 232 Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity 233 Statement of Cash Flows 234 Notes to the accounts 235 5 Welcome from the Chair and Chief Executive Officer University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (‘UHS’ or the ‘Trust’) experienced another challenging year during 2022/23. Nonetheless, the Trust and its staff have continued to deliver for patients and the wider system in which it operates. Trust highlights from 2022/23 include: • Delivering an 8% increase in activity (compared to 2019/20) under the elective recovery programme, which places us as one of the top performing trusts in England. • Being recognised in the NHS staff survey as the seventh highest trust for recommendation as a place to work nationally and the best performing trust in opportunities for career development. • Celebrating 50 years as a medical school with the University of Southampton and continuing to pioneer UK and world-first research studies. • Enhancing the reputation of our specialist care – for example our bone marrow transplant team at UHS have the best patient outcomes in Europe. However, as was the picture across the country, UHS had an extremely challenging winter with attendances at our emergency department often in excess of 400 a day. This was driven in part by high prevalence of streptococcus A (strep A) in the community along with other seasonal illnesses such as influenza and high incidences of COVID-19 at times. Moreover, the lack of availability of care home beds and other care packages in the community has resulted in challenges in discharging patients who are ready to leave hospital and therefore we have been operating at or near to capacity throughout the year. At the time of writing, there continues to be operational pressures due to industrial action by the Royal College of Nursing and British Medical Association. Throughout the disputes, we have attempted to balance the right of our staff to strike with the need to minimise the impact on the Trust’s operations and patients and ensure that safety was not compromised. Our leadership team has engaged proactively with the unions to agree, where possible, derogations (i.e. services that will continue to be staffed during strikes) to ensure that the running of our hospitals can continue and that patients remain safe. We would like to express our thanks to all staff who have gone over and above during these periods of industrial action by being willing to do different work to usual, often at anti-social times of the day. While we cannot influence national negotiations, we are focusing on what we can control within UHS. Our people strategy published last year sets out how we will grow and deploy our workforce of today and the future as part of a thriving community to deliver world-class patient care. Building on this, we have recently launched our inclusion and belonging strategy so that as a leadership team we can deliver what is required for all our workforce to feel they can belong and thrive at UHS. The Trust achieved its Cost Improvement Plan (CIP) target of £45.6m for 2022/23, the highest in our history but despite this, ended the year with a deficit of £11m. The deficit was driven by a combination of factors including a substantial increase in energy prices, higher costs of medicines and equipment and temporary staffing costs as well as changes in recent years in respect of the NHS funding infrastructure, which adversely impacted the Trust relative to others during the year. In terms of the broader context, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System, in which the Trust operates, reported an overall deficit for 2022/23 driven in part by a significant increase in staffing numbers when compared to 2019/20 as well as structural factors. 6 We have continued to make progress on our estates strategy, building new theatres and carrying out improvements to existing facilities, as well as opening a new park and ride for staff at Adanac Park and progressing plans for a new innovation campus there. During 2022/23 we invested over £88m of capital expenditure to meet our ambition of increasing capacity and improving services in order to manage the increasing demand. All development is underpinned by our green plan, which sets out areas of focus for decarbonising UHS and achieving the net zero target set by the NHS. The Trust has continued to support the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System, which was formed on 1 July 2022 to facilitate integration and collaboration across health and social care partners in the region. In particular, UHS has worked closely with the Integrated Care Board and other providers in the development of the operating plan for 2023/24. We have also continued to work with other partners in the region, including local authorities and the University of Southampton. The 13,000 staff of UHS are our greatest asset and we would like to express our gratitude to them for continuing to go above and beyond to put patients first under very challenging circumstances. Without our staff, we would be unable to fulfil our ambition to be a world-class organisation with world-class people delivering world-class care. Jenni Douglas-Todd Chair 26 June 2023 David French Chief Executive Officer 26 June 2023 7 PERFORMANCE REPORT Performance report Introduction from the Chief Executive Officer The Trust experienced another challenging year with the need to balance the delivery of quality patient care with a significant increase in demand for the Trust’s resources and the need to do so whilst maintaining a sustainable financial position. The Trust saw the number of patients on a waiting list under the 18-week referral to treatment pathway increase to just over 55,000 patients at the end of the year. Despite this, however, the Trust was successful in reducing the number of patients waiting more than 104 weeks to nil and in reducing the number of patients waiting more than 78 weeks to 14 by the end of the year. In addition, the Trust’s performance under the elective recovery programme placed it as one of the topperforming trusts in the country. Demand for non-elective care also significantly increased during the year with the emergency department seeing more than 400 attendances per day at some points, especially during the winter months. The industrial action seen in the latter part of 2022/23 placed further pressure on the Trust and resulted in a need to cancel elective procedures and outpatients appointments. However, on balance, the Trust was able to manage these events through effective planning and the engagement and support of its staff. Although the Trust was successful in recruiting to substantive roles, especially in terms of reducing the number of Health Care Assistant vacancies, the anticipated reduction in use of bank and agency staff was not seen. This, among other factors, such as the substantial increase in energy costs and the rate of inflation, posed a significant challenge in terms of the Trust’s financial position. Despite achieving savings of £45.6m, the Trust reported a deficit of £11m for 2022/23. 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 2022/23. It is based on the coast in southeast 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 one of the top nationally for research study volumes as ranked by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. Every year the Trust: treats around 160,000 inpatients and day patients, including about 75,000 emergency admissions sees over 650,000 people at outpatient appointments deals with around 150,000 cases in our emergency department delivers 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 acts as a community midwifery hub. The services provided by the Trust are commissioned and paid for by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System (ICS) and, in the case of more specialised services (such as treatments for rare conditions), by NHS England. Trust services are supported by clinical income, of which 55% is paid for by NHS England and 43% by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board. These are provided 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 NHS England and the healthcare services we provide are regulated by the Care Quality Commission. Since 1 July 2022, the Trust has been part of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System (ICS) when this was established through the Health and Social Care Act 2022. Each ICS has two statutory elements: an integrated care partnership (ICP) and an integrated care board (ICB). The ICP is a statutory committee jointly formed between the NHS integrated care board and all uppertier local authorities that fall within the ICS area. The ICP will bring together a broad alliance of partners concerned with improving the care, health and wellbeing of the population, with membership determined locally. The ICP is responsible for producing an integrated care strategy on how to meet the health and wellbeing needs of the population in the ICS area. The ICB is a statutory NHS organisation responsible for developing a plan for meeting the health needs of the population, managing the NHS budget and arranging for the provision of health services in the ICS area. The establishment of ICBs resulted in clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) being closed down. 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 Trust Headquarters Division 11 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 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 taxpayer 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 2022/23 these objectives included: Outstanding patient outcomes, experience and safety Pioneering research and innovation World class people Integrated networks and collaboration Foundations for the future • Recovery, restoration and improvement of clinical services • Introducing a robust and proactive safety culture • Empowering and developing staff to improve services for patients • Always Improving strategy • Delivering a high-quality experience of care for all • Delivery of year two of the research and innovation investment plan • Strategy and partnership working • Growing, developing and innovating our workforce • A great place to work, develop and achieve • Compassionate and inclusive workplace for all • We Work in partnership with Integrated Care System and Primary Care Networks • Integrated Networks and Collaborations • Establishing Southern Counties Pathology Network • Establishing the Wessex Imaging Network • Develop Collaborations strategy • Creating a sustainable financial infrastructure • Making our corporate infrastructure 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 on a quarterly basis. 14 Principal risks to our strategy and objectives The Board 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 2022/23 were that: • There would be a lack of capacity to appropriately respond to emergency demand, manage the increasing waiting lists for elective demand, and provide timely diagnostics, that results in avoidable harm to patients. • Due to the current challenges, the Trust fails to provide patients and their families with a high-quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes. • The Trust 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. • The Trust is unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to unavailability of qualified staff to fulfil key roles. • The Trust fails to develop a diverse, compassionate and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive experience for all staff. • The Trust fails to create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs identified in the Trust’s longer-term workforce plan. • The Trust does not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in sub-optimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. • The Trust is unable to deliver a financial breakeven position and support prioritised investment as identified in the Trust’s capital plan within locally available limits (capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL)). • The Trust does not adequately maintain, improve and develop its estate to deliver its clinical services and increase capacity. • The Trust fails to introduce and implement new technology and expand the use of existing technology to transform its delivery of care through the funding and delivery of the digital strategy. • The Trust fails to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce its direct and indirect carbon footprint by 80% by 2028-2032 (compared with a 1990 baseline) and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045. During 2022/23, the Trust continued to experience the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The need to ensure a safe environment for patients through stringent infection control processes impacted the Trust’s capacity due to the need to isolate patients with COVID-19 in separate areas of the hospital. In addition, outbreaks of norovirus during the winter months placed further pressure on hospital capacity. The impact of the pandemic continued to be felt in terms of staff absence due to becoming infected with COVID-19 as well as the significant impact on staff mental health. The higher than normal (i.e. pre-COVID) levels of staff absence placed additional strain on the Trust’s operations and led to increased expenditure due to the requirement to enlist bank and/or agency staff to maintain safe staffing levels. 15 Performance overview The Trust monitors a broad range of key performance indicators within its departments, divisions, directorates and through Trust executive committees. On a monthly basis, the Board and executive committee receives a performance report containing a variety of indicators intended to provide assurance in respect of the Trust’s strategy and that the care provided is safe, caring, effective, responsive and well-led. This report also includes the Trust’s performance against the national targets set by NHS England. The performance reports include a ‘spotlight’ section, which provides more detailed analysis of a particular area. Typically, this is one of either the national targets or the Trust’s performance against the expectations set out in the NHS Constitution. The monthly performance report is also published on the Trust’s website. The Chief Executive Officer provides a regular report on performance to the Council of Governors, which includes a range of non-financial and financial performance information. Capacity The pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic led to increases in the waiting times for patients and the number of patients waiting for more than a year increased significantly. During the year, the Trust achieved its goal of no patients waiting more than 104 weeks by July 2022 and finished the year with only 14 patients waiting for more than 78 weeks. However, the length of time patients are waiting for treatment remains one of the key risks for the Trust. This situation was compounded by the sustained demand for non-elective activity, which saw attendances at the emergency department rise to over 400 patients per day during some periods of 2022/23 and was consistently higher than previously was the case. The significant increase in referrals, often requiring more complex treatment, has seen the number of patients on a waiting list under the 18-week referral to treatment pathway increase to just over 55,000 patients at the end of the year. In addition, the industrial action during the year placed further strain on the Trust’s ability to both provide urgent care and manage its elective recovery programme. Quality and compliance Furthermore, difficulties in obtaining care home beds and other care packages in the community has resulted in challenges in discharging patients who are ready to leave hospital and therefore the Trust has been operating at or near to capacity throughout the year. The Trust continued to monitor the quality of care delivered throughout 2022/23. The Trust continued its focus on infection prevention and control, which had proven successful during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Trust progressed its Always Improving strategy and successfully supported the identification and implementation of 84 quality improvement projects. In addition, the Trust continued to implement the patient safety incident response framework as well as taking other steps to drive a safety culture within the organisation. Furthermore, the Trust conducted further trials of shared decision making between clinicians and patients and is a leading site nationally for shared decision-making principles. Further information can be found in the Quality Account. 16 Partnerships The new arrangements for integrated care systems were implemented in July 2022 with the Trust becoming part of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System. As such, the Trust’s senior management frequently meets with peers from across the system to consider and agree matters of wider concern across the system. In addition, the Trust worked with the Integrated Care Board in order to develop its financial and capital plans for 2023/24 and beyond. The Trust also attends the Southampton Health and Wellbeing Board at Southampton City Council and in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Acute Provider Partnership Board. During 2022/23, the Trust continued to progress research activities and opportunities with the University of Southampton and Wessex Health Partners. Workforce In addition, work continued in the development of an elective hub at Winchester with Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which will provide the Trust with additional capacity to carry out its elective programme. The Trust’s key areas of focus during 2022/23 were in respect of increasing the substantive workforce and reducing staff turnover. Although the Trust was successful in recruiting to substantive posts, the expected reduction in reliance on bank and agency staff did not materialise, which meant that the Trust was 1,068 whole-time equivalents above its plan for 2022/23. Included in this figure is the TUPE transfer of genomics staff from Salisbury. A particular area of focus was the recruitment of Health Care Assistants where the Trust was successful in reducing the number of vacancies from 27% to 18%. Whilst the Trust was successful in reducing staff turnover from 14.9% in 2021/22 to 13.5%, it remained above the 12% target. However, the Trust did experience a reduction in staff absence from 4.7% in April 2022 to 4.3% in March 2023, and initiatives to improve staff wellbeing were an area of focus during the year. Estate Innovation and technology The industrial action in late 2022 and early 2023 posed significant challenges for the Trust, including in terms of the need to engage additional temporary staff to ensure patient safety. The Trust continued to invest in and develop its estate during 2022/23 including successful completion of the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit project, which delivered single rooms and specialist accent lighting alongside delivery of a ‘twin care’ room. There were a number of other significant projects during the year, including refurbishments of wards and work on creating new theatres as well as projects to improve staff wellbeing. These were part of over £88m of capital expenditure in 2022/23 that also included equipment, digital and the backlog maintenance programme. The Trust continued to promote research and development during 2022/23, including through partnerships with the University of Southampton and Wessex Health Partners. Furthermore, the Trust continued to examine ways to make use of technology to improve its service delivery. In particular, the Trust has promoted the use of MyMedicalRecord, which gives patients the ability to co-manage their healthcare online and through an app. 17 Sustainable financial model The Trust did not achieve breakeven status at the end of 2022/23 and reported a deficit of £11.037m at year-end. This was due to a number of factors, including the Trust’s underlying deficit as well as the increase in energy prices. The Trust was more exposed than most to fluctuations in the wholesale price of gas due to its reliance on a gas-powered energy supply. In addition, the Trust’s 8% uplift in elective activity when compared to 2019/20 was not fullyfunded, which placed further pressure on the Trust’s existing financial resources, which had been used to ensure a breakeven position in 2021/22. The continued use of bank and agency staff as well as the costs of industrial action in late 2022 and early 2023 further eroded the Trust’s financial position. Notwithstanding the above, the Trust did succeed in obtaining a number of sources of nonrecurrent funding during the year, including a successful bid for £29.4m of funding through the Public Sector De-Carbonisation Fund, which will be used to fund green initiatives as part of the Trust’s capital programme. The financial outlook across the NHS continues to appear very challenging during 2023/24 and the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System is forecasting one of the highest deficits in England. 18 Performance analysis COVID-19 Impacts Although the pandemic has ended and serious cases of COVID-19 have reduced significantly, the Trust continued to be impacted by COVID-19 during 2022/23. Heightened infection prevention control measures in respect of patients with COVID-19 placed additional stress on the Trust’s capacity due to the need to isolate those patients and there was a consequential reduction in the Trust’s ability to make most efficient use of its available spaces. Furthermore, the ongoing impact on the Trust’s staff has led to higher staff absence than was the case prior to the pandemic, particularly due anxiety, infectious diseases and colds and flu. • The Trust experienced an average number of 98.7 patients per day who tested positive for COVID-19. During the winter months, this number increased substantially to nearly 200. • During the year, an average of 3.6 intensive care/high-dependency beds per day were occupied by COVID-19 patients. However, at times this increased to as much as ten. • Although staff sickness rates remained higher than pre-pandemic, the Trust saw a decrease in the absence rate from 4.7% at the beginning of 2022/23 to 4.3% by the end of the period. COVID-19 Cases UHS average number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in bed (08:00 census) 250 200 150 100 50 0 4/1/20225/1/2022 6/1/20227/1/2022 8/1/2022 9/1/202210/1/202211/1/202212/1/2022 1/1/2023 2/1/20233/1/2023 Intensive care/higher care beds UHS average number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in an ICU/HDU bed (08:00 census) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 4/1/20225/1/2022 6/1/20227/1/2022 8/1/2022 9/1/202210/1/202211/1/202212/1/2022 1/1/2023 2/1/20233/1/2023 19 Number of patients Emergency access through the emergency department The Trust continued to experience high demand from patients presenting to receive care in the emergency department throughout the year above that seen prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, during the period between January and March 2023, the Trust averaged 352 attendances per day compared to 301 during the same period in 2019/20, an increase of 17%. The Trust also saw a significant increase in attendances during December due to both seasonal illnesses, but also due to the prevalence of streptococcus A in the community with attendances sometimes over 400 per day. Furthermore, the industrial action during the latter part of 2022 and early 2023 placed further pressure on the Trust’s ability to deliver services. In addition, the difficulties in discharging patients in need of care either at home or in another setting resulted in reduced flow from the emergency department to the relevant ward(s), which placed further strain on the Trust’s performance. During the year, in order to reduce emergency department attendances, the Trust trialled using General Practitioners to triage and see more straightforward patients who would otherwise have presented to the emergency department. Although this trial did result in a slight reduction in terms of number of patients and waiting times in ambulatory majors and majors, the affordability and value for money of this scheme is under review. Number of patients presenting to the emergency department 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 As a result of the increase in demand upon the emergency department, there continued to be a significant adverse impact on timeliness of care. The Trust failed to meet the national target of 95% of main emergency department/type 1 attendances seen within four hours, achieving 64.5% in March 2023, although this performance was above average in England. 20 % standard met Emergency access 4hr standard UHS vs NHSE average Type 1 performance 70% 0 10 60% 20 50% 30 40 40% 50 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-2 2 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-2 3 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts Rank Ambulance handovers are an area of focus for NHS England, with a target of all handovers having to take place within 15 minutes and none waiting more than 30 minutes. The Trust performed well in this area with an average handover time of 17 minutes, having made the conscious decision to ensure that patients did not queue in ambulances at the expense of patients being queued within emergency department majors – thus impacting the Trust’s four-hour target, but meaning that ambulances were not queued outside the hospital as was seen in other areas of the country. Elective Waiting times Demand The year saw a continuation of the trend of increasing elective referrals experienced in 2021/22 following the pandemic, and referral rates continued to be above those seen prior to the pandemic. UHS Accepted Referrals 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-2 2 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-2 3 Mar-23 Number of accepted referrals 21 Activity The Trust experienced significant increases in terms of the number of hospital appointments, diagnostic tests and elective admissions during the year, exceeding levels in previous years. The Trust was one of the top performing trusts in terms of its elective recovery programme, achieving an 8% increase in its elective activity during the year when compared to 2019/20. However, performance in this area and in terms of outpatients appointments was negatively affected by the industrial action by nurses, junior doctors and other members of staff, which took place in late 2022 and early 2023 due to the need to cancel non-urgent procedures and appointments in favour of maintaining safe staffing levels in areas such as the emergency department. In addition, the continued presence of COVID-19 as well as other illnesses such as influenza and norovirus placed significant pressure at times on the Trust’s capacity due to the need to implement appropriate infection prevention control measures. Furthermore, difficulties in discharging patients fit to be discharged, but in need of a care package, placed additional strain on the Trust’s capacity. Elective admissions (including day case) Post-COVID-19 pandemic Elective (including day case) recovery (% of same month compared between March 2019 – February 2020) 105% 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 % recovery Outpatient attendances Post-COVID-19 pandemic outpatient seen recovery (% of same month compared between March 2019 – February 2020) 140% 0 90% 10 20 40% 30 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 UH S UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts % recovery Rank 22 Diagnostics The Trust measures performance on a total of 15 frequently used diagnostic tests. In March 2023, 22% of patients were waiting more than six weeks for diagnostics compared with the national target of less than 1%. Patients waiting for a diagnostic test to be performed (sum of 15 different frequently used tests) UHS diagnostic waiting list volume 12,000 11,500 11,000 10,500 10,000 9,500 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-2 2 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-2 3 Mar-23 Diagnostic waiting list volume Percentage of patients waiting over 6 weeks for a diagnostic test to be performed Diagnostic 6 week wait performance UHS vs. NHSE average 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average % standard met 23 Referral to Treatment The Trust continued to see an increase in the number of patients being referred for treatment during 2022/23 with just over 55,000 patients on a waiting list under the 18-week referral to treatment pathway at the end of the year. Averaged across the year, the volume of referrals exceeded the Trust’s theoretical capacity by around 3.5%. Due to this significant demand, the Trust only achieved 63.2% of patients being treated within 18 weeks of referral in March 2023 compared with the monthly target of more than 92%. However, despite this, the Trust remained in the top quartile when compared to other teaching hospitals, reflecting that this growth in demand continues to be a national challenge. During 2022/23, the national target was to ensure that there were no patients waiting over two years for treatment by July 2022, and that there were no patients waiting more than 78 weeks by the end of March 2023. Long-waiting patients were an area of particular focus for the Trust during the year with no reported two-year waits since November 2022 and only two between the period June-November due to patients choosing to delay their treatment. This was a significant improvement compared to the peak of 171 patients reported in December 2021. Similarly, the Trust made progress in reducing the number of patients waiting over 78 weeks for treatment. In February 2023, the Trust reported 84 patients in this category compared to the peak of over 900 patients in September 2021. By the end of March 2023, the Trust had managed to further reduce this number of patients to 14, with those in breach of the target all due to the complexity of the cases. UHS referral to treatment waiting list 56,000 54,000 52,000 50,000 48,000 46,000 44,000 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 24 Number on waiting list % standard met Percentage of patients waiting up to 18 weeks between referral and treatment RTT 18 week performance UHS vs. NHSE average 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average Percentage of patients waiting more than 52 weeks between referral and commencement of a treatment for their condition Number of patients Rank UHS Referral to treatment patients waiting more than 52 weeks 3,000 0 2,500 10 2,000 20 1,500 30 1,000 40 500 50 0 60 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts % of RTT patients RTT % of patients waiting more than 52 weeks UHS vs. NHSE average 5.0% 0 4.5% 20 40 4.0% 60 3.5% 80 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts Rank 25 % standard met Cancer Waiting Times The Trust is one of 12 regional cancer centres in the UK offering treatment for rare and complex cancers as well as cancer in children and brain cancer. The Trust has historically been in the upper quartile, relative to teaching hospital peers. Due to loss of key members of staff and industrial action, the Trust’s performance has slipped over the year with 72.5% of patients seen within two weeks in March 2023 following referral by a General Practitioner for suspected cancer (national target: > 93% per month). Cancer waiting times - 2 week wait performance UHS vs NHSE average 100% 0 80% 50 60% 100 40% 150 Apr-22May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23Mar-23 UH S NHSE average UHS rank amongst NHSE trusts Rank Referrals for January to March 2023 were at the highest for that month for the past five years and overall referral volumes in 2022/23 averaged 2,049 patients per month, 8% higher than in 2021/22 and 28% higher than in 2019/20. The national target was for 96% of patients to commence treatment within 31 days of diagnosis. However, in March 2023, the Trust only achieved 87.9%, but this figure hides considerable variation dependent on the tumour site and type of cancer with a range of 100% for haematology and children’s cancers to 71% for skin. The high rate of referrals led to a significant backlog in terms of patients waiting longer than 62 days for treatment. However, the Trust took steps to reduce this backlog by more than 50% through a dedicated recovery programme. In March 2023, the Trust treated 54.8% of patients within 62 days of referral compared to the target of more than 85%. Treatment for Cancer within 62 days of an urgent GP referral to hospital Cancer waiting times 62 day RTT performance UHS vs. NHSE average 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average % standard met 26 First definitive treatment for cancer within 31 days of a decision to treat % standard met Cancer waiting times 31 day RTT performance UHS vs. NHSE average 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 UH S NHSE average Quality priorities The Trust set eight quality priorities in 2022/23, which were aimed at ensuring it 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. The Trust recognised the overriding issues of significant operational pressures being felt right across the health and social care system, including those associated with the previous two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenge was to deliver the best quality care in the context of these operational pressures, and the Trust set its quality priorities accordingly. Out of the eight priories set, the Trust achieved five and partially achieved three. Priority One: Enhancing capability in Quality Improvement (QI) through our Always Improving strategy The transformation team has grown to over thirty team members including project support officers, project managers, benefit realisation managers. This has allowed the Trust to develop that systematic organisational approach to guide and support its staff in their QI projects. The Trust originally set a target of delivering fifty quality improvement projects but have successfully supported a total of 84 (55 local and 29 flow improvements). These are local change projects which were identified, proposed, led, and delivered by the people who do the work. To date over 1500 people have been trained in the Trust’s improvement approach, which exceeds the original target of 500. The Trust also developed a QI project register and held an Always Improving conference. Priority Two: Developing a culture of kindness and compassion to drive a safety culture The Trust only partially achieved this priority as plans to fully deliver training were affected by operational pressures. However, during the year a variety of communication platforms were used to make sure staff understood the Trust’s vision and were kept up to date with plans and progress. The Trust worked to develop and embed a ‘just culture’ allowing staff to speak up and ask, “what happened and how do we learn?” and developed ‘stop for safety’ staff huddles. Priority Three: We will improve mental health care across the Trust including support for staff delivering care The Trust only partially achieved this priority as several key quality improvement projects have not yet been delivered, and the mental health strategy not yet been finalised. However, a training needs analysis was completed and significant staff training and an education scheme were introduced in response to the findings of the analysis. Mental health champion training has been delivered to 153 staff and IT systems have been improved to help capture vital data to help shape the Trust’s service. 27 Priority Four: Recognising and responding to deterioration in patients During 2021/22 the Trust successfully introduced national Paediatric Early Warning System (nPEWS) into its Southampton Children’s Hospital and UHS is now part of the national test and trial of nPEWS which is assessing the usability of the scoring system. The Trust has also explored how nPEWS can be adapted for children with complex medical conditions requiring interventions (including non-invasive ventilation) as part of their normal care. A daily heat map of escalation times over a 24-hour period was piloted in 2022 and will be rolled out across all adult’s inpatient areas during 2023. The Trust has also performed well with its cardiac arrest audits, and training and education programmes have consistently been delivered. September 2022 saw the implementation of a 24-hour paediatric outreach service. There is a deteriorating patient group and several successful QI projects have been introduced. Priority Five: Improving how the organisation learns from deaths The Trust only partially achieved this priority as it has been unable to establish a learning from deaths steering group. The Trust has introduced a mortality governance coordinator/analyst and grown its bereavement care service. Priority Six: Shared Decision Making (SDM) The shared decision models started at UHS in 2021/22 and have continued to grow with investment in pilot roles to expand these models, which include several advanced nurse practitioner roles, models in paediatrics bringing Shared Decision Making to patients who are transitioning from paediatric to adult services, while in maternity we have introduced SDM in birth planning. When assessing delivery of SDM against NICE guidelines, UHS performs well, especially in targets related to Trust buy-in, governance and practices of pilot areas. This year the Trust has implemented training through key platforms and expanded patient involvement in the project. As a leading site nationally for SDM principles, UHS have worked with NHS England on creating materials for others to learn from. Priority Seven: Working with our local community to expose and address health inequalities During the year the Trust refocused its efforts on making sure that its involvement and participation activities support the health inequalities agenda, while also working to deliver responsive information and advice to patients, carers, and families. Priority Eight: Ensure patients are involved, supported, and appropriately communicated with on discharge During the year the Trust has focused on improved patient, carer and family involvement, and improved communication during the discharge process as well as prompting a more collaborative working between social and health care staff. Strong partnership working with external agencies has been developed to support a system approach to hospital discharge, develop digital solutions, develop the patient hub to support discharge and delivered education to UHS staff. More information can be found about how the Trust delivered and measured its quality priorities, including feedback from patients and staff and improvement aims and quality priorities for 2023/24, in the Trust’s Quality Account for 2022/23. 28 Financial performance The Trust delivered a deficit of £11 million from a revenue position of over £1.2 billion, once items deemed as “below the line” by NHS England, such as the financial position of the Southampton Hospitals Charity, were removed. The Trust was unable to deliver the planned breakeven position. Several material cost pressures were incurred, including unfunded high-cost drugs costs and energy prices. These were unable to be off set in full by a savings programme, despite delivery of £45.6m of efficiencies (2021/22: £15m). Trust operating income rose by £64m from the previous financial year, most notably funding the NHS pay award, as well as additional elective recovery funding. Income reduced from the prior year in relation to ending a nationally funded project regarding testing for COVID-19. The Trust has however been successful in increasing funding for research and development. Trust operating expenditure rose by £78m, incorporating funded inflationary costs as well as the cost pressures outlined above. The Trust has also continued its reinvestment of surplus cash into infrastructure for the Trust, with capital investmen
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/UHS-AR-22-23-6.pdf

WDES annual report 2022

Description: Workforce Disability Equality Standard - Annual Report 2022 2 Executive Summary The Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES) is a set of ten metrics that will help NHS organisations to compare the experiences of disabled and non-disabled staff. These metrics are necessary because evidence and research shows that the level of reported discrimination and inequality for disabled people working in the NHs remains high. The WDES was commissioned by the Equality and Diversity Council (EDC), and developed through extensive engagement with Trusts and key stakeholders. It is mandated through the NHS Standard Contract. Implementation of the WDES became an obligatory requirement for national healthcare organisations in 2019, so this is the fourth reporting year for the WDES metric. It is important to note that the data sources for the WDES metrics are a combination of the 2021 National Staff Survey, and workforce data reported at the national data collection cut-off date of 31 March 2022. An infographic offering a visual comparator of WDES 2021 to 2022 has been produced, alongside a guide to the metrics (appendix 1). All NHS organisations are required to produce an action plan to articulate the response to the WDES results, this can be found within the appendices (appendix 2). As UHS continues to develop our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2023-2026, we have incorporated the WDES actions contained in this report into the work programme that will deliver the strategy. The key findings from the 2022 submission show: 1. Out of a total of 13,389 staff (31 March 2022), disabled staff represent 12.16% of the workforce. Overall, this is a 1.24% decrease from 2021 data, this is not representative of wider society which 1 in 5 (22%). Further analysis shows there has been a minimal increase in representation of disabled staff within cluster 2 (AfC Bands 5-7) and 4 (AfC Band 8C-9 and VSM) of our non-clinical workforce and an increase in cluster 4 of our clinical workforce. 2. Data suggests that disabled shortlisted applicants are 0.90 times likely than non-disabled applicants to be appointed to a vacant post. This is an improvement in comparison to last year and suggests that people with disabilities are more likely to be appointed than those without disabilities or long term illness. A score of 1 indicates equal opportunity and anything under 1 indicates more likely, over 1 is less likely. 3. Data indicates disabled staff are less likely than non-disabled staff to be entered into a formal capability process. 4. Disabled staff are more likely than non-disabled staff to experience bullying, harassment and abuse from patients, service users, relatives, members of the public, managers and colleagues than non-disabled counterparts. 5. Disabled staff are less inclined to believe the Trust provides equal opportunities for career development as compared to those staff without disabilities. 6. Disabled staff feel more pressure than non-disabled staff to come to work when unwell. 7. Disabled staff are less satisfied than non-disabled staff that the Trust values their work. 8. There has been a decrease in Disabled staff saying that UHS have made adequate adjustments for them to carry out their work. 9. The staff engagement score for disabled and non-disabled staff is on par with each other and with that of overall staff engagement at UHS. 10. There continues to be no declared representation of disabled staff on the Trust Board. Other than one indicator (an improvement in the likelihood of disabled applicants being appointed from shortlisting in comparison to non-Disabled applicants), there has been minimal change. However, the disparity gap has widened in some areas as the experiences of non-disabled staff has improved. With this in mind, we are committed in continuing to have meaningful engagement with our disabled staff to co-create short and long-term actions with the support of the Long-term Illness and Disability Network to help move the Trust towards disability equality. The WDES data 2022 confirms that the priorities in our draft EDI Strategy are the right ones, to improve or eliminate disparity between experiences of people with long term illness, and disability and those without. We must maintain our focus on: 1. Inclusive recruitment practices and equal opportunities: Large scale review of current recruitment practices to eliminate bias from the systems and promote inclusivity. The Inclusive Recruitment Programme will ensure that recruiting managers are trained in inclusive recruitment techniques and criterion based methods will ensure bias is removed. We will align with the national programme for overhauling recruitment and promotion and contribute to this work wherever possible. The implementation and embedding of processes that ensure inclusive recruitment and equal opportunities for all. Our talent management programme will provide further opportunities for people with disabilities and long term illness to access development. 2. Workforce reflecting our wider communities: In line with the Inclusive Recruitment programme, we will be increasing efforts to make recruitment processes inclusive and therefore not post any barriers to the community in terms of applying for roles at UHS. We will be working with specialist partners to help us to self-assess our environments for people with disabilities or long term illness. Our recruitment outreach will also work more with local communities to attract people from the city from diverse backgrounds. We will provide career toolkits for all people who are unsuccessful at interviews to help them to succeed next time. We will be continuing to promote declarations to ensure we can measure our representation across our workforce and consider a target for % of people with disabilities and long term illness in our workforce which is in line with the reported demographic of our communities. 3. Safe and healthy working environments: Our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy states a clear intent for UHS to become an anti-racist and anti-discriminatory organisation. We aim to decrease disparity of experience by 5% across all indicators in the WDES which will either reduce by half or eliminate disparity altogether. We will be working closer with colleague who lead on hate crime, violence and aggression to ensure robust mechanisms for reporting of incidence and the data is used to steer accountability and meaningful action. We will identify mechanisms and root causes of the disproportionality of staff with disabilities or long term illness experiencing discrimination, harassment, bullying and/or abuse and in turn whether there are trends within the trust that need targeted action. The link to the leadership and management work programme is a critical enabler of creating safe and healthy work environments. Improve the day-to-day experience of working at the Trust for disabled staff, ensuring their experience is free from discrimination, bullying, harassment and/or abuse and individuals feel they are valued. 4. Inclusive leadership and management: Ensure leaders and managers are clear on their accountabilities with regards supporting people with disability and long term illness and the responsibilities they hold to deliver the actions within the EDI strategy. To have development opportunities in supporting disabled staff and those who may identify with a protected characteristic. That all leaders and managers understand their own bias and can access learning in terms of how they behave, lead and make decisions. To support leaders and managers to understand their role as allies and role models, and how to challenge behaviours or actions that are not in line with Trust policy or values. To support leader and managers to develop greater awareness of the legal aspects of their roles in relation to equality, and how diversity and difference can enhance their team delivery and performance. Ensure leaders and managers have learning development opportunities to support individuals with Disabilities and know their responsibilities in relation to the inclusion agenda and specifically actions required to ensure people with disabilities feel valued in the wider workforce. 2 WDES Data Return 2022 Metric 1: Percentage of staff in AfC pay bands or medical and dental subgroups and very senior managers (including Executive Board members) compared with the percentage of staff in the overall workforce. Owing largely to a successful risk assessment campaign throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, disclosure rates in 2020 (15%) and 2021 )13.4%) accurately reflected the local population. However, recent data shows a steady yet continual decrease in declaration rates in terms of the overall representation of disabled staff within the UHS workforce. There is a slight exception of minimal increases in cluster 2 and cluster 4 of 1.3% and 0.09% respectively. Data in Fig 1 and Fig 2 below show the total non-clinical and clinical workforce declaring a disability vs total non-disabled staff in each pay cluster as of 31 March 2022. 2 Fig. 1 Non-Clinical workforce presentation 2021 2022 Pay clusters: Non-clinical Total staff in pay cluster Total disabled staff Total non- disabled staff Total unknown staff Total staff in pay cluster Total disabled staff Total non- disabled staff Total unknown staff Cluster 1 Bands 1-4 2008 14% (283) 69% (1391) 17% (334) 1916 13.25% (254) 71.13% (1363) 15.6% (299) Cluster 2 Bands 5-7 646 10% (66) 77% (495) 13% (85) 743 11.30% (84) 78.06% (580) 10.63% (79) Cluster 3 Bands 8a-8b 183 13% (23) 68% (126) 19% (34) 203 12.80% (26) 71.92% (146) 15.27% (31) Cluster 4 Bands 8c-9 & VSM 93 3% (3) 75% (70) 22% (20) 97 3.09% (3) 81.44% (79) 15.46% (15) Fig 2. Clinical workforce representation Pay clusters: Clinical 2021 2022 Total staff in pay cluster Total disabled staff Total non- disabled staff Total unknown staff Total staff in pay cluster Total disabled staff Total non- disabled staff Total unknown staff Cluster 1 Bands 1-4 2434 16% (384) 73% (1797) 11% (259) 2409 15.19% (366) 74.63% (1798) 10.17% (245) Cluster 2 Bands 5 – 7 5015 16% (799) 70% (3490) 14% (726) 5246 13.62% (715) 73.38% (3850) 12.98% (681) Cluster 3 Bands 8a –b 347 15% (52) 58% (201) 27% (94) 386 15.02% (58) 61.91% (239) 23.05% (89) Cluster 4 Bands 8C-9 & VSM 38 18% (7) 40% (15) 42% (16) 39 20.51% (8) 51.28% (20) 28.20% (11) Cluster 5 Medical & Dental staff, consultants 787 7% (58) 69% (538) 24% (191) 863 6.8% (59) 72.1% (622) 21.1% (182) Cluster 6 Medical & Dental staff, non-consultants career grades 421 6% (25) 82% (345) 12% (51) 428 4.9% (21) 83.2% (356) 11.9% (51) Cluster 7 Medical & Dental staff, medical & dental trainee grades 1027 4% (43) 93% (955) 3% (29) 1059 3.4% (36) 93.9% (994) 2.7% (29) In contrast to the 2021 data submission there is a decrease in representation of Disabled staff across clusters within the clinical workforce with the exception of cluster 4 which has seen an increase in representation from 18% to 20.51%. Metric 2: Relative likelihood of Disabled staff compared to Non-Disabled staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts. This refers to both external and internal posts. The indicator below indicates that non-disabled staff are 0.90 times less likely to be appointed from shortlisting than disabled staff. This compares favourably to 2021, where the score was 1.02, a score below 1 indicates positive equal opportunity. Relative likelihood of staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts 2022 Disabled Non-Disabled Number of shortlisted applicants 608 6897 Number appointed from shortlisting 234 2377 Relative likelihood of non-disabled staff being appointed from shortlisting compared to disabled staff 0.90 Metric 3: Relative likelihood of Disabled staff compared to Non-Disabled staff entering the formal capability process, as measured by entry into the formal capability procedure.. In line with WDES guidance, there is no requirement to analyse the relative likelihood where there are fewer than 10 cases reported involving disabled staff. Relative likelihood of staff entering the formal capability process, as measured by entry into a formal capability process 2022 Disabled Non-Disabled Number of staff entering the formal capability process 0 16 Relative likelihood of Disabled staff entering the formal capability process compared to non-disabled staff 0 Metric 4: (Part A) Percentage of Disabled staff compared to Non-Disabled staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from patients/service users, their relatives or other members of the public, managers and other colleagues; (%s of total participants in staff survey related question, not % of total workforce) Harassment, bullying or abuse from patients/service users, their relatives, or other members of the public: 2021: Disabled – 30%; Non-Disabled – 25.2% 2022: Disabled – 26.7%; Non-Disabled – 21.4% There has been an improvement in numbers of disabled staff reporting they have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse from patients/service users, their relatives or other members of the public. This has decreased by 3.3 from 30% to 26.7%. However, the disparity between the experience of bullying, harassment and abuse between disabled to non-disabled has increased from 4.8% to 5.3% due to the favourable improvement for non-disabled staff. Harassment, bullying or abuse from managers: 2021: Disabled – 13.7%; Non-Disabled – 9.1% 2022: Disabled – 11.9%; Non-Disabled – 7% The data indicates a 1.8% decrease from 13.7% to 11.9% for those with disabilities experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse by managers. However, the disparity between disabled and non-disabled staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse by a manager has increased to 4.9%. This is concerning and highlights the need for interventions to eradicate such experience. Harassment, bullying or abuse from other colleagues: 2021: Disabled – 26.7%; Non-Disabled – 16.2% 2022: Disabled – 21.6%; Non-Disabled – 13.6% There is a 5.1% decrease from 26.7% to 21.6% in disabled staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from other colleagues and a decrease of 2.6% from 16.2% to 13.6% in non-disabled staff. it remains a concern that 8% more disabled staff overall are experiencing such behaviours. It is not acceptable that any staff member experiences harassment, bullying and abuse from colleagues. The action for improvement within the draft EDI strategy in terms of achieving an anti-discriminatory organisation and workstreams to reduce bullying, harassment, abuse, hate crime, violence and aggression. Metric 4: (Part B) Percentage of Disabled staff compared to Non-Disabled staff saying that the last time they experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work, they or a colleague reported it. 2021: Disabled – 49.6%; Non-Disabled – 46.9% 2022: Disabled – 47%; Non-Disabled – 48.7% The 2022 data indicates a worsening of the likelihood of this indicator from 2021 of 2.6%. Whereas the indicator for non-disabled has improved by 2.6%. Continued engagement with individuals and members of the UHS long-term illness and disability network is crucial to gain greater understanding of why individuals aren’t or don’t feel able to report such incidence, and collectively take action to improve. It is also important to note that the participation in this question in the staff survey was lower than other questions, which therefore raises concerns in terms of perception of psychological safety in relation to reporting. . Metric 5: Percentage of Disabled staff compared to Non-Disabled staff believing that the Trust provides equal opportunities for career development. 2021: Disabled – 58%; Non-Disabled – 64.5% 2022: Disabled – 60%; Non-Disabled – 63% This indicator shows that disabled staff are now 2% more likely to think that the trust offers equal opportunities for career progression in comparison to the 2021 data collection. However, it should be noted that Disabled staff are 3% less inclined to believe the Trust provides equal opportunities for career development as compared to those staff without disabilities. Metric 6: Percentage of Disabled staff compared to Non-Disabled staff saying that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties. 2021: Disabled – 33.1%; Non-Disabled – 23.6% 2022: Disabled – 26.9%; Non-Disabled – 19.9% 2021 data submission shows 26.9% of Disabled staff felt pressure to come to work despite feeling unwell, in comparison to 19.9% of non-Disabled staff. This shows a decrease for both comparators but does still evident a disparity of experience between Disabled and non-Disabled staff of 7%. Metric 7: Percentage of Disabled staff compared to Non-Disabled staff saying that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work. 2021: Disabled – 42.7%; Non-Disabled – 54.9% 2022: Disabled – 39.6%; Non-Disabled – 49.6% Unfortunately, 2022 data submission shows a decrease in Disabled and non-Disabled perceptions on feeling valued by the organisation, with Disabled staff reporting 39.6% and non-Disabled staff reporting 49.6% satisfaction. Whilst disparity has decreased this is due to both disabled and non-disabled rating lower dissatisfaction levels, the level of disparity of experience remains high. Metric 8: Percentage of Disabled staff saying that their employer has made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work. 2021: 79.8% 2022: 78.9% There has been a 0.9% decrease in staff saying that UHS have made adequate adjustments for them to carry out their work. With this decrease in experience, over the next year and for the long-term the trust will make demonstrative efforts in addressing this and will be a priority within the action plan as we look to launch a review of the reasonable adjustments process and introduce a policy and guidelines in supporting all staff through the process. Metric 9: (Part A) The staff engagement % score for Disabled staff, compared to Non-Disabled staff and the overall engagement % score for the organisation. 2021: Disabled – 6.9%; Non-Disabled – 7.4%; UHS overall 7.3% 2022: Disabled – 6.9%; Non-Disabled – 7.3%; UHS overall 7.2% It is reassuring to note that the staff engagement score for disabled and non-disabled staff is on par with each other and with that of overall staff engagement at UHS. Metric 10: Board Voting by % disability 12.16% of the UHS population have declared a disability. There are no Trust Board members (voting or non-voting) who have declared a disability or long term illness. The Trust will continue to encourage staff of all levels the importance of declaration and representation, but with particular focus within senior roles. Conclusion and Next Steps Given that we now have a significant dataset available to us and we continue to encourage higher rates in completion of the annual staff survey, we are now in a position to have meaningful engagement with our disabled staff and the wider workforce to co-create short and long-term actions with continued support of the Long-term Illness and Disability Network to help move the Trust towards disability equality. Furthermore, at this point it is important to highlight this data and the areas for improvement that are needed have also been crucial in the current production of the UHS Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy and the outcomes we are committed in achieving over the forthcoming years. As previously summarised the data indicates that we must maintain our focus on: 1. Workforce reflecting our wider communities: Ensure that Disabled staff are able to access appropriate support in order to progress and remains inclusive of all roles at all levels. 2. Inclusive recruitment practices and equal opportunities: large scale review of current recruitment practices and where necessary The implementation and embedding of processes that ensure inclusive recruitment and equal opportunities for all. 3. Safe and healthy working environments: Improve the day-to-day experience of working at the Trust for disabled staff, ensuring their experience is free from discrimination, bullying, harassment and/or abuse and that individuals feel they are valued. 4. Inclusive leadership and management: Ensure leaders and managers have development opportunities in supporting individuals with Disabilities. Ensuring that when additional support such as reasonable adjustments are required the request/or need is met sufficiently. Our action plan which can be found in the appendices will continue to be reviewed in partnership with the Long-Term Illness and Disability network. The proposed actions will continue to be discussed in terms of progress at Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Council, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee and People and Organisational development Committee. This analysis report along with the relevant action plan will be published on our public website by 31st October to meet the requirements set by the Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES). Appendices Appendix 1: Infographic to visualise WDES data 2 Appendix 2: WDES Action Plan 2022 WDES Themes / Areas Proposed actions Responsible for Actions Deadline / review date 1: Workforce reflecting our communities, at all roles, at all levels; ensuring those who are underrepresented groups can access support to thrive, excel and belong within their roles. a) To develop and initiate positive Action Programmes both UHS and HIOW system wide; for those who have disabilities and/or long-term conditions as well as other protected characteristics. Acknowledging individuals experience of barriers to promotion, development and career progression. Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant / Head of EDI / Head of OD July 2023 b) UHS partnership with maaha people in developing and running a positive action leadership programme which will enrol 24 individuals who identify with a protected characteristic and will be designed to support individuals looking to move into, or those who are moving through senior leadership roles within the organisation, building on individuals personal identity, power and influence within the organisation. Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant January 2023 c) Partnership with the Florence Nightingale Foundation; Nurse leadership programme aimed at aspiring nurses from backgrounds that are under-represented in our nursing workforce and ensuring that opportunity for individuals who identify as disabled is equal and representative of wider society. Deputy Director of Nursing & Head of OD April 2023 d) Talent development programme for individuals with a disability and/or long-term condition. Supporting the career development, pathways, training and development of individual’s, ensuring talent workstreams and pipelines that encourage opportunity at earlier stages than current and may include long-term career planning. Develop a talent pipeline/talent management plan to include stretch activities, secondments, shadowing, specialist training, qualifications, coaching and mentoring where it is anticipated a career change will be necessary. This will look at strengthening as well as unearthing our current talent within UHS and ensuring that individuals continue to thrive, excel and belong and we support them to do this. Head of Talent Management / Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant July 2023 e) Continue to build on newly found working relationship with Southampton job centre. Continue to liaise, attend and promote UHS as an employer of choice to disabled individuals within the wider community, the support that is offered and the career opportunities that available including that of our volunteering roles. Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant / HR Recruitment team April 2023 f) Propose and agree a declaration target throughout the organisation for those who identify as having a disability and/or long-term condition. Representation within wider society is currently 22% and therefore a declaration and representation rate of 20% will be proposed and what we know from engagement within the staff survey (2021) is representative at UHS. To achieve this workstreams will include more in depth narrative about declaration of disability and its importance within the onboarding and induction process within UHS and will include literature on the processes of how to declare. Continue with lived experiences pieces and continue to socialise within internal and external communications methods. Continue to at every opportunity irradicate stigma surrounding what happens if an individual declares a disability and continue to showcase the support we offer to individuals within the organisation as a disability confident employer. Director of OD & Inclusion / Chief People Officer April 2023 2: Safe and healthy working environments, free from aggression, hate and discrimination a) Creation of a behaviour framework to bring to live our Trust Values and more clearly describe the expected behaviours relating to equality, diversity and inclusion that impact individuals with a disability and/or long-term condition. Director of OD & Inclusion / Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant August 2023 b) Fully establish divisional EDI Steering Groups to drive actions and improvements derived from Disability specific metrics throughout all teams, care groups and divisions. Director of OD & Inclusion / Head of EDI April 2023 c) Creation of EDI data and information dashboard to evidence improvements and scrutinise themes that impact individuals with a disability and determine actions required. Director of OD & Inclusion / Head of EDI April 2023 d) Developing a culture of Allyship: All staff to participate in Actionable Allyship training by 2024. The actionable allyship – stop.Start.continue programme will continue on the statutory and mandatory matrix for all staff to complete. This will provide individuals with the insight, knowledge and skill and to be active allies within a moment of challenging non inclusive behaviours and supporting out statement in being a anti-discriminatory organisation and in turn decrease the disparity of experience between those who have disabilities and those who don’t. Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant August 2023 e) Develop a process where conversation of long-term conditions and disabilities are standard processes within 1.2.1’s, wellbeing conversations and appraisal conversations. Highlighting all individuals responsibility to show allyship and continue to support individuals throughout their work at UHS. Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant August 2023 3: Recruitment processes which free from bias and are inclusive a) Implement a work programme to review and improve the equity of recruitment processes and practices that impact individuals with a disability and/or long-term condition. Working group to include partnership with our Staff Network leads and representation from our diverse workforce. The working group will look at each stage and deliver on recommendations from engagement within the process. Aligning to the NHS People Plan England/Improvement High Impact Actions and Inclusive Recruitment Programme. Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant December 2022 b) Inclusive training, learning and development for all people involved in recruitment and attraction. Head of Talent attraction / HR Recruitment Team September 2023 c) Deliver a truly Disability friendly process with disability inclusive practices as standard. This will include processes from pre-employment to recruitment, through to employment and the onboarding process. Head of HR / Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant September 2023 d) Develop an inclusive employer recruitment campaign in embedding our Disability confident status and our intentions to move towards disability confident leader within the next 3years. Head of HR / Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant / LID Network September 2023 4: Inclusive leadership and management a) Inclusive Leadership content in all UHS leadership & management programmes to include personal learning, person action and accountability. This will move us to a place where equality, diversity and inclusion is the golden thread that runs through all our processes at UHS. Head of OD / Head of Leadership & Development / Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant April 2023 b) Board and Senior leadership programmes to include the element for all leaders plus strategic and cultural responsibilities for equality, diversity and inclusion. Head of OD / Head of EDI July 2023 c) Inclusive leadership and management as part of the UHS Managers Induction Programme. Head of Leadership & Development / Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant April 2023 d) Implementation of ongoing learning and development opportunities to enable leaders and managers to role model inclusive behaviours every day. For example: * Inclusive meetings * Agile working * Equality impact assessment * Adjustments required to enable people to thrive and be at their best at work. * Creating environments for people to succeed * Inclusive leadership behaviours aligned to our values Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant September 2023 5: Networks and partnerships that thrive and support creation of an inclusive and safe place to work. a) Development programmes for Networks and Network Chairs clearly identifying roles to enable leadership of highly active networks, clarity of purpose and future plans. Development opportunities will include coaching, mentoring, influential leadership skills, recognising their contributions as career development. Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant May 2023 b) Implement and establish the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Council; A place for network leads and members alongside the equality, diversity and inclusion team to dialogue with one another, bring forward ideas or concerns from the networks and a place for the voices of all individuals within the organisation to be recognised. This will also offer a place for future projects and funding to be discussed and where a decision on what escalations/risks need to be raised within committee meetings. Director of OD & Inclusion / Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant November 2022 c) Establish and support new staff networks, as per requested: * Long COVID support group * Women’s Network * Carers Network * Veterans Network Head of EDI / Workforce Inclusion & Belonging Consultant April 2023 2
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Equality-reports/Workforce-Disability-Equality-Standard-Annual-Report-2022.docx

1 to 10 of 142

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … Next

Browse site A to Z

Search results

Papers Trust Board - 13 January 2026

Papers Trust Board - 29 November 2022

WDES report and action plan 2024

Papers Trust Board - 9 September 2025

Papers Trust Board - 7 January 2025

Expressions of interest in SoAR Associate Director role JD and PS 24-4-2023

Papers Trust Board - 11 November 2025

Papers Trust Board - 10 September 2024

UHS AR 22-23-6

WDES annual report 2022

Site policies

Contact details

Useful links