Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Advanced Search

UHS AR 23-24 Final

Description: 2023/24 Incorporating the quality account University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2023/24 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25(4)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 © 2024 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 37 Directors’ report 38 Remuneration report 62 Staff report 75 Annual governance statement 95 Quality account 111 Statement on quality from the chief executive 112 Priorities for improvement and statements of assurance from the board 115 Other information 180 Annual accounts 207 Statement from the chief financial officer 208 Auditor’s report 210 Foreword to the accounts 217 Statement of Comprehensive Income 218 Statement of Financial Position 219 Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity 220 Statement of Cash Flows 221 Notes to the accounts 222 5 Welcome from the Chair and Chief Executive Officer This has been another busy and undoubtedly challenging year across the NHS and UK health and social care system, and much of what has impacted the national picture has been reflected in the operational focuses and patient and people priorities for University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (‘UHS’ or the ‘Trust’) over the last year. Meeting and continuing to overcome the challenges we have faced has required an organisation-wide team effort, and looking back at the successes we feel incredibly proud of the achievements of our 13,000 staff. Particular highlights include: • In the top ten in the country (7th) against government targets for elective recovery performance with 118% of activity compared with 2019. • Top-quartile performance against most performance metrics compared to similar sized teaching hospitals, including Emergency Department access, long-waiting patients on Referral to Treatment pathways, Diagnostics and Cancer performance. • Significant investment in new capacity through building new wards and theatres and refurbishing existing areas of the hospital. • Delivery of our highest ever Cost Improvement Programme saving. These achievements place us among the best performing trusts in England in several areas and are even more remarkable against a backdrop of continued periods of industrial action and increasing demand for our services, with many people coming to us with higher levels of acuity than ever before. The Trust’s performance in terms of elective recovery places it as one of the best-performing trusts in England and demonstrates the impact of the Trust’s decision to invest in additional capacity in prior years by building new wards and theatres. The Trust’s Emergency Department performance in respect of its four-hour waiting target at the end of March 2024 has attracted additional capital funding as part of an incentive scheme. Some of this funding will be used to increase the department’s same-day emergency care capacity during 2024/25. From a financial perspective, balancing the complexities of today’s challenges alongside the need to protect and ensure the long-term stability and quality of our service provision, has required the Board to take a number of considered and crucial efficiency improvement actions this year. Whilst challenging, the Trust has seen significant progress in delivering on both its forecasted finance position for 2023/24 and productivity targets. Achieving long-term financial stability is key to us continuing to invest in much needed upgrades and improvements to the parts of our estate that are ageing, and to developing new state-of-the-art facilities and infrastructure that increases our capabilities and capacity into the future. In the last year parts of the hospital have been transformed, with the opening of new wards, theatres and a skybridge to link the estate. Construction of a sterile services and aseptics facility has begun at Adanac Park and the expansion of our neonatal department, where we treat and care for some of our most vulnerable babies and their families, is underway. The development of a new aseptic facility at Adanac Park will have capacity to serve other hospitals within the region and is a significant opportunity for improved system-wide working. 6 We have also worked with our people to design spaces where they can rest, relax and recharge - including a new wellbeing hub and rooftop garden on the Princess Anne Hospital site. In addition, 40 staff rooms across the site have been refurbished thanks to funding from Southampton Hospitals Charity. During the year, the Trust worked to establish the Southampton Hospitals Charity as a separate charitable company to improve its ability to both raise and spend funds. This process completed on 1 April 2024. Work was carried out to refurbish a children’s ward during the year in partnership with the charity. Our people are our greatest asset, and we are pleased to see improvements from the annual staff survey in several areas - such as how people can work more flexibly, access to learning and development and improved satisfaction in support from line managers. We recognise the pressures and demands that come with working in this environment and will continue to ensure everyone working here feels heard, encouraged and supported when raising concerns. At UHS, every opportunity is taken to recognise and celebrate the incredible things our people do here every day, including the return of our in-person annual awards ceremony, monthly staff recognition events and the first ever ‘We Are UHS Week’. These occasions are an important reminder that, even when faced with challenges, there is so much to be proud of and celebrate across the whole Trust. Working together, both within the Trust and across organisational boundaries, remains one of our core values. The partnership between UHS and the University of Southampton is as strong as it has ever been, with more than 250,000 individuals having now taken part in research studies in Southampton. As the lead partner member for Acute Hospital Services on the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board, we are proactively working with other trusts and healthcare providers in the region to improve the health of the community we serve. In addition, the Trust has continued to work in partnership with other providers across the system to build a shared elective orthopaedic hub in Winchester. It is anticipated that the health and social care system will continue to be a challenging environment in 2024/25. We recognise that many of the big challenges we face can only be solved in partnership with wider local partners, and we are committed to actively playing our part in delivering system-wide solutions. Equally, we will continue to focus on improving whatever is within our internal control, and to work collaboratively with our people to ensure our patients’ experience, safety and outcomes remain central to our decision-making and the actions of everyone at UHS. Jenni Douglas-Todd Chair 19 July 2024 David French Chief Executive Officer 19 July 2024 7 PERFORMANCE REPORT Performance report Introduction from the Chief Executive Officer As with 2022/23, this was another challenging year with continued increasing demand for the Trust’s resources and the need to balance this with the need to deliver quality patient care and at the same time maintain a sustainable financial position. Demand for non-elective care continued to increase with an average of 375 attendances per day to our main Emergency Department. In addition, the number of patients on the 18-week Referral to Treatment pathway rose to 58,000. Patients having no clinical criteria to reside in hospital, but unable to be discharged due to the lack of funded care in a more suitable location, posed and continues to pose a significant challenge for the Trust. The number of patients within this category was as high as 270 at times and was consistently higher throughout the year when compared to 2022/23. Despite this the Trust continued to perform well when compared to other comparable organisations, achieving some of the best Emergency Department and elective recovery fund performance in England. The Trust’s financial position continued to be difficult, which required some difficult decisions in respect of spending controls and controls on recruitment. The Trust focused in particular on controlling spending on temporary and agency staff, but in view of the overall workforce numbers compared to the 2023/24 plan, further controls were implemented in respect of substantive recruitment. Due to the additional controls and the Trust’s best delivery to date on its Cost Improvement Programme (£63.4m), the Trust achieved an end of year deficit of £4.5m, compared to the deficit of £26m anticipated in its 2023/24 plan. 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 £1.3 billion in 2023/24. It is based on the coast in south east England and provides services to over 1.9 million people living in Southampton and south Hampshire and specialist services, including neurosciences, respiratory medicine, cancer care, cardiovascular, obstetrics and specialist children’s services, to nearly four 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 155,000 inpatients and day patients, including about 70,000 emergency admissions sees over 750,000 people at outpatient appointments deals with around 150,000 cases in our emergency department 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 54% is paid for by NHS England and 43% by integrated care boards, predominantly the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (ICB). 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 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. The ICP is a statutory committee jointly formed between the NHS integrated care board and all upper-tier local authorities that fall within the ICS area. The ICP brings 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 Trust has been a university teaching hospital since 1971. The diagram below provides an overview of the overall organisational structure of the Trust. Public and foundation trust members Council of Governors Board of Directors Executive Directors Division A Division B Division C Division D Surgery Critical Care Opthalmology Theatres and Anaesthetics 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 The Trust’s values describe how things are done 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. These 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 its staff had experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and what had been learnt from this. The vision for UHS is to become an organisation of world class people delivering world class care. The Trust’s strategy is organised around five themes and for each of these it describes a number of ambitions UHS aims 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 2023/24 these objectives included: Outstanding patient outcomes, experience and safety Pioneering research and innovation World class people Integrated networks and collaboration Foundations for the future • Increasing the number of reported Shared Decision-Making conversations. • Increasing the number of specialities reporting outcomes that matter to patients. • Rolling out the Patient Safety Incident Reporting Framework across the Trust. • Working with patients as partners to improve patient satisfaction. • Treating patients according to need but aiming for no patient to wait, other than through patient choice, more than 65 weeks for treatment. • Delivering national metrics for site set-up time to target for clinical research studies. • Improving the Trust’s position against peers. • Delivering year three of the Trust’s research and innovation investment plan. • Developing the five-year research and development strategy implementation plan and delivery of the first year. • Strengthening and broadening the partnership between the Trust and the University of Southampton. • Supporting delivery of the Trust’s workforce plan for 2023/24. • Reducing turnover and sickness absence rates. • Increasing overall participation in the NHS staff survey and maintaining overall staff engagement score. • Increasing the proportion of appraisals completed. • Delivering the first year objectives of the Inclusion and Belonging strategy. • Working in partnership with acute trusts to agree and implement the acute services strategy. • Producing and embedding an internal framework for network development. • Working with the local delivery system on vertical integration to reduce the number of patients without criteria to reside. • Working with system partners to open a surgical elective hub. • For the Trust to be seen as an ‘anchor institution’ in the local area. • Delivering the Trust’s financial plan for 2023/24. • Engaging the organisation in the challenge to manage demand so that capacity and demand are in equilibrium. • Delivery of the Always Improving strategy priorities. • Delivering the Trust’s capital programme in full. • Entering into a new energy performance contract and delivering the first year of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme. Performance against these objectives was monitored and reported to the Trust’s Board on a quarterly basis. 14 At the end of 2023/24, the Trust had met the objectives set as follows: Corporate Ambition Outstanding patient outcomes, safety and experience Pioneering research and innovation World class people Integrated networks and collaboration Foundations for the future Totals Number of Objectives 5 5 5 5 5 25 Achieved in full 4 3 2 3 2 14 Partially achieved 1 2 2 1 3 9 Not achieved 0 0 1 1 0 2 Particular areas to highlight where the Trust has achieved strong delivery during the year include: • Delivery of quality priorities in Shared Decision-Making and the roll out of the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework. • Achieving the Trust’s 65-week waiter glide path. • Successful delivery of a number of research and development priorities, including work with the University of Southampton. • Maintaining sickness absence and turnover well below the targets set at the beginning of the year, and successfully delivering the first year of the Trust’s Inclusion and Belonging strategy. • Delivery of the Trust’s full available capital budget and completion of the first year of the Trust’s decarbonisation scheme. 15 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 2023/24 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 or carers with a highquality 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 does not take full advantage of its 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 its patients. • 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, 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 and digital strategies and in transformation initiatives. • 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 2023/24, the Trust saw continued increased demand for its services, particularly in the Emergency Department In addition, the number of patients having no clinical criteria to reside in hospital, but unable to be discharged due to a lack of appropriate care packages was higher than anticipated and spiked during winter, which significantly impacted patient flow through the hospital and required the Trust to engage additional temporary staff. The number of patients in this category peaked at 270 during the winter. There were particular challenges in respect of those patients with a primary mental health care need who would be better cared for in a more suitable alternative setting. 16 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 Trust continued to experience high demand for its services, especially in the Emergency Department, with average demand during the year being around 375 patients presenting per day in the main adult and children’s emergency department. In addition, the Trust experienced a significant impact on flow within the hospital due to a high number of patients having no clinical criteria to reside in hospital but unable to be discharged. This number was as high as 270 at times during winter: an increase of around 50 patients when compared to the prior year. The Trust also saw an increase in the number of referrals with the number of patients on a waiting list under the 18-week Referral to Treatment pathway rising from approximately 55,000 to 58,000 by the end of the year. In common with other trusts, the ongoing industrial action also impacted the Trust’s ability to provide urgent care and deliver on its elective recovery programme. Quality and compliance Despite the challenges, the Trust’s Emergency Department performance was one of the highest in England in March 2024, which resulted in additional capital funding being awarded. In addition, the Trust’s elective recovery performance was one of the best in England at 118% compared to 2019. The Trust continued to monitor the quality of care delivered throughout 2023/24 through a number of established quality assurance programmes. Clinical leaders monitored key quality, safety and patient experience indicators such as falls, pressure ulcers and venous thromboembolisms. Quality peer reviews were carried out, most significantly through Matron-led Quality Walkabouts every week in and out of hours focusing on the five key CQC questions – safe, effective, responsive, caring, and well-led. The Trust’s Clinical Accreditation Scheme builds on this intelligence, with clinical areas completing self-assessments of performance and review teams completing onsite visits. Patient representatives were included in these review teams. Learning was shared at the Clinical Leaders’ Group and via quarterly reports. The Trust was an active partner in a South-East accreditation network, offering advice and a steer to providers who are just setting up or looking to develop their own scheme, and extended that advice and support to other providers in England. 17 On 15 May 2023, the CQC inspected the maternity and midwifery service at Princess Anne Hospital as part of their national maternity inspection programme. The inspection report was published 11 August 2023, and the Trust retained its overall rating of ‘good’. This year UHS introduced its Fundamentals of Care (FOC) initiative. Whilst this is not a new concept, there were concerns that missed fundamental care had been amplified during the COVID- 19 pandemic. This initiative aims to empower and educate staff at all levels to ensure fundamental care is at the heart of what the Trust does. The Trust completed its transition to the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) and collaborated with the ICB to develop a PSIRF plan and policy to underpin the change. The Trust implemented the requirements in respect of ‘Martha’s Rule’ where patients, relatives and carers have a legal right to a rapid review by a critical care outreach team during an acute deterioration episode in and out of hours. The Trust continued its focus on infection prevention and control, responding rapidly to rises in infection over the winter, and successfully flexing initiatives and innovations to achieve successful management in a responsive manner. The Trust progressed its Always Improving strategy and successfully supported the identification and implementation of further quality improvement projects. This included improvements across theatres, inpatient flow and outpatient programmes. During the year, average length of stay was reduced by 1.64%, day theatre cancellations were reduced by 200, and 42,350 patients were placed onto Patient Initiated Follow Up (PIFU) pathways. Further information can be found in the Quality Account. Partnerships The Trust works within the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System, and is an active member of a number of partner groups including the Acute Provider Collaborative Board and the Health and Wellbeing Board. The Trust develops and agrees its annual financial plans with the Integrated Care Board. The Trust is a member of a number of specific partnership groups for particular services, including the Central and South Genomics Medicine Service, the Children’s Hospital Alliance and the Southern Counties Pathology Network. The Trust works actively as a partner with other provider organisations around clinical networks, particularly with acute Trusts within the Integrated Care System and others closely located geographically. The Trust also links closely with the University of Southampton on a number of topics including research, commercial development and education and has a developed meeting structure to oversee this. 18 Workforce The Trust’s key areas of focus during 2023/24 were in respect of increasing the substantive workforce whilst also reducing reliance on bank and agency usage, and reducing staff turnover and sickness. 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 331 whole-time equivalents above its plan for 2023/24. The Trust was successful in reducing staff turnover from 13.5% in 2022/23 to 11.4%, achieving the local target of . Cancer Waiting Times - 2 Week Wait Performance Cancer Waiting Times - 2 Week Wait Performance 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 Nov-23 Dec-23 Jan-24 Feb-24 Mar-24 Performance % standard met The national target was for 96% of patients to commence treatment within 31 days of diagnosis. In March 2024, the Trust achieved 92% and performed in the range of 86%-94% throughout the year. The Trust has continued to make progress against the target for treatment of cancer within 62 days of an urgent GP referral, improving performance from 64% in April 2023 to 76% in March 2024 (NHS average: 69%). First definitive treatment for cancer within 31 days of a decision to treat % standard met Cancer waiting times 31 day RTT performanceUHS vs. NHSE average Cancer waiting times 31 day RTT performance UHS vs. NHSE average 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% Apr-23 May-23 Jun-2 3 Jul-2 3 Aug-23 Sep-2 3 Oct-23 Nov-2 3 Dec-23 Jan-24 Feb-2 4 Mar-24 Performance NHS Average 27 Treatment for Cancer within 62 days of an urgent GP referral to hospital Cancer Waiting Times 62 Day RTT Performance UHS vs NHSE Average Cancer Waiting Times 62 Day RTT Performance UHS vs NHSE Average % standard met 1 00% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 Nov-23 Dec-23 Jan-24 Feb-24 Mar-24 Performance NHS Average 28 Quality priorities Priorities for improvement 2023/24 Last year the Trust continued its ambition to deliver the highest quality care shaped by a range of national, regional, local, and Trust-wide factors. During the year the Trust continued to experience unprecedented demand on its services, with flow, capacity, infection prevention and safety all presenting challenges. However, the Trust was confident in its ability to keep a focus on its quality priorities, and its teams worked hard to achieve their goals even in these difficult circumstances. Priorities are aligned to the three core dimensions of quality: • Patient experience – how patients experience the care they receive. • Patient safety – keeping patients safe from harm. • Clinical effectiveness – how successful is the care provided? Out of the six priories set, the Trust achieved five and partially achieved one. Overview of success Quality Priority One Improving care for people with learning disabilities and autistic (LDA) people across the Trust. Supporting staff delivering this care. Outcome against goals: achieved Key achievements: • LDA working group reestablished. • Development of an improvement plan using the NHS Learning Disability Improvement standards. • The LDA team has moved to the virtual enhanced care group in Division B where operational and governance support, leadership, and peer support/learning opportunities has been strengthened. • Sensory Boxes have been introduced for all clinical areas, funded by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight (HIOW) Integrated care board (ICB). These boxes include noise cancelling headphones, fidget toys, communication books and visual cards to support patients and wards. • Recruited additional Learning Disability Champions. • Established links with the parent carer forum (PCF) for the local area and are now attending regular events. A representative from the PCF sits on the LDA working group. The LDA team are working with the Trust lead for patient experience to develop this aspect of the LDA workplan over the next year. Quality Priority Two Supporting patients, service users and staff to overcome their tobacco dependence via a smoking cessation programme. Outcome against goals: achieved Key achievements: • Package of support available to patients who may be smokers and who need to be supported not to smoke during their treatment. • Fully trained team of tobacco advisors working in the hospital and an advisor working in the outpatient setting supporting the patients once they have returned home. • Devised the IT changes the Trust would like to implement to improve its service and referral process. • Recruited 30 smoke-free champions. • Successfully supported 1,131 patients with a self-confirmed quit rate of 45.6% at 28 days. • Supported 109 outpatients who have successfully achieved a 60% quit rate. • On track to achieve the goal to go smoke-free by April 2024 including the removal of smoking shelters. 29 Quality Priority Three Ensure carers are fully supported, involved, and valued across all our services by developing the carers support service across the Trust in partnership with Southampton Hospitals. Outcome against goals: partially achieved Key achievements: • Carers now have a more comprehensive package of concessions and vouchers to help support their cared-for person (e.g. free parking available onsite for blue badge owners is now available). • Listening events were held to put patients at the centre of transforming the way we deliver care is delivered, enabling their voices to improve the quality of care and outcomes for all. • Developed joint working with local partners (e.g. Children’s Society and No Limits to support young carers). Not yet achieved: • The ‘pathway to support, has not yet been developed. Work is ongoing to develop a new strategy. • A charity-funded carers’ support worker has not yet been appointed. • The carers’ training package has not yet been relaunched. Quality Priority Four Put patients at the centre of transforming the way care is delivered, enabling their voices to improve the quality of care and outcomes for all. Outcome against goals: achieved Key achievements: • Work has continued to work across corporate and divisional services to embed patients and carers into quality and service improvement, creating new patient groups (e.g. Mesh Support Group). • Successfully developed our engagement with various local communities, working to ensure that a range of care experiences are considered ( e.g. there is now a Gypsy, Roma, and Irish Traveller community health liaison officer to ensure that these communities are engaged with and brought into work to improve the inclusivity of our services). • Attending multiple public engagement opportunities (Young Carers’ Festival, Mela, University Freshers’ Fayres, Carers’ Listening Lunch, Hoglands Park Play Day, visits to local temples and ‘Love Where You Live’). • Youth and Young Adult Ambassador involvement has increased, including attendance toat meetings of the Council of Governors, and supporting hospital projects. • A Celebration of Carers Week and Volunteers Week were run. • The Trust has analysed its reported outcome measures to identify health inequalities in its services. This information has been used to set a new quality priority for 2024/25. • An SMS friends and family test text survey has been introduced to improve the response rate on patient feedback from the Emergency Department. In the first three months following the survey launch, responses increased from 24 to 424. 30 Quality Priority Five To develop the Trust’s clinical effectiveness process, connecting to the Trust’s Always Improving approach to measuring, understanding, and using outcomes to improve patient care. Outcome against goals: achieved Key achievements: • The Trust has developed its clinical effectiveness process across the Trust with involvement of informatics, governance and management teams, clinical effectiveness leads as well as reporting committees. • Patient representation onhas been included in the clinical assurance meeting for effectiveness and outcomes (CAMEO) to ensure conversations focus on what matters to patients. • The CAMEO template has been changed to focus discussions on areas the specialty is proud of (strong or improving outcomes), areas for improvement (poorly benchmarked or worsening outcomes) and planned actions. • The Trust encourages the use of run and/or statistical process control charts along with benchmarking where available. • Details of NICE and quality standards and national and regional reviews are included to cover breadth of clinical effectiveness. • How the clinical effectiveness team works has been reorganised, aligning each of them to each division giving a named link which helps to deepen understanding and improve links with governance and improvement activities locally. • Working with informatics to establish a core set of clinical outcome measures which are meaningful to patients, which can be reported centrally (starting with surgical specialities). • Starting to develop an education strategy and platform to support staff with a number of tools used in clinical effectiveness as well as clarity on where and how to record and evidence audit and service improvement. • A revised strategy has been drafted. Quality Priority Six Developing a culture where all clinical staff have a basic knowledge of diabetes. Outcome against goals: achieved Key achievements: • Launch of the ‘Start with the Diabasics’ Initiative, designed to help give diabetes visibility across UHS. • Delivered an extensive education programme to clinical staff across the professions and bands, including the introduction of some e-learning and a Diabasics introductory video has been shown at all trust staff inductions since July 2023. • Supported the development of 45 diabetes link nurses, resulting in all ward areas now having a named diabetes link nurse. • Improved triage for referrals. • Established processes for ‘lessons learned’. • Developed IT solutions to improvingimprove alerts and guidance. • A ‘Ketone Wednesdays’ initiative has been created in response to overuse of blood ketone testing (estimated waste cost of £100,000 per year). • The Trust’s lead diabetes specialist nurse and the Diabasics Initiative were both shortlisted for National Quality in the Care Diabetes Awards (October 2023). • The Diabasics Initiative was mentioned as a case study on the Diabetes UK charity website as an example of good practice that could be reproduced elsewhere. 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 2024/25, in the Trust’s Quality Account for 2023/24. 31 Financial performance The Trust delivered a deficit of £4.5m from a revenue position of over £1.3bn, following receipt of £24.6m one-off cash support from NHS England. UHS started the year with an underlying deficit as a result of a number of cost pressures, notably demand for services being above block contract levels and the cost of national pay awards being above funded levels. The Trust has also continued to face a number of pressures, including high numbers of patients who no longer meet the criteria to reside in the hospital, and high demand for patients with a primary mental health need. In 2023/24, the Trust delivered a record savings level of £63.4m (5%) across a range of programmes. Trust operating income rose by £107m from the previous financial year, most notably funding the NHS pay award, as well as additional elective recovery funding. Trust operating expenses rose by £89m, incorporating funded inflationary costs as well as costs relating to the cost pressures outlined above. The Trust has also continued its reinvestment of surplus cash into infrastructure for the Trust, with capital investment of over £75m, including investment in new wards, theatres, decarbonisation, digital infrastructure, neonatal expansion and backlog maintenance. Trust cash and cash equivalents finished the year at £79m, a reduction of £24m from the previous year due to the operating loss and capital investment outlined above. Whilst liquidity remained strong in 2023/24 supported by NHS England cash support, the underlying financial deficit means it is likely to decline further in 2024/25. The Trust is continuing to monitor its cash position closely and is considering whether additional cash support may be required in 2024/25. Sustainability The Trust recognises that everyone has a part to play in responding to the climate crisis. In March 2022, the Trust agreed its own green plan in response to the challenge of the NHS becoming the world’s first health service to reach carbon net zero. Now in its third year, the plan identifies the Trust’s key areas of focus and its ambitions and has seen progress across all areas of the plan. The plan sets out the scale of the challenge, the Trust’s commitment to reducing the impact on the environment and the steps to be taken across the following categories: • Estates and facilities • Clinical and medicines • Digital transformation • Supply chain and procurement • Travel and transport • Waste and resources • Food and nutrition • Adaptation • Biodiversity • Wider sustainability The Trust continues to progress through its green plan and has completed the ‘Greener NHS’ reporting tool for several quarters, which has demonstrated good progress. In addition, the Trust is planning to launch its ‘Our Sustainable UHS’ app for staff, which will give tips on sustainability and create personalised travel plans, including identifying potential contacts for car sharing. In addition, the Trust is considering proposals to implement additional solar power, smart metering and expanding the use of LED lighting. 32 In 2022/23, the Trust was successful in bidding for £29.4m of funding through the Public Sector DeCarbonisation Fund, which will be used to fund green initiatives as part of the Trust’s capital programme. During the year the Trust successfully bid for £823k in National Energy Efficiency Funding which has been used to upgrade the lighting at Princess Anne Hospital. Social, community, anti-bribery and human rights issues The Trust recognises its responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights (included in the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK). These rights include: • right to life • right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment • right to liberty and freedom • right to respect for privacy and family life. These are reflected in the duty, set out in the NHS Constitution, to each and every individual that the NHS serves, to respect their human rights and the individual’s right to be treated with dignity and respect. The Trust is committed to ensuring it fully takes into account all aspects of human rights in its work. An equality impact assessment is completed for each Trust policy. For patients, the Trust’s safeguarding policies protect and support the right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect and other policies and standards are designed to optimise privacy and dignity in all aspects of patient care. Feedback from patients and the review of complaints, concerns, claims, incidents and audit help to monitor how the Trust is achieving these objectives. The Trust’s green plan, approved by the board of directors in March 2022, recognises the Trust’s broader role and responsibility to address the issues of climate change, air pollution, waste and environmental decline present to the city of Southampton and the impact that these issues have on the health and wellbeing of the local population served. Although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 does not apply to the Trust, its green plan sets out an ambition to stop modern slavery. The Trust is also committed to maintaining an honest and open culture within the Trust; ensuring all concerns involving potential fraud, bribery and corruption are identified and rigorously investigated. The Trust has a Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy, a Standards of Business Conduct Policy and a Raising Concerns (Whistleblowing) Policy. These apply to all staff and to individuals and organisations who act on behalf of UHS. Anti-bribery is part of the Trust’s work to counter fraud. This work is overseen by the Audit and Risk Committee, which receives regular reports from the local counter fraud specialist on the effectiveness of these policies through its monitoring and reviews, providing recommendations for improvement, as well as an annual report from the freedom to speak up guardian. You can read more about the work of the Audit and Risk Committee and the Trust’s approach to counter fraud in the Accountability Report. Events since the end of the financial year There have been no important events since the end of the financial year affecting the Trust. Overseas operations The Trust does not have any overseas operations. 33 Equality in service delivery NHS trusts have an essential role in tackling health inequalities, both as part of the services they provide, but also through work with the wider system. By working with those in integrated care systems, local authorities and third sector organisations, the Trust can have a significant impact on the health of the local population. The national focus on health inequalities is growing. This comes with new legal duties around reporting information and expectations to report on improvement programmes. In September 2023, a health inequalities steering group was initiated, under the leadership of the Chief Medical Officer, with representation from clinical, operational, transformation, patient experience, research, organisational development and culture, informatics, public health and the Integrated Care Board. The group focused on scoping future priorities aligned to national guidelines, contractual obligations and priorities, regional priorities, feedback from clinical teams and patients, understanding where action is already being taken, and what the data is showing. Overall, the group
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/UHS-AR-23-24-Final.pdf

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

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

Papers Trust Board 6 June 2024

Description: Date Time Location Chair Apologies Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 06/06/2024 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd Diana Eccles, Tim Peachey (from 12:00) 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 or 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 28 March 2024 9:15 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 28 March 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 Audit and Risk Committee (Oral) 9:20 Keith Evans, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee (Oral) 9:25 Dave Bennett, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:30 Committee (Oral) Jane Harwood, Chair 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee (Oral) 9:35 Tim Peachey, Chair 5.5 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:40 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 1 10:00 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.7 Finance Report for Month 1 10:30 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer 5.8 Break 10:45 5.9 People Report for Month 1 10:55 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer 5.10 Infection Prevention and Control 2023-24 Annual Report 11:10 Receive and discuss Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Julian Sutton, Interim Lead Infection Control Director/Sue Dailly, Infection Prevention Matron 5.11 Learning from Deaths 2023-24 Quarter 4 Report 11:20 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience 5.12 Freedom to Speak Up Report 11:30 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Christine Mbabazi, Equality & Inclusion Adviser/Freedom to Speak Up Guardian 5.13 Fuller Inquiry Report 11:45 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendee: Gavin Hawkins, Divisional Director of Operations, Division B 6 STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 CRN Wessex 2023-24 Annual Performance Report 11:55 Receive and note the annual report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Clare Rook, Chief Operating Officer, CRN: Wessex 6.2 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 Feedback from the Council of Governors' (CoG) Meeting 1 May 2024 12:25 (Oral) Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 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: 25 July 2024 10 Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair To agree, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust's Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. 11 Follow-up discussion with governors 12:45 Page 3 Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date Time 28/03/2024 9:00 – 13:00 Location Chair Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present Dave Bennett, NED (DB) Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer (GB) Jenni Douglas-Todd, Chair (JD-T) 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) In attendance Martin De Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships (MDeS) Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (LA) (item 6.1) Ceri Connor, Director of OD and Inclusion (CC) (item 4.12) Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant (DH) (item 4.14) Sophie Limb, HR Project Manager (SL) (item 4.12) 1 member of the public (item 5) 6 governors (observing) 5 members of staff (observing) 1 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 February 2024, including visits to hospital departments, meetings with peers and other key stakeholders. 2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 30 January 2024 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 30 January 2024, subject to amending a reference to ‘radiology’ on page four to ‘radiotherapy’. 3. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions It was noted that all actions had been completed or were not yet due. Page 1 In terms of action 1102, the service was provided by NHS Blood and Transfusion, and funding had been removed. 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 provide an overview of the meeting held on 18 March 2024. It was noted that: • The committee had reviewed the losses and special payments report and noted that although the individual size of each occurrence was not material, these instances nonetheless did have a significant impact on individual patients. • The committee reviewed the Board Assurance Framework (item 6.1). • The committee reviewed an internal audit report on data quality and noted that there were only some minor matters to address. In addition, there were no outstanding actions from previous reports. • The committee reviewed the internal audit plan for 2024/25, which would include examination of long waiters, the discharge process and rostering. • The external audit plan for the 2023/24 financial year was agreed. 4.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Charitable Funds Committee Steve Harris was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 27 March 2024. It was noted that: • The charity was in a position to transfer to the new charitable company. • Gail Byrne would be appointed as a director of the new charitable company on a temporary basis to represent the Trust. • The annual report and accounts for 2023/24 would be the final item of business requiring Board approval. 4.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance and Investment Committee The chair of the Finance and Investment Committee was invited to provide an overview of the meeting held on 25 March 2024. It was noted that: • The committee reviewed the Finance Report for Month 11 (item 4.10) and the planning for 2024/25, noting that the underlying position presented a challenge for 2024/25. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s productivity assessed against that in 2018/19. The NHS England formula showed a 18% decline in the Trust’s performance. However, the basis of the formula was open to debate and the perception in the organisation was different given the demands on the Trust’s capacity. The Trust’s modified formula showed a lower decline in productivity and work was ongoing with the central team. • The committee reviewed the maintenance requirements in the Trust’s estate, which were significant owing to its age. • The committee reviewed the proposed capital prioritisation for 2024/25 and 2025/26. 4.4 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 20 March 2024. It was noted that: • The committee reviewed the People Report for Month 11 (item 4.11) and noted that the additional recruitment controls were having an impact. Page 2 • The committee reviewed the Staff Survey results (item 4.12), noting that key themes were staff burnout and morale. 4.5 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 18 March 2024. It was noted that: • The committee reviewed the patient safety and experience reports for the third quarter and noted some concerns regarding infection prevention control and pressure ulcers. In addition, there was some concern about overcrowding in the resuscitation area. • The committee had carried out a thematic review of never events, especially in Dermatology. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s performance in terms of its quality priorities for 2023/24. The Trust had achieved all its objectives, except one, which had been partially achieved. It was intended that there would be eight quality priorities in 2024/25. • It had been confirmed that the Integrated Care Board would fund the tobacco dependency programme in 2024/25. • Work was also taking place to provide additional capacity in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit. 4.6 Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (HIOW ICB) had launched a consultation on how it will re-shape itself for the future. The ICB had been required to reduce its running costs by 20% during 2024/25 and by a further 10% during 2025/26. • Junior doctors had voted to continue industrial action for a further six months. • In the Spring Budget, the Chancellor announced additional funding for the NHS, although, once inflation had been taken into account, the NHS budget would remain broadly flat. • The NHS England Workforce Race Equality Standard data report showed some improvements, but further work was required. • Steve Brine, the Member of Parliament for Winchester and Chandler’s Ford had been hosted by the Trust on a visit the week before. This afforded an opportunity to discuss the Hampshire County Council consultation, social care and non-criteria to reside. • The latest NHS patient survey showed a reduction in satisfaction, but this was largely due to waiting to get into the system. • There was significant pressure from NHS England for trusts to achieve the targets set. The Trust has demonstrated strong performance during 2023/24 across the six targets. • A nurse from the Trust has received a national recognition award based on their work on the ‘Diabasics’ initiative and the first episode of ‘Surgeons at the Edge of Life’, filmed at Southampton General Hospital, had been broadcast on BBC2. • Thanks were expressed to all staff for their performance during the year. 4.7 Performance KPI Report for Month 11 Joe Teape was invited to present the Performance KPI Report for Month 11, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In terms of the Trust’s performance compared with comparators, the Trust was top quartile for the majority of indicators and top half for others. Page 3 • There were 19 patients who would breach the 78-week wait target at year end, 18 of which were corneal patients where materials were unavailable. It was noted that there was a national shortage of materials. • There were expected to be about 50 breaches of the 65-week wait target, of which around 30 were corneal patients. • The Trust had achieved diagnostic performance of 92% achieving the sixweek target. • There had been high volumes of patients in the Emergency Department during February and March 2024. However, the Trust had achieved 70.6% for type 1 performance and expected to achieve the 76% target by the end of March 2024. • The Trust’s Referral To Treatment metric was beginning to improve and there were some examples of very good waiting list management in Trauma and Orthopaedics and in Women and New Born. • The key point to emphasise was that, although it might not seem so at times, the Trust was out-performing most other comparable organisations. It was considered appropriate that staff communications should be worked on to reinforce this message. In terms of the Trust’s Key Performance Indicators: • The Quality Committee had seen significant improvements in diagnostic performance. • The two-week wait cancer target performance had also improved since April 2023. • Unfortunately, due to significant challenges with flow, overnight ward move performance had dropped significantly during the month, leading to poor patient experience. • In addition, the rate of pressure ulcers appeared to be increasing. 4.8 Non-Criteria to Reside Spotlight Report Joe Teape was invited to present the Non-Criteria to Reside Spotlight Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Management of non-criteria to reside patients was one of the Trust’s biggest risks in terms of its operational and financial performance and achievement of its targets. • The Trust has seen 20%+ of beds occupied by patients without criteria to reside, which significantly impacted patient flow in the Emergency Department and has led to ambulance handover delays. • In addition, stays in hospital of longer duration were known to lead to worse patient outcomes. • The Trust was unable to have a significant impact on this issue, as the main driver was insufficient funding availability in local authorities. • In terms of what the Trust could do, work was ongoing to improve the discharge process by having conversations about care needs early on as part of the Trust’s flow transformation programme. 4.9 Break 4.10 Finance Report for Month 11 Ian Howard was invited to present the Finance Report for Month 11, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: Page 4 • The Trust had received £24.6m of cash support from NHS England and £5m in funding in relation to the impact of industrial action between December 2023 and February 2024. • A year-end deficit of £1.4m was forecast. • The Trust’s underlying monthly deficit was currently £4m, and the Trust’s underlying deficit had been £4-5m a month during 2023/24. • Cost Improvement Programme delivery was expected to be £62m at year end, an increase of £17m compared to the previous year. 4.11 People Report for Month 11 Steve Harris was invited to present the People Report for Month 11, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Total workforce had reduced by 20 whole-time equivalents (WTE) during the month, although the Trust remained 266 WTE above plan. • Use of bank staff had reduced, although it was expected that more bank staff would be used in March 2024 as substantive staff used leftover annual leave before year end. • Average turnover was 11%, below the target of 13.6%. The Board discussed the report and noted that it was necessary to review training expectations in order to make best use of staff time. In addition, it was noted that funding for internationally recruited nurses was likely to reduce and that apprentice and student nurse numbers had reduced. 4.12 UHS Staff Survey Results 2023 Report Ceri Connor, Sophie Limb and Steve Harris were invited to present the UHS Staff Survey Results 2023 Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust scored above average in all of the People Promise areas and there had been an improvement in the areas regarding managers and appraisals. • However, the overall NHS average had increased, thus narrowing the gap. • The participation rate was lower than in the previous year and the overall scores hid pockets of concern. The Board discussed the results of the Staff Survey. It was noted in particular that the Trust had invested significant sums into wellbeing, but that morale was low. It was considered that this demonstrated the importance of local management to staff morale. In addition, the Board discussed the impact of the change in approach from granting significant autonomy during the pandemic to increasing levels of control, which had been received negatively by staff. However, it was noted that, whilst in some areas, such as with regard to patients, there was a general culture of accountability, there appeared to be less of a general culture of accountability with respect to finances and budgets. The possibility of ‘earned’ autonomy was considered as a means of mitigating against those who had acted properly being penalised by the actions of others. Page 5 4.13 Maternity and Neonatal Perinatal Quality Surveillance Dashboard Report The Maternity and Neonatal Perinatal Quality Surveillance Dashboard Report was noted. It was further noted that the additional information in respect of post-partum haemorrhage data (action 1101) was contained within the report and had been discussed at a maternity safety champions’ meeting. 4.14 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report Diana Hulbert was invited to present the Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • There had been seven exception reports constituting a breach and resulting in a financial penalty, which were due to exceeding the maximum 13-hour shift duration. All reports were from General Surgery. • There were also concerns in Gynaecology due to the complicated rotas, inadequate rest provision and facilities. • The position of a junior doctor was a difficult one due to a lack of patient contact during the pandemic, industrial action and changes in the assignment of foundation posts. Action: Paul Grundy and Diana Hulbert agreed to include an item regarding junior doctors on a future Trust Board Study Session agenda. 5. Patient Story David Livermore was invited to relate his experience of attending an appointment at the Eye Unit in October 2023 and, in particular, the difficulties he encountered as a wheelchair user. It was noted that his treatment had been carried out in a room inappropriate for his needs and that he had been asked personal questions in the waiting room. Following discussion with the Board of his experiences, David Livermore offered his services to the Trust to advise on disability access as an ‘expert patient’. 6. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Board Assurance Framework (BAF) Update Lauren Anderson was invited to present the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) update, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Trust’s Risk Management Policy and Strategy had been updated, with the main changes being in relation to the Trust’s risk appetite following the Trust Board Study Session held in December 2023. • Work was being carried out to improve the Board’s visibility of operational risks and to improve links between operational risks and the BAF. Page 6 7. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report The paper ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’ was presented to the meeting, the content of which was noted. Decision: The Board agreed to ratify the application of the Trust Seal to the documents listed in the ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’. 7.2 Remuneration and Appointment Committee Terms of Reference It was noted that the Remuneration and Appointment Committee had reviewed its terms of reference at its meeting held on 28 March 2024. It was further noted that some minor changes were proposed, largely to update references to documentation and NHS organisations, and, in terms of the executive pay guidance, to better reflect current practice and the available frameworks. Decision: Having reviewed the Remuneration and Appointment Committee terms of reference tabled to the meeting, it was agreed to approve these terms of reference. 8. Any other business There was no other business. 9. Note the date of the next meeting: 6 June 2024 10. Resolution regarding the Press, Public and Others Decision: The Board resolved that, as permitted by the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), the Trust’s Constitution and the Standing Orders of the board of directors, that representatives of the press, members of the public and others not invited to attend to the next part of the meeting be excluded due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. The meeting was adjourned. Page 7 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 28/03/2024 4.14 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report 1127. Junior Doctors Grundy, Paul Hulbert, Diana 27/06/2024 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. Page 1 of 1 Report to the Trust Board of Directors Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Date: Purpose: Issue to be addressed: Response to the issue: Chief Executive Officer’s Report 5.5 David French, Chief Executive Officer 6 June 2024 Assurance Approval or reassurance Ratification Information X My report this month covers updates on the following items: • Infected Blood Inquiry • General Election • Industrial Action • HEFMA Award • Capital Funding • 2024/25 Planning 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 Infected Blood Inquiry On 20 May 2024, the Infected Blood Inquiry published its report into more than 30,000 people becoming infected with HIV and hepatitis C after being given contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. The report said that: • Too little was done to stop importing blood products from abroad, which used blood from high- risk donors such as prisoners and drug addicts; • In the UK, blood donations were accepted from high-risk groups until 1986; • Blood products were not heat treated to eliminate HIV until the end of 1985, although the risks were known in 1982; and • There was too little testing to reduce the risk of hepatitis from the 1970s onwards. The UK Government has established a compensation scheme for those impacted. The report can be read at: http://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/reports NHS England’s formal response to the report is attached as Appendix 1. During the Inquiry, the Trust was made aware of patient cases which would be cited in the report and was offered an opportunity to comment. We chose not to comment in detail on individual cases, primarily due to the time elapsed since they happened. NHS England has commissioned an ongoing patient support service for those affected and it is likely that UHS will be one of two providers in the region offering this service. Funding for a fiveyear period has been confirmed. General Election The Prime Minister has announced that a general election will be held on 4 July 2024. There are a number of practical implications for the Trust as a public body to maintain political impartiality and to ensure that public resources are not used for the purposes of political parties or campaign groups during the pre-election period which commenced on 25 May 2024 and will continue until the day after the election. During this period, the following key principles should apply: • No activity should be undertaken which could be considered politically controversial or influential. • NHS trusts have discretion in their approach, but must be able to demonstrate the same approach for every political party, official candidate and designated campaign group. • The NHS may be under media spotlight, locally and nationally, so it is advisable to have a plan in place for how the organisation will manage the pre-election period and the potential for the organisation to be singled out in the media. Normal business and regulation needs to continue during the pre-election period. However, where a board meeting needs to take place, the agenda should be confined to those matters requiring a board decision or oversight. Matters of future strategy or future deployment of resources may be construed as favouring one party over another and should be avoided. Use of the confidential part of the agenda to discuss matters which may be politically controversial is not recommended. Care should be taken not to comment on the policies of political parties or campaign groups. Page 2 of 9 Organisations should not start long-term initiatives or undertake major publicity campaigns unless time critical (such as a public health emergency). Public consultations should not be launched during the pre-election period, and it is advisable to extend the period for those already running to take into account the pre-election period. The timing of the election means that formal Secretary of State approval for the Solent / Southern transaction is unlikely to happen before the election and therefore the formation of the new Trust, previously scheduled for 1 June, is likely to be delayed. Industrial Action On 29 May 2024, it was announced that junior doctors would stage a five-day strike, commencing on 27 June 2024 and ending on 2 July 2024. This will be the eleventh walkout by junior doctors since March 2023. As during previous periods of industrial action, the Trust will seek to minimise any impact on patient care by organising consultant cover wherever possible. HEFMA Award Paula Melhuish, Deputy Director of Estates and Capital Development, received the Outstanding Service Award from the Health Estates and Facilities Management Association on 13 May 2024. Paula has been a long-serving and esteemed colleague at UHS and has recently announced her retirement. Capital Funding Due to its Emergency Department performance at the end of 2023/24, the Trust was awarded an additional £2m in capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL) as part of a scheme to reward high-performing trusts. There were several categories where the top-10 performing trusts received additional CDEL, including absolute ED 4-hour % performance and most improved ED 4-hour performance. NHS England agreed that the type 3 Urgent Treatment Centre attendances at RSH and Lymington should be included in the overall UHS performance and that, combined with significantly improved 4-hour performance at SGH, this meant that UHS was in the national top-10 for absolute ED 4-hour performance. terms of using the CDEL allowance, plans are being developed to increase the department’s same day emergency care (SDEC) capacity. The additional CDEL is not cash-backed so we are in discussions with NHSE regarding the cash funding. 2024/25 Planning The CFO and I will update the Board on the status of the 2024/25 planning round which is not yet finalised. At a meeting in London with NHS England executives, the ICS was asked to improve its position further in return for some financial incentives. This challenge was accepted, although the allocation of this further stretch to individual providers has not yet been agreed. The structure and leadership of the ICS-wide transformation programmes has been reviewed and changed. The structure of the programmes was considered by CEO, Chairs and ICB colleagues and it was agreed there should be six programmes for 2024/25, as set out below. The Board should note that I requested to retain the leadership role on the Planned Care programme, mostly because we have an agreed way forward, have good traction and can now see improvement happening. In addition, I was asked to take on leadership of the Workforce programme which, following discussion with the Chair, I have agreed to do. Page 3 of 9 Programme Mental Health Discharge Urgent and Emergency Care Local Care Planned Care Workforce CEO lead Ron Shields, SHFT Penny Emerit, PHU David Eltringham, SCAS Alex Whitfield, HHFT David French, UHS David French, UHS Each programme has been asked to set out its objectives and deliverables for the year ahead by 18 June 2024. I will share the results of this exercise with the Board in due course. Page 4 of 9 Appendix 1 Classification: Official To: • All integrated care boards and NHS trusts: - chairs - chief executives - medical directors - chief nurses - chief operating officers - chief people officers - heads of primary care - directors of medical education • Primary care networks: - clinical directors cc. • NHS England regions: - directors - chief nurses - medical directors - directors of primary care and community services - directors of commissioning - workforce leads - regional heads of nursing - regional heads of communications NHS England Wellington House 133-155 Waterloo Road London SE1 8UG 20 May 2024 Dear colleagues, Publication of the Infected Blood Inquiry final report Earlier today, the Infected Blood Inquiry published its final report at: www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/reports. The Prime Minister has subsequently issued an apology on behalf of successive Governments and the entire British state. On behalf of the NHS in England, now and over previous decades, Amanda Pritchard issued a public apology, saying: Publication reference: PRN01368 Page 5 of 9 “Today’s report brings to an end a long fight for answers and understanding that those people who were infected and their families, should never have had to face. “We owe it to all those affected by this scandal, and to the thorough work of the Inquiry team and those who have contributed, to take the necessary time now to fully understand the report’s conclusions and recommendations. “However, what is already very clear is that tens of thousands of people put their trust in the care they got from the NHS over many years, and they were badly let down. “I therefore offer my deepest and heartfelt apologies for the role the NHS played in the suffering and the loss of all those infected and affected. “In particular, I want to say sorry not just for the actions which led to life-altering and lifelimiting illness, but also for the failures to clearly communicate, investigate and mitigate risks to patients from transfusions and treatments; for a collective lack of openness and willingness to listen, that denied patients and families the answers and support they needed; and for the stigma that many experienced in the health service when they most needed support. “I also want to recognise the pain that some of our staff will have experienced when it became clear that the blood products many of them used in good faith may have harmed people they cared for. “I know that the apologies I can offer now do not begin to do justice to the scale of personal tragedy set out in this report, but we are committed to demonstrating this in our actions as we respond to its recommendations.” The report is sobering reading, documenting failings over multiple decades, and making recommendations across a wide range of areas, including recognition, support and compensation; education and training; monitoring of and testing for Hepatitis C; the safety of blood transfusions; preventing future harm, via duty of candour and regulation; as well as giving patients a voice. We write now to set out the initial steps we are taking in response. Support for those affected The Department of Health and Social Care is providing £19 million over five years to provide a bespoke Infected Blood Psychological Support Service which is expected to be rolled out later this summer. We have listened to the experiences of those involved, including patients, their families and staff, and are working with them to design and develop this service, which will provide dedicated support for those affected, located around the country. Copyright © NHS England 2024 2 Page 6 of 9 This service will include talking therapies, peer support, and psychosocial support, as well as access to other treatments or support for physical or mental health needs where appropriate. In the interim, the existing England Infected Blood Support Service remains available here: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/england-infected-blood-support-scheme. Further information about existing testing and support services, including those commissioned by the Government, can be found at: www.nhs.uk/infected-blood-support. Supporting affected staff It is important to also recognise that some of our colleagues may be affected by the publication of today’s report in some way, whether through personal or professional connection to the issue. Employers may therefore wish to increase promotion of their local health and wellbeing support for staff. Details of nationally-commissioned routes of support, including the 24/7 text helpline Shout and NHS Practitioner Health, can be found at NHS England - Support available for our NHS People. Continuing to find and treat people with blood-borne viruses Although it is likely that the majority of those who were directly affected have now been identified and started appropriate treatment given the time that has elapsed since the last use of infected blood products, there may be people who have not yet been identified, particularly where they are living with asymptomatic Hepatitis C. We ask that systems continue to work with partners, including community groups and charities, as well as Hepatitis C Operational Delivery Networks, to promote local testing options for anyone at risk, or anyone who is concerned. This should include promotion of the new national service for at-home Hepatitis C self-testing kits, available via hepctest.nhs.uk. For those who are concerned about the risk of HIV infection, further information can be found here: information on HIV diagnosis and the HIV testing services search tool. Hepatitis B, another infection that can be linked to infected blood, usually clears up on its own without treatment; however, people concerned about Hepatitis B infection should be directed towards relevant hepatitis B information or their local sexual health clinic or GP practice. Today's report highlights that in some cases those affected by infected blood products were told of their diagnosis in ways which were insensitive and inappropriate. We would therefore ask you to ensure that patients and their families are supported through the process of receiving test results – of whatever kind - in a compassionate and considerate way. Copyright © NHS England 2024 3 Page 7 of 9 Ensuring patients can access the right information. We recognise following the publication of this report, some patients may raise questions directly with their primary and/or secondary care teams, or through other points of contact with the NHS. We will be sharing materials with relevant service providers to ensure frontline clinicians and other colleagues in patient-facing roles are able to provide appropriate information or signposting. We expect that this will be particularly relevant to: • Providers of NHS 111 services • GP practices and community pharmacies • Trusts providing services where blood products are used • Mental health providers Maintaining confidence in current blood and blood products and related treatment The infected blood and blood products that have been the subject of this Inquiry were withdrawn in 1991. In the intervening decades, comprehensive systems have been put in place to ensure the safety of both donors and recipients of blood and blood-derived products. Today, blood and blood products are distributed to NHS hospitals by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), which was established in 2005 to provide a national blood and transplantation service to the NHS. NHSBT’s services follow strict guidelines and testing to protect both donors and patients. NHS Blood and Transplant has published clear information about these processes here: Infected Blood Inquiry - NHS Blood and Transplant (nhsbt.nhs.uk). Nationally, NHS England will work with NHS Blood and Transplant and others to communicate the safety of current blood products. Assessing further recommendations and next steps As set out above, the final Inquiry report includes a number of important recommendations for the NHS. NHS England will be considering these in detail alongside the Department for Health and Social Care and other relevant bodies. In addition, an Extraordinary Clinical Reference Group is being convened to inform any immediate actions which should be taken. The next steps from this work will be shared as soon as possible, including through relevant clinical networks. Copyright © NHS England 2024 4 Page 8 of 9 Yours sincerely, Amanda Pritchard NHS Chief Executive NHS England Professor Sir Stephen Powis National Medical Director NHS England Dame Ruth May Chief Nursing Officer England Dr Emily Lawson DBE Chief Operating Officer NHS England Copyright © NHS England 2024 5 Page 9 of 9 Report to the Trust Board of Directors Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Author Date: Purpose Issue to be addressed: Performance KPI Report 2024-25 Month 1 5.6 David French, Chief Executive Sam Dale, Associate Director of Data and Analytics 6 June 2024 Assurance or reassurance Y Approval Ratification Information The report aims to provide assurance: • Regarding the successful implementation of our strategy. • That the care we provide is safe, caring, effective, responsive, and well led. Response to the issue: The Performance KPI Report reflects the current operating environment and is aligned with our strategy. Implications: (Clinical, Organisational, Governance, Legal?) Risks: (Top 3) of carrying out the change / or not: Summary: Conclusion and/or recommendation This report covers a broad range of trust performance metrics. It is intended to assist the Board in assuring that the Trust meets regulatory requirements and corporate objectives. This report is provided for the purpose of assurance. This report is provided for the purpose of assurance. Page 1 of 24 Report to Trust Board in June 2024 Performance KPI Board Report Covering up to April 2024 Sponsor – David French, Chief Executive Officer Author – Sam Dale, Associate Director of Data and Analytics Page 2 of 24 Report to Trust Board in June 2024 Report guide Chart type Example Cumulative Column Cumulative Column Year on Year Line Benchmarked Line & bar Benchmarked Control Chart Variance from Target Explanation A cumulative column chart is used to represent a total count of the variable and shows how the total count increases over time. This example shows quarterly updates. A cumulative year on year column chart is used to represent a total count of the variable throughout the year. The variable value is reset to zero at the start of the year because the target for the metric is yearly. The line benchmarked chart shows our performance compared to the average performance of a peer group. The number at the bottom of the chart shows where we are ranked in the group (1 would mean ranked 1st that month). The line shows our performance, and the bar underneath represents the range of performance of benchmarked trusts (bottom = lowest performance, top = highest performance) A control chart shows movement of a variable in relation to its control limits (the 3 lines = Upper control limit, Mean and Lower control limit). When the value shows special variation (not expected) then it is highlighted green (leading to a good outcome) or red (leading to a bad outcome). Values are considered to show special variation if they -Go outside control limits -Have 6 points in a row above or below the mean, -Trend for 6 points, -Have 2 out of 3 points past 2/3 of the control limit, -Show a significant movement (greater than the average moving range). Variance from target charts is used to show how far away a variable is from its target each month. Green bars represent the value the metric is achieving better than target and the red bars represent the distance a metric is away from achieving its target. Page 3 of 24 Report to Trust Board in June 2024 Introduction The Performance KPI Report is presented to the Trust Board each month to provide assurance: • regarding the successful implementation of our strategy; and • that the care we provide is safe, caring, effective, responsive, and well led. The content of the report includes the following: • The ‘Spotlight’ section, to enable more detailed consideration of any topics that are of particular interest or concern. The selection of topics is informed by a rolling schedule, performance concerns, and requests from the Board. • An ‘NHS Constitution Standards’ section, summarising the standards and performance in relation to service waiting times; and • An ‘Appendix,’ with indicators presented monthly, aligned with the five themes within our strategy. Due to the timing of the April 2024 Board meeting, the following referral to treatment data points were not included in the March KPI report. They have now been updated for March 2024 and April 2024: - • 31 - Patients on an open 18 week pathway (within 18 weeks) • 33 - Patients on an open 18 week pathway (within 52 weeks) • 34 - Patients on an open 18 week pathway (within 65 weeks) • 35 - Patients on an open 18 week pathway (within 78 weeks) • 35a - Patients on an open 18 week pathway (within 104 weeks) • 32 - Total number of patients on a waiting list (18 week referral to treatment pathway) Changes of note within the report itself: • 53 – The digital metric monitoring page loading time for the CHARTS system has been tightened from under five seconds to under three seconds • 55 – The metric monitoring the rollout of inpatient noting for nurses has been removed as this is now considered complete. This will be revisited when the noting solution is rolled out for doctors • 39 - The 2024/25 national cancer target changes will be reflected next month when April 2024 data is made available • 40 - The 2024/25 national cancer target changes will be reflected next month when April 2024 data is made available • 37 - The metric now reflects the published 2024/25 national year-end target of 5% of patients waiting over 6 weeks for diagnostics Page 4 of 24 Report to Trust Board in June 2024 Summary This month’s spotlight report covers diagnostic performance. It highlights that UHS consistently increased the volume of elective diagnostic tests delivered throughout the 2023/24 financial year and into the start of the 2024/25 financial year. The diagnostic waiting list reduced by 12% in 2023/24 and in April 2024, 89.6% of patients received their diagnostics within six weeks. The national performance target has been set at 95% by March 2025 and the organisation is working with all services to ensure we maintain waiting times for services that are compliant and address any demand and capacity barriers preventing achievement. The paper describes the activity and performance trends for the hospital and explores modality sites in more detail. Areas of note in the appendix of performance metrics include: 1. The Emergency Department (ED) four hour performance position reduced to 66.0% (April 2024) from 71.7% (March 2024) for type 1 attendances, however UHS remain in the top quartile when compared to peer teaching hospitals across the country. 2. In April, the overall RTT waiting list increased by 2.4% to 59,485. 3. The trust continues to report zero patients waiting over 104 weeks and reported 15 patients waiting over 78 weeks for April 2024. All 15 patients are within ophthalmology and impacted by the ongoing national shortage of corneal graft tissue which is being overseen by NHS Blood and Transplant service. The longest waiting patients will be booked for surgery as soon tissue has been confirmed. 4. The trust reported 66 patients waiting over 65 weeks which predominantly reflects corneal transplant patients again and low volumes within gynaecology and several surgical specialties. The trust is committed to achieving the national target of zero patients waiting over 65 weeks by September 2024 and the ambition to achieve zero patients waiting over 52 weeks by March 2025. 5. The volume of patients not meeting the Criteria to Reside in hospital decreased in April averaging 216 which is a 10% reduction compared to March 2024, yet this remains a significant impact on patient flow through the organisation. 6. There were zero never events reported for April 2024. 7. The volume of medication errors reduced to two in April 2024 which is now below the monthly target following the increase seen in March 2023. 8. The number of Gram-negative bloodstream infections continues to be marginally above the monthly target of 19. The increased incidence in cases continues to be reported both nationally and locally across the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care system. 9. The digital metric to monitor page loading times on CHARTS system has successfully remained at 99% despite increasing the time target by 40%. Ambulance response time performance The latest unvalidated weekly data is provided by the South Coast Ambulance Service (SCAS). In the week commencing 13th May 2024, our average handover time was 16 minutes 56 seconds across 725 emergency handovers and 22 minutes across 52 urgent handovers. There were 44handovers over 30 minutes, and six handovers taking over 60 minutes within the unvalidated data. The volume of weekly handovers over 60 minutes increased by 73% from March 2024 (averaging 7.5 per week) to April 2024 (averaging 13 per week). Page 5 of 24 Report to Trust Board in June 2024 Spotlight Report Spotlight: Diagnostic Performance The following report is based on the validated April 2024 submission. Introduction Diagnostics are a critical component of a patient’s pathway, facilitating an accurate and complete diagnosis, personalised treatment plans and the appropriate monitoring of a patient’s condition. Timely access to diagnostic tests is essential for ensuring that patients re ceive an early diagnosis whilst improving patient experience and delivering an efficient use of NHS resources. The 2024/24 NHS priorities and operational planning guidance confirmed that “systems are asked to continue to work towards the elective care recovery plan target of 95% of patients receiving their tests within 6 weeks”. The national ambitions acknowledged that the NHS delivered record diagnostic activity in 2023, but also highlighted that additional capacity in community diagnostic centres had been partly offset by an unprecedented increase in unscheduled diagnostic activity in acute trusts. This national diagnostic target applies to 15 different diagnostic tests, although performance is measured at a Trust level. These tests are broadly divided into three categories: • endoscopy (e.g. gastroscopy, cystoscopy); • imaging (e.g. CT, MRI, barium enema); • physiological measurement (e.g. echocardiogram, sleep studies). Our teams prioritise diagnostic procedures based on clinical urgency (for example patients with cancer) but aligned to this is a continual review of the longest waiting diagnostic patients. This spotlight paper highlights the current diagnostic performance position for UHS against the national targets and other hospitals. It also describes the current volumes of activity being delivered and the impact on the waiting list. We explore any performance concerns across the different modalities, outlining the challenges that services are facing and the steps being taken to achieve the 2024/25 target. In summary, there was an overall reduction in the diagnostic waiting list across the 2023/24 financial year as UHS successfully increased the delivery of diagnostic activity to manage current levels of demand. The diagnostic waiting list currently stands at 8,849 patients (April 2024) which is a reduction of 12% since April 2023 (10,033 patients) and 24% since the peak levels seen in June 2022 (11,671 patients). The April 2024 performance position is 89.6% for the percentage of patients receiving diagnostic tests within six weeks. The latest comparison data available (March 2024) placed the hospital 5th when ranked against peer teaching hospitals across the country. All organisations are facing challenges due to high demand, workforce shortages and equipment limitations and funding, but the organisation is striving to achieve the 95% target set for 2024/25. Page 6 of 24 Report to Trust Board in June 2024 Spotlight Report Activity and Waiting List Elective diagnostic activity being delivered at UHS consistently increased throughout 2023/24 and into 2024/25 helping to manage the waiting list despite high referral volumes and the complications caused by industrial action throughout the previous year. Graph 1 illustrates that diagnostic activity levels delivered in 2023/24 were 6% higher than 2022/23 and 17% higher than pre-pandemic levels. Overall there was a 12% reduction in the diagnostic waiting list across the 2023/24 financial year (graph 2) despite some levelling off in winter months and a small recent increase which is being closely monitored. The waiting list stands at 8849 patients for April 2024 which breaks down into
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2024-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-6-June-2024.pdf

Annual-report-2018-19

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

Annual-report-24-25-final

Description: 2024/25 Incorporating the quality account University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2024/25 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25(4)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 © 2025 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Contents Welcome from our Chair and Chief Executive 7 Performance report 9 Introduction from the Chief Executive 10 Overview 11 Principal risks to our strategy and objectives 16 Performance overview 17 Performance analysis 22 Quality priorities 29 Financial performance 33 Sustainability 33 Social, community, anti-bribery and human rights issues 34 Events since the end of the financial year 35 Overseas operations 35 Equality in service delivery 35 Going concern 41 Accountability report 42 Directors’ report 43 Remuneration report 69 Staff report 82 Counter fraud 98 Code of governance for NHS provider trusts 98 NHS System Oversight Framework 99 Statement of the chief executive officer’s responsibilities as the accounting officer of UHS 100 Annual Governance Statement 102 Scope of responsibility 102 The purpose of the system of internal control 102 Risk management and control within the Trust 102 Review of economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the use of resources 116 Quality account 119 Part 1: Statement on quality from the Chief Executive 120 Part 2: Priorities for improvement and statements of assurance from the Board 122 Part 3: Other information 194 5 Annual accounts 241 Statement from the Chief Financial Officer 242 Auditor’s report including certificate 244 Foreword to the accounts 251 Statement of Comprehensive Income 252 Statement of Financial Position 253 Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity 254 Statement of Cash Flows 256 Notes to the accounts 257 6 Welcome from the Chair and Chief Executive Officer University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (‘UHS’ or the ‘Trust’) has experienced another challenging year, with increased demand for the Trust’s services, a more restrictive financial environment, and changes in terms of the organisation of the NHS in England. Despite the challenges faced by the Trust during 2024/25, we can feel incredibly proud of the achievements of our 13,000 staff, who went above and beyond to deliver for our patients and the communities we serve. Particular highlights include: • In the top 15 in the country against government targets for elective recovery performance with 127% of activity compared with 2019/20. • Top-quartile performance against most performance metrics compared to similar sized teaching hospitals, including long-waiting patients on referral to treatment pathways, diagnostics and cancer performance. • Delivery of £85.3m of savings through our cost improvement programme – the highest ever amount by the Trust. We continue to be one of the best performing trusts in England in many areas. The Trust’s elective recovery performance places it as one of the best performing trusts in England. As a result, we have seen the number of long-waiting patients fall to one patient waiting over 78 weeks and to 21 patients waiting over 65 weeks – in many instances these delays were due to a national lack of corneal transplant tissue. This is despite an increase in the number of patients being referred to the Trust for treatment. Our performance against key cancer metrics has seen an improvement in commencing treatment of cancer within 62 days to 81% by March 2025, against the NHS England average for 2024/25 of 70.5%. Similarly, the Trust performed in the range of 88%-96% during the year against the target of patients commencing treatment within 31 days of diagnosis. There has been significant demand for non-elective care throughout the year, which has placed significant demands on the Trust’s emergency department. There were frequently more than 400 attendances per day and the Trust saw an average of 13,100 patients per month (2023/24: 12,700). As a result of this increased demand, coupled with issues with flow through the hospital and a high incidence of seasonal illnesses during the winter, UHS’s performance against the four-hour emergency department target has steadily declined over the course of 2024/25. The Trust also recorded a lower than expected death rate via the Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI) and was one of 12 trusts in England out of 119 with lower than expected death outcomes. The Trust reported a deficit of £7m at year-end, which represents a significant achievement given the financial pressures we have experienced, such as significant demand for services above block contract levels, pay award pressures, and inflation. The Trust also saw its productivity improve during the year and delivered its highest ever performance under its cost improvement programme. 7 Despite the introduction of strict controls in early 2024, the Trust exceeded its target for workforce numbers during 2024/25 by 373 whole-time-equivalents. However, a significant proportion of this number was due to assumed reductions in the number of staff required to manage patients with no clinical criteria to reside in the hospital and patients with a primary mental health need not materialising. Instead, the number of both categories of patient continued to rise during the year, placing additional strain on the Trust’s capacity and reducing flow through the hospital as patients are unable to move in a timely way from the emergency department, to wards and then to discharge due to lack of capacity. Higher levels of staff absence during the winter months coupled with high levels of seasonal illness and consequent demand on the emergency department also necessitated the opening and staffing of surge capacity. Indeed, demand on the emergency department was so great during the year that surge capacity was required even outside of the typically busier winter period. Our people remain our greatest asset. Without our staff, the Trust would not be able to deliver for the communities we serve. We were pleased to see the results from the 2024 Staff Survey, which placed UHS above the benchmarking group across all the key people themes. In particular, there have been improvements in relation to satisfaction with immediate managers, flexible working opportunities, and staff recommending UHS as a place to work. UHS has also continued with its staff room refurbishment programme and made significant improvements to the prayer facilities for Muslim staff, patients, students and community members in our chapel, all funded by Southampton Hospitals Charity. We expect 2025/26 to be even more challenging than 2024/25. The Trust has already had to take some difficult decisions in terms of its workforce numbers, prioritisation for capital expenditure, and services. We will be expected to continue to maintain quality of patient care and experience and to deliver the required levels of performance whilst at the same time having to make significant reductions in its expenditure to deliver a balanced budget. Many of the challenges faced by the Trust – in common with other providers – can only be addressed by working in partnership with wider local partners, such as other healthcare providers, local authorities and charities to deliver system-wide solutions. At the same time, we recognise that there is more that we can do internally to ensure that our internal processes deliver in the most effective and efficient manner. We would like to express our heartfelt thanks to our amazing staff, who have gone and continue to go above and beyond to put our patients first and deliver world class care. Jenni Douglas-Todd Chair David French Chief Executive Officer 8 PERFORMANCE REPORT OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Performance report Introduction from the Chief Executive Officer This was another challenging year for the Trust, continuing the trend seen in previous years of increasing demand which must be balanced with the need to deliver quality patient care whilst maintaining a sustainable financial position. The Trust saw even higher demand for non-elective care than in recent years with attendances at the emergency department being as high as 400 per day and the Trust having to open and staff surge capacity for a significant proportion of the year, including outside of the typically more strained winter period. The trend of increasing numbers of patients having no clinical criteria to reside in hospital, but unable to be discharged due to a lack of funded care in a more appropriate venue, continued, as did the increasing number of patients presenting with a primary mental health need. This placed significant pressure on the Trust’s resources due to the impact on flow through the hospital and the need to engage additional members of staff to manage these patients – in some instances this requires as many as four members of staff, usually via a specialist agency, for each patient as well as, potentially, additional security resource. Despite the challenges, the Trust continued to perform well when compared to other comparable organisations, achieving some of the best elective recovery performance in England at 127% compared to 2019/20 levels. The Trust implemented spending and recruitment controls in early 2024, which it continued to operate under during 2024/25, in order to manage its difficult financial position. However, the Trust ended the year above its plan in terms of workforce numbers, although a significant proportion of this amount was due to the increasing number of patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients. The Trust achieved its highest ever delivery on its cost improvement programme with £85.3m of savings, and achieved an overall end of year deficit of £7m. 10 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE 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 £1.5 billion in 2024/25. It is based on the coast in southeast England and provides services to people living in Southampton and south Hampshire and specialist services, including neurosciences, respiratory medicine, cancer care, cardiovascular, obstetrics and specialist children’s services, to nearly four 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 166,000 inpatients and day patients, including about 75,000 emergency admissions sees over 770,000 people at outpatient appointments deals with around 155,000 cases in its emergency department 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. • 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. • Lymington New Forest Hospital – a community hospital located in Lymington managed by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. UHS manages surgical services at the hospital. 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. 11 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Trust services are supported by clinical income, of which 53% is paid for by NHS England and 44% by integrated care boards, predominantly the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (ICB). These are provided under a standard NHS contract, which incorporates ongoing monitoring of the Trust and the quality of the services provided. 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 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. The ICP is a statutory committee jointly formed between the NHS integrated care board and all upper-tier local authorities that fall within the ICS area. The ICP brings 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 Trust has been a university teaching hospital since 1971. The diagram below provides an overview of the overall organisational structure of the Trust. Public and foundation trust members Council of Governors Board of Directors Executive Directors Division A Surgery Critical Care Ophthalmology Theatres and Anaesthetics Division B Cancer Care Emergency Medicine Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Medicine and Medicine for Older People Pathology Specialist Medicine Division C Women and Newborn Maternity Child Health Clinical Support 12 Division D Cardiovascular and Thoracic Neurosciences Trauma and Orthopaedics Radiology Trust headquarters division OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Our values The Trust’s values describe how things are done 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. These 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. 13 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Our strategy 2021-25 The Trust’s strategy was updated during 2020/21 to take account of everything its staff had experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and what had been learnt from this. The vision for UHS is to become an organisation of world class people delivering world class care. The Trust’s strategy is organised around five themes and for each of these it describes a number of ambitions UHS aims to achieve by 2025. Theme Ambitions Outstanding patient outcomes, • experience and safety By 2025 we will strengthen our national reputation for outstanding • patient outcomes, experience and safety, providing high quality care • and treatment across an extensive range of services from foetal medicine, through all life stages and conditions, to end-of-life care. Pioneering research and • innovation We will continue 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 treatments and care for our patients. World class people • Supporting and nurturing our people through a culture that values • diversity and builds knowledge and skills to ensure everyone reaches their full potential. We must provide • 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 monitor clinical outcomes, safety and experience of our patients regularly to ensure they are amongst the best in the UK and the world. We will reduce harm, learning from all incidents through our proactive patient safety culture. We will ensure all patients and relatives have a positive experience of our care, as a result of the environment created by our people and our facilities. We will recruit and enable people to deliver pioneering research in Southampton. 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. We will recruit and develop enough people with the right knowledge and skills to meet the needs of our patients. We will provide satisfying and fulfilling roles, growing our talent through development and opportunity for progression. We will empower our people, embracing diversity and embedding compassion, inclusion and equity of opportunity. 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. 14 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Foundations for the future • We will deliver best value to the taxpayer as a financially Making our enabling infrastructure efficient and sustainable organisation. (finance, digital, estate) fit for • We will support patient self-management and seamless the future to support a leading care across organisational boundaries through our university teaching hospital in the ambitious digital programme, including real time data 21st century and recognising our reporting, to inform our care. responsibility as a major employer • We will expand and improve our estate, increasing in the community of Southampton capacity where needed and providing modern facilities and our role in broader for our patients and our people. environmental sustainability. • 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 2024/25 these objectives included: Outstanding patient Establishing an integrated approach to quality management. outcomes, experience Treating patients according to need but aiming to meet the target of zero and safety 65-week waiters by the end of September 2024, and continued reduction of longer waiters. Reducing length of stay across elective and non-elective pathways. Improving patient experience and outcomes through continued implementation of the Fundamentals of Care programme. Pioneering research and innovation Delivering year four of the research and innovation investment plan. Delivering year two of the five-year research and development strategy implementation plan for research for impact. World class people Delivering a workforce plan for the Trust for 2024/25 which is safe, sustainable and affordable. Delivering targeted improvements in staff experience, engagement and culture. Sustaining turnover at less than 13% and maintaining sickness absence at under 4%. Integrated networks In partnership with acute trusts working directly with priority areas to and collaboration progress joint network strategies. Working with the local delivery system on vertical integration to reduce the number of patients without criteria to reside. Foundations for the future Delivering a stretching financial plan for 2024/25, including identifying what needs to be true to recover a sustainable financial position and exit the Recovery Support Programme. Engaging the organisation in the challenge to manage demand so that capacity and demand are in equilibrium. Delivering the aims of the 2024/25 transformation programmes and always improving strategic priorities. Delivering the prioritised 2024/25 capital programme and setting a prioritised capital programme for 2025/26. Completing year two of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme. 15 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Performance against these objectives was monitored and reported to the Trust’s Board on a quarterly basis. At the end of 2024/25, the Trust had met the objectives set as follows: Corporate Ambition Number of Green Amber Red objectives Outstanding patient outcomes, 4 3 1 0 safety and experience Pioneering research and innovation 2 2 0 0 World class people 3 2 0 0 Integrated networks and collaboration 2 0 2 0 Foundations for the future 5 2 2 1 Totals 16 8 6 2 Note: Green: achieved in full Amber: partially achieved Red: not achieved Particular areas to highlight where the Trust has achieved strong delivery during the year include: • Reduction in the number of patients waiting over 65 weeks, with only 21 waiting over 65 weeks. • Reduction in the length of stay by 5.25% through successful delivery of the inpatient flow transformation programme. • Implementation of the Fundamentals of Care programme. • Successful delivery of year four of the research and innovation investment plan. • Reducing staff turnover to 10.1% at year end and achieving a staff absence rate below 4%. • Progress in developing the identified priority clinical networks. • Successful delivery of the Trust’s 2024/25 capital programme. 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 2024/25 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 or carers 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 does not take full advantage of its position as a leading university teaching hospital with a growing, reputable and innovative research and development portfolio, attracting the best 16 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE staff and efficiently delivering the best possible treatments and care for its patients. • The Trust is unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to unavailability of 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, 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 and digital strategies and in transformation initiatives. • 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. As in previous years, demand for services continued to increase, especially for emergency (nonelective) care. The winter months in particular saw both high levels of demand and above average levels of staff absence due to seasonal illnesses. The Trust consistently experienced high numbers of patients having no clinical criteria to reside in hospital, but who could not be discharged due to a lack of appropriate care packages. This results in a lack of flow through the hospital and also requires additional staff to be engaged due to the need to open surge capacity. In addition, the Trust continued to experience significant challenges from patients with a primary mental health care need for whom there were insufficient spaces available in a more suitable alternative setting. 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. 17 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE 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 Trust experienced high demand for its services, continuing the trend from previous years. Demand in the emergency department in particular was significant, with attendances growing by 3.2% compared to 2023/24. This situation has resulted in a gradual decline in the Trust’s performance against the target of 95% patients spending less than four hours in the main emergency department. The number of patients having no clinical criteria to reside continued to impact flow within the hospital. The number of patients having no clinical criteria to reside was frequently above 250 at any one time during the year. The Trust experienced an increase in the number of referrals with the number of patients on a waiting list under the 18-week referral to treatment pathway rising from approximately 59,000 to 62,000 by the end of the year. Quality and compliance The Trust’s elective recovery performance was one of the best in England at 127% compared to 2019/20. The Trust continued to monitor the quality of care delivered throughout 2024/25 through a number of established quality assurance programmes. Clinical leaders monitored key quality, safety and patient experience indicators such as falls, pressure ulcers and venous thromboembolisms. The roll out of the Trust’s Fundamentals of Care initiative continued. High-quality peer reviews were consistently conducted, with a key focus on weekly matron-led quality walkabouts – both during and outside of standard hours – centred around the five CQC domains: safe, effective, responsive, caring, and well-led. Additionally, focused matron walkabouts were introduced to address specific themes related to patient safety and Fundamentals of Care standards, such as medication safety and infection prevention. These initiatives have been instrumental in identifying areas for improvement and promoting the sharing of best practices across teams. The Trust’s clinical accreditation scheme (CAS) builds on this intelligence, with clinical areas completing self-assessments of performance and review teams completing on-site visits. The clinical areas were supported by the CAS team from an initial contact meeting and walkabout through to outcome panel. Patient representatives were included in these review teams. CAS paperwork was reviewed to reflect the learning points from themed Matron’s walkabouts, aligning it to the CQC single assessment framework and the UHS Fundamentals of Care programme to ensure a robust ward accreditation. Learning was shared at the clinical leaders’ group and via reports. 18 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE A framework was developed to govern Mortality and Morbidity meetings at the Trust, setting expectations for the content and format of these meetings. In addition, further work was carried out to ensure that the output from these meetings was shared more widely and that there is a clear escalation process. The Trust opened a patient and family support hub, repurposing the Macmillan Centre into a generic non-disease specific facility. The Trust worked with system partners to develop a unified and standardised approach to volunteer recruitment using a passporting system. The Trust commenced its implementation of the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures 2 (NatSSIPs 2). Violence, abuse and aggression against staff continued to rise. The Trust took action over the course of the year to support its teams, including through roll out of de-escalation training. This has had a positive impact and has reduced the requirement for physical restraint and has reduced the number of incidences of physical violence against staff. However, the level of violence and aggression directed at staff by patients and other members of the public continues to be an area of concern for the Trust. The Trust continued to build its always improving culture and drive on quality improvement by training over 1,000 staff, remaining 3% above the NHS average for all improvement focussed staff survey questions and winning an award for patient involvement in improvement and safety. This enabled improvements across theatre, inpatient flow and outpatient programmes. In 2024/25, average length of stay was reduced by 5.25%, an additional 1,230 patients were treated in theatres, and 7% of patients were placed onto patient initiated follow up (PIFU) outpatient pathways. Partnerships Further information can be found in the quality account. The Trust works within the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System and is an active member of a number of partner groups including the Acute Provider Collaborative Board and the Health and Wellbeing Board. The Trust develops and agrees its annual financial plans with the Integrated Care Board. The Trust is a member of a number of specific partnership groups for particular services, including the Central and South Genomics Medicine Service, the Children’s Hospital Alliance and the Southern Counties Pathology Network. The Trust works actively as a partner with other provider organisations around clinical networks, particularly with acute Trusts within the Integrated Care System and others closely located geographically. The Trust also links closely with the University of Southampton on a number of topics including research, commercial development and education and has a developed meeting structure to oversee this. 19 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Workforce The Trust’s key area of focus during 2024/25 was to maintain a flat workforce level in order to meet the Trust’s 2024/25 workforce plan. In addition, the Trust sought to reduce reliance on bank and agency staff. The Trust ended the year above its workforce plan by 373 whole-timeequivalents. A significant proportion of the expected reduction in staff numbers had been linked to expected delivery of reductions in the number of patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients through system-wide transformation programmes. However, these reductions did not materialise. In addition, due to the significant demand on the Trust’s services, it was necessary to open and staff surge capacity. This was exacerbated by high levels of staff absence due to illness during the winter months. The Trust was successful in reducing staff turnover to 10.1%, achieving the local target of 75% of staff in each area has received training, including neonatal medical team. • Trolley dashes. • Train the trainer. Progress metrics Audit of compliance: • Has it been undertaken for the appropriate babies? • Was the frequency of observation undertaken correctly? • Was the score accurately calculated? • Did escalation take place if required? • Was the response to escalation appropriate? 157 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Four: Implementation of the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs) 2 at UHS Core dimension Patient safety Rationale of selection The new National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs 2) represent the progression of the original NatSSIPs. The key aim to standardise, harmonise and educate (SHE) across organisations and procedural teams remains central to the NatSSIPs purpose. Critical changes include bolstered organisational standards and proportionate checks that recognise different levels of risk during major and minor invasive procedures, and the adaptions to processes that may be necessary in lifethreatening situations. This standardisation, harmonisation and education goals are set out in the table below. Standardise Harmonise Educate Organisational Sequential (‘The NatSSIPs Eight’) Safety behaviours, processs, policies, insight, involvement and performance measures across organisations and specialities. Expected behaviour, safety standards, checklists and format across invasive specialities. Across groups of hospitals. Across IT systems. Reduce variation across specialities. Commit to safety education, human factors expertise and systems thinking. Create a safety infrastructure, leadership understanding and training in cultural change. Teach and train in team behaviours, human factors, systems thinking learning / co-production with patients. Investigations into the increase of never events in 2023 and 2024 has identified that the majority of these had contributing factors related to stop points for safety. The key learning identified: Thematic analysis of never events Surgical mark not visible/clear Not listening to patient concerns Change in surgical plan and lack of documentaion Lack of time out if concerns are raised Lack of triangulated checks Ability to speak up concerns Swab, sharp and instrument count process Implant checks not triangulating patent details Inexperienced staff with lack of familiarity of processs Lack of induction training in stop points Distractions during stop point checks 158 QUALITY ACCOUNT All these factors will be addressed through NatSSIPs2 implementation. Safer invasive procedures is to be included as a local quality indicator by the ICB within the 2025/26 national contract. Key aims • Establish a NatSSIPs oversight committee. • Set up an invasive procedures committee. • Establish the following workstreams: o Audit of stops point for safety in theatres and for minor procedures in outpatient and ward areas o Multi-disciplinary safety walkabouts o VLE and induction workstream • Education: recruitment of medical education led to set up simulation-based MDT training. • Patient involvement. • NatSSIPs eight and communications. • Stop points for safety staff resources. Progress metrics • Increase in the completion of VLE stop points training. • Develop and implement a programme to deliver non-technical skills to the MDT. • All areas with a never event in the last two years have an up to date audit and action plan for compliance with NatSSIPs2. 159 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Five: Fundamentals of Care Core dimension Patient safety Rationale of selection The term Fundamentals of Care (FoC) describes the eight standards that staff across the Trust have committed to in collaboration with the patient, to support the physical and emotional needs of patients’, relatives, and carers. This is not a new concept, it underpins the core values of what it means to be a healthcare professional, to truly ‘care’ and will build upon our achievements in year one. Operational challenges have led the workforce to become more task-focused and less personfocused, taking away from that personalised care experience but we are committed to changing that culture, following our Trust value, patients first. The FoC exemplifies how the interdisciplinary team connects and builds relationships with our patients, getting to know them and what matters to them as a person, not just as a patient, supporting and encouraging independence and rehabilitation from the beginning of their hospital stay. These activities are the essentials of our daily living such as personal hygiene, skin care, oral hygiene, toileting, eating and drinking, and mobilising. Communication is also essential and includes both listening and hearing patients, understanding what is important to them using communication tools they need, coming to shared decisions with patients about their care and recognising the diversity of our population, embracing accessibility for those with people with learning disabilities, sight/hearing loss or other disabilities, or if English may not be their primary language. In addition, the FoC encourages us as healthcare professionals to consider the whole person, support cultural, spiritual, mental health, emotional wellbeing and dignity needs of people we care for and those that matter to them. We know here at UHS that not everyone experiences this level of care, but we acknowledge the need to change the rhetoric from ‘we are busy’ to ‘we are never too busy to care’ empowering and educating our staff at all levels to challenge the ‘we have not got time’ rhetoric and ensure fundamental care is at the heart of what we do at UHS. Thus improving, patient care and experience. Key aims We will grow the multi-disciplinary engagement and involvement in workstreams that embrace the FoC and encourage person centred to care. We will continue to pursue the digitalisation of the Friends and Family Test (FFT), using this data and the national inpatient and urgent and emergency care survey as a baseline, while linking with involved patients where required with to encourage feedback on the FoC. We will listen to the voice of our patients, their relatives, and carers to make sure their stories and experiences are heard by our workforce to encourage the organisation wide change. We will ensure the FoC will has clear and measurable improvement metrics as part of a live clinical quality dashboard that will afford ward managers and senior leaders, the opportunity to monitor, review and report on to FoC in their areas. 160 QUALITY ACCOUNT We will embed the FoC into the matron walkabout and CAS processes, supported by consistent evaluation metrics that ask the patients about their experiences and encourage clinical areas to continually assess and evaluate the FoC in their areas through a self-assessment tool. We will enhance the availability of existing resources on our virtual learning environment (VLE) in collaboration with our patient partners for all staff groups and embed the FoC into training across the organisation, to improve the knowledge, skills and awareness ensuring the delivery of quality care. We will continue to test and evaluate the What Matters To Me project, growing our volunteer role to support staff in finding out what is important to the patient and using their personalised board to remind staff of the ‘person’ they are caring for. We will continue to establish project links in child health, maternity and outpatients to ensure a bespoke, but collaborative roll out of FoC, considering how these different care environments may impact care. Progress metrics • Patient hygiene: we will see an improvement in the number of patients who report having their personal care needs met, particularly within their first 24 hours coming through emergency admission routes. • Skin integrity: we will support the reduction in incidences of avoidable pressure ulcers across the organisation. • Communication: we see an increase in the number of people accessing our interpreting services and a reduction in complaints related to interpretation. • Pain: we will see an improvement in patients reporting that their pain was well controlled when coming through the emergency department. • Mouthcare: we will see a positive uptake in the implementation of the new mouthcare assessment tool and an improvement in patients reporting that their oral hygiene needs have been met. • Nutrition and hydration: we will see an increase in patients reporting they are being offered adequate food and drink provisions throughout their hospital stay, including access to equipment for those with conditions or disabilities that impact their ability to do so independently. • Bowel and bladder care: we will see improved assessment of bowel and bladder habits through increased documentation using the Inpatient Noting system. • Enhancing safe movement: we will support a reduction in the incidence of high harm falls and high harm falls that have preventable causes. • Infection prevention: we will see a reduction in nosocomial infections through increased hand hygiene standards and more effective cleaning of equipment. 161 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Six: Develop the Trusts’ approach to reducing the impact of health inequalities (HIs) (year two) Core dimension Clinical effectiveness Rationale of selection Tackling health inequalities is a key priority for the NHS. At UHS we have been working to have an impact on health inequalities for several years. In 2024/25 we formalised these efforts with a governing board, chaired by our chief medical officer and with a clear programme of improvement based on recognised priorities. This formed the basis of our quality priority in 2024/25. This year’s quality priority is a continuation of the work that started in 2024/25. We intend to continue to grow our understanding and actions as an organisation, improving the equity of access, outcomes and experience of our services across our community. Key aims We are continuing our health inequalities board, with focus on five priorities: enabling our organisation, data and measurement, clinical service priorities, communication and engagement and strategy and approach. Each of these priorities have aligned directors to oversee improvement and a detailed delivery plan. Key priorities and expected outcomes from each of these are listed below: Enabling the organisation • Developing supporting structures: set up governance so that teams who identify health inequality related issues know where they can go for help, so that we can understand frequently arising challenges and notice when a problem raised might be affecting other of the hospital too. This will aid improvement, learning from issues identified and escalation of issues that cannot be resolved locally • Capability building: develop training for our staff to understand health inequalities, identify them within services and access tools to make improvement. • Delivery of the health inequalities officer role: grow knowledge of the health inequalities officer role across the organisation and utilise this role to share knowledge, training and support improvements. Data and measurement • Continue to develop our understanding of inequalities in access across outpatients and diagnostics, inpatients, theatres and the emergency department. • Enable the measurement of improvement in areas recognised as clinical priorities. • Enable completion of national reporting. Clinical priorities • Improve services and support for patients and staff with obesity (children and adults). • Improve identification and control of hypertension. • Improve services and support for patients and staff who smoke. 162 QUALITY ACCOUNT Communication and engagement • Adopt health inequalities into leadership and decision making. • Learning from our communities and our staff. • Communicating improvements internally and externally. • Staff support campaign. Strategy and approach • Overseeing and agreeing UHS approach and strategy for HIs. • Overseeing annual delivery against priorities. • Aligning programme resource. • Maintaining collaborative working with public health and Integrated care board teams and other local healthcare providers. • Keeping up to date with national recommendations and expectations, sharing this knowledge with our organisation. • Overseeing trust-wide improvement and health inequalities maturity. Progress metrics • Increasing numbers of staff trained. • Numbers of health inequalities issues reported (expected to increase through understanding before reducing due to improvement work). • Case studies shared of successful improvement projects. • Increased involvement and collaboration with patients and public on improvement. • Increased use of QEIA templates in decision making. • Demonstration of improved access to care for obesity, tobacco dependency and hypertension. 163 QUALITY ACCOUNT 2.3 Statements of assurance from the Board This section includes mandatory statements about the quality of services that we provide relating to the financial year 2024/25. This information is common to all quality accounts and can be used to compare our performance with that of other organisations. The statements are designed to provide assurance that the board of directors has reviewed and engaged in crosscutting initiatives which link strongly to quality improvement. 2.3.1 Review of services During 2024/25 UHS provided and/or sub-contracted 118 relevant health services (from total Trust activity by specialty cumulative 2024/25 contractual report). UHS has reviewed all the data available to them on the quality of care in all these relevant health services. The income generated by the relevant health services reviewed in 2024/25 represents 100% of the total income generated from the provision of relevant health services by UHS for 2024/25. 2.3.2 Participation in national clinical audits and confidential enquiries The UHS clinical audit programme was developed in support of the Trust’s vision by putting patients first, working together and always improving. This leads on to a specific strategy for clinical outcomes, to ensure robust and measurable processes are in place to plan locally and participate strategically. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) produces a National Clinical Audit & Enquiries Directory which identifies those national audits which are included in the NHS England Quality Account List 2024/25, those audits which are part of National Clinical Audit and Patient Outcomes Programme (NCAPOP). NCAPOP audits are commissioned and managed on behalf of NHS England by HQIP. These collect and analyse data supplied by local clinicians to provide a national picture of care standards for that specific condition. On a local level, NCAPOP audits provide local trusts with individual benchmarked reports on their compliance and performance, feeding back comparative findings to help participants identify necessary improvements for patients. The audits listed on the NCAPOP are ‘must-do’ national audits. The quality accounts national clinical audit list includes audits which we regard as ‘best practice’ to participate in (in addition to those from the NCAPOP) and for that reason we always include these in our corporate audit plans as a priority where they are relevant to our Trust. UHS has a strong history for completing clinical audits. The clinical effectiveness team has a robust approach to governing and supporting the completion. We’ve opened discussions with senior clinical leadership within Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board regarding the current challenges with contributing to and using the outputs of national audits. Benchmarked data resulting from national audits provides strong guidance on areas of excellence and improvement, however completion can be challenging in its compl
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/Annual-report-24-25-final.pdf

Quality account 24-25 final

Description: QUALITY ACCOUNT 2024/25 QUALITY ACCOUNT Contents Part 1: Statement on quality from the chief executive 1.1 Chief executive’s statement and welcome 3 Part 2: Priorities for improvement and statements of assurance from the Board 2. Introduction 5 2.1 Priorities for improvement 6 2.1.1 Progress against 2024/25 priorities 6 2.1.2 Quality Improvement Priorities - 2024/25: Final Reports 8 2.2 Priorities for improvement for 2025/26 28 2.3 Statements of assurance from the Board 47 2.3.1 Review of services 47 2.3.2 Participation in national clinical audits and confidential enquiries 47 2.3.3 Recruiting to research 52 2.3.4 Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) payment framework 52 2.3.5 Statements from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 52 2.3.6 Payment by results 53 2.3.7 Data quality 54 2.3.8 Data Security and Protection Toolkit (DSPT) 54 2.4 Overview of Quality Performance 55 2.4.1 Single Oversight Framework 55 2.4.2 Reporting against core indicators for 2024/25 55 2.4.3 Learning from deaths 67 2.4.4 Seven-day hospital services 70 2.4.5 Freedom to Speak Up 72 2.4.6 Rota gaps 74 2.4.7 Duty of Candour 76 Part 3: Other information 3.1 Our commitment to safety 77 3.2 Our commitment to improving the experience of the people who use our services 81 3.3 Our commitment to improve the quality of our patients’ environment 83 3.4 Our commitment to sustainability and the environment 85 3.5 Our commitment to staff 89 3.6 Our commitment to education and training 91 3.7 Our commitment to clinical research 98 3.8 Our commitment to technology 102 3.9 Conclusion 103 Part 4: Appendices 104 2 QUALITY ACCOUNT Part 1: Statement on quality from the Chief Executive 1.1 Chief Executive’s statement and welcome I am pleased to present this year’s quality account, which reflects our ongoing commitment to delivering safe, effective and compassionate care for our patients. 2024/25 has been a challenging year for UHS and the wider NHS and social care system. We have navigated operational pressures, with increasing numbers of patients who are medically fit but do not have an onward care package in place to be discharged, alongside a rise in winter infections and a record number of attendances to our emergency department. In the face of these challenges, our teams have worked tirelessly to enhance patient outcomes, improve service accessibility and ensure that the care patients receive meets the highest standards. I want to recognise the hard work of our staff in ensuring safety, driving innovation, and adapting to changes. This report highlights successful initiatives that have improved patient care over the past year. It also provides an overview of our quality priorities for 2024/25 and sets out our quality improvement priorities for 2025/26. We are proud to have maintained our focus on quality and achieved most of our objectives, enhancing the experience for those who use our services. Patient experience is an important priority for UHS. In 2024/25 we have successfully recruited approximately 2,000 ‘involved patients’, which will ensure that we co-design our services with those who use them, keeping our focus on our Trust values of patients first, working together and always improving. 2025/26 promises to be an exciting year for patient experience, with the development of the Patient and Family Support Hub, which will integrate voluntary services and ensure equitable access to support services for all. Our long-standing commitment to delivering safe, high-quality care is underpinned by the Fundamentals of Care programme - eight care commitments that patients, families and carers can expect from their care at UHS and these statements have been written in conjunction with patients, relatives and staff. In 2024/25 the programme has made significant progress in embedding Fundamentals of Care into our organisational culture. This has been achieved through developing understanding with newly registered professionals in our preceptorship programme, support worker development opportunities and the ongoing empowerment of staff through leadership development. In 2024/25, we have continued to strengthen our internal quality assurance programmes by aligning the clinical accreditation scheme with the CQC single assessment methodology. We are collaborating with other internal programmes - such as infection control, Patient-Led Assessments of the Care 3 QUALITY ACCOUNT Environment (PLACE) and friends and family feedback - to triangulate data and enhance oversight of key quality metrics, including patient safety, effectiveness, patient experience, and outcomes. This approach provides us with valuable intelligence to help us uphold our Trust values. 2024/25 marked one year of Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) implementation at UHS which has helped develop ‘just and learning’ culture across the organisation. Safety awareness has increased through our education programmes that have achieved good attendance and feedback. This coming year we will continue to build on the work that has been undertaken as part of implementation of the national safety standards for invasive procedures (NATSSIPS) 2. We continue to collaborate with our partners and develop our work as an integral organisation in the integrated health and social care system, building on trusted relationships across organisational boundaries are essential in improving health outcomes for our whole population. I want to recognise the amazing dedication of our staff in maintaining the safety of both colleagues and patients, fostering innovation, and adapting to evolving circumstances. Throughout this year, our teams across all services have strengthened their collaboration with our partners. As we continue to advance towards an integrated health and social care system, these trusted relationships are proving essential in our ability to respond effectively. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this document accurately reflects our performance, provides a true account of the quality of the health care services we provide, and where we have succeeded and exceed in delivery on our plans. David French Chief Executive Officer 26 June 2025 4 QUALITY ACCOUNT Part 2: Priorities for improvement and statements of assurance from the Board 2. Introduction Despite it being an extremely challenging year and unprecedented demand in the emergency department during 2024/25, the Trust maintained a strong focus on quality assurance. This was undertaken through established programmes and clinical leadership oversight of key safety and patient experience indicators, including falls, pressure ulcers, and venous thromboembolisms. The Fundamentals of Care initiative continued to be embedded, supported by high-quality peer reviews and weekly matron-led quality walkabouts aligned with CQC domains. The clinical accreditation scheme (CAS) was enhanced with updated documentation reflecting learning from themed walkabouts and aligned with national frameworks. A new governance framework for mortality and morbidity meetings was introduced to improve learning dissemination and escalation. The Trust also opened a Patient and Family Support Hub (P&FSH), advanced volunteer recruitment through a system-wide passporting approach, and began implementing NatSSIPs 2. In response to rising violence against staff, de-escalation training was rolled out, leading to a reduction in physical restraint and violence incidents. The Trust’s commitment to continuous improvement was demonstrated through training over 1,000 staff, outperforming NHS averages in improvement metrics, and achieving measurable service enhancements, including a 5.25% reduction in average length of stay, increased theatre throughput, and expanded use of patient initiated follow up pathways. Every year all NHS hospitals in England must prepare and publish an annual report for the public about the quality of their services. This is called the quality account and makes us at UHS more accountable to our patients and the public which helps drive improvement in the quality of our services. Quality in healthcare is made up of three core dimensions: Patient experience - how patients experience the care they receive Patient safety - keeping patients safe from harm Clinical effectiveness - how successful is the care we provide? 5 QUALITY ACCOUNT The quality account incorporates all the requirements of The National Health Service (Quality Accounts) Regulations 2010 (as amended) as well as additional reporting requirements. This includes: • How well we did against the quality priorities and goals we set ourselves for 2024/25 (last year). • It sets out the priorities we have agreed for 2025/26 (next year), and how we plan to achieve them. • The information we are required by law to provide so that people can see how the quality of our services compares to those provided by other NHS trusts. Additional information about our progress and achievements in key areas of quality delivery. Stakeholder and external assurance statements, including statements from our Council of Governors, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board and Southampton County Council’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 2.1 Priorities for improvement This section reflects on the 2024/25 quality improvement priorities at UHS and outlines our quality improvement priorities for 2025/26. 2.1.1 Progress against 2024/25 priorities Last year, we upheld our commitment to delivering the highest standard of care, influenced by various national, regional, local, and trust-wide factors. Throughout the year, we encountered unprecedented demand on our services, contending with challenges related to operational, capacity, patient flow, infection prevention, and safety. Despite these difficulties, we were confident in our ability to maintain our focus on quality priorities. Our teams worked diligently to achieve their goals under these challenging circumstances. We are proud to present our accomplishments and how our successes have continued to enhance the quality of services we provide to those who rely on us. 6 QUALITY ACCOUNT Overview of success Core dimension Patient experience Patient safety Clinical effectiveness Quality priority Progress Exploring the provision of a support centre for people using our services. Creating a behaviour framework behind our values, bringing them to life to improve our patient and staff experience. Volunteering - a new focus. Achieved On hold Achieved Acuity and deteriorating patients: continuing to improve how we keep patients safe from harm. We will ensure that Fundamentals of Care (FoC) are provided to all our patients in collaboration with our patients, their family, and their carers. Improving our morbidity and mortality (M&M) meetings. Achieved Achieved Achieved Develop the Trust’s approach to reducing the impact of health inequalities (HIs). Help develop a UHS quality management system approach. Achieved Achieved 7 QUALITY ACCOUNT 2.1.2 Quality Improvement Priorities - 2024/25: Final Reports Quality Improvement Priority One: Exploring the provision of a support centre for people using our services (year one) Why was this a priority? UHS is a regional centre for many disease types, but we recognise there is inequality in provision of support facilities in the Trust for all our patients and their friends and families regardless of their clinical conditions. While cancer patients have access to designated centres such as The Maggie’s Centre and Macmillan facilities, other disease types have no comparable options despite often having enhanced needs. Patients who are nearing the end of their life are frequently spending their final days in bays with other patients as side rooms are prioritised for isolation purposes, and there are few areas available that can accommodate a hospital bed for patients to have time with their family away from their clinical setting. Apart from the UHS Patient Support Hub, there are no designated spaces that are accessible for patients, families, or carers, often resulting in staff offices and education rooms being inappropriately repurposed to meet their needs. Growing feedback from complaints and Friends and Family Test (FFT) responses emphasis our inability to provide patients, carers and their families access to spaces for respite and support. In addition, a recent UHS carers survey indicated that while we recognise that being a carer can sometimes be demanding both physically and emotionally, there are no designated areas for them to have their own personal needs met. Creating a bespoke support facility at UHS would help to address these needs and would be the first facility of its kind in an acute trust in England. What have we achieved? Estate has been identified. Work has started to repurpose the underutilised Macmillan Centre into a generic non-disease specific Patient and Family Support Hub. This agreement made through the Trust Investment Group was to end the current agreement with the Macmillan charity and to approach Southampton Hospitals Charity to support a refurbishment and further investment into the hub (for example funding a carers shower provision). Key areas identified for further development • Major grant request submitted to Southampton Hospitals Charity due to go to Charity Trustee Board in March 2025. • Recruitment of a band 7 mnager role (appointed in January 2025 and starting 31 March 2025); • Rebranding and merging (of current Patient Support Hub) started in February 2025. 8 QUALITY ACCOUNT How will ongoing improvements be measured and monitored? Once the Patient and Family Support Hub is launched there will be a constant drive for patient and service user involvement, co-designing the space, there will be surveys on before and after, end of life quality of care will improve Progress metrics • Reduction in adverse event reporting that a patient died in an open bay. • Carers survey improvement. • P&FSH FFT results. Quality Improvement Two: Creating a behavior framework behind our values, bringing them to life to improve our staff and patient experience Creating a behaviour framework behind our Trust Values to bring them to life in our everyday work and interactions is still very much a priority. However, the work has been paused to ensure it aligns to the development of the new Trust strategy, both these pieces of work need to be produced side by side. It is anticipated the work on the behaviour framework will commence alongside the development of the overall Trust strategy and timelines for launch and embedding will move to 2025/26. 9 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Three: Volunteering Why was this a priority? To value the contribution our volunteers make to our organisation, we wanted to improve the onboarding process to provide more guidance and support for our volunteer colleagues, and to work with them more closely to build in flexibility and be more creative in the kind of roles and support they could offer. What have we achieved? • We worked with our systems partners to complete a successful bid through Volunteering for Health (VfH) and have plans to develop a unified and standardised approach of volunteer recruitment using a passporting system. • Our key relationship is with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector Health and Care Alliance (HIVCA) and it has allowed us to further explore a more system-wide approach, with a view to sharing resources, ideas, and opportunities both internally and outside the organisation on a regular basis. • We have worked with HIVCA and fostered a collaborative learning environment, aiming to streamline and standardise the volunteer onboarding processes over the coming year. • We have built upon current onboarding and training processes and are particularly developing the enhanced care training for our volunteers to support their awareness of working alongside patients who have mental health issues, dementia, delirium, learning disabilities and autism. • We are working with information governance leads to consider how the Trust’s internal policies can create equitable opportunities for a range of volunteers, to support them in accessing limited patient records, to allow them to document the interactions that they have with patients in support of the provision of collaborative holistic care. • We have begun to develop a new “ABC” approach to offering our volunteering roles, codesigning new roles for volunteers, and providing a flexible ‘responsive volunteering’ process that can support the organisational pressures as they arise and dovetailing the offer from our experience of care teams. • We have started to build relationships with the NHS care responder volunteer’s service looking at how they can enhance our existing offering provided by our responder volunteers. Key areas identified for further development • We have more scope to develop a more robust support process for volunteers during their placements through building better relationships between the volunteers and their clinical teams. • We will grow our volunteering hub space in spring 2025, to offer a more effective space for volunteers to access practical and welfare support from voluntary services, giving them a clear base and point of contact. • Working with HIVCA in the system-wide partnership, we will continue to explore the VfH funding and how it can develop the ‘passporting’ system for the volunteers across the network. • As our new Patient and Family Support Hub becomes established, we will work with the NHS responders and our existing responder volunteers to ensure a more extensive five to seven day/ week service (including evenings). 10 QUALITY ACCOUNT How will ongoing improvements be measured and monitored? The key metrics for measuring these outcomes will come from: • Our responder volunteer statistics through the Patient and Family Support Hub. • Our outcomes associated with the HIVCA partnership and the VfH bid i.e. progress with a passporting system including potential recruitment of a post to develop and establish this new system. Progress metrics • Year one funding from the VfH bid was received by the partnership to develop the partnership with the HIVCA support meetings every six to eight weeks. • The system-wide volunteer onboarding and passporting system has not yet been established but will continue to progress with the partnership. • We will have developed a responsive volunteer network, available five days a week with an established support system in place. • We are an open and inclusive recruiter of volunteers and monitor the equality, diversity and inclusivity of the volunteers we recruit, seeing a more diverse range of volunteers that begins to more accurately represent our local community. What our patients/relatives/carers tell us 11 QUALITY ACCOUNT 12 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Four: Acuity and deteriorating patients: continuing to improve how we keep patients safe from harm ADULTS AND PAEDIATRICS Why was this a priority? The recognition, assessment, and escalation of a deteriorating patient either adult or child are a key element of our trust-wide patient safety and quality strategy with the aim of improving clinical outcomes for acutely ill patients. How rapidly we respond to patient deterioration both in and out of hours is a key determinant of patient and quality outcomes. What have we achieved? Five new starters have successfully completed their supernumerary period. The critical care outreach team (CCOT) resumed its 24/7 service on 16 December 2024. Recruitment for the final vacancies was completed in December 2024, with both new recruits scheduled to commence their roles by 31 March 2025. An education task and finish group has been established, which has conducted a gap analysis with all education leads and reviewed both internal and external training resources. Standards are currently under revision. The medical education and simulation team is testing the Acute Life-threatening Events-Recognition and Treatment (ALERT) course, which includes resident doctors and junior nurses. Initial feedback was presented to the deteriorating patient group on 25 September 2024. The Trust’s acute deterioration education day continues to review feedback and evaluations for study days. The acuity surveillance pilot was successful, and the CCOT is now formally implementing this initiative. Monthly acuity reports are generated at the Trust, division, care group, and ward levels, or through bespoke reporting. These reports incorporate various metrics, including National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and National Paediatric Early Warning Score (NPEWS) activations, Call 4 Concern activations, a 24-hour overview of NEWS2 activations, cardiac arrest calls, CCOT activations and reasons for referral, and unplanned admissions to the intensive care unit (ICU). Quarterly data on cardiac arrests, Treatment Escalation Plans (TEP), and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) are presented to the resuscitation committee and the deteriorating patient group (DPG). Challenges persist in collecting robust sepsis data. UHS is participating in the national Martha’s Rule pilot programme, with Call 4 Concern implemented in March 2024 and all activations reported on Ulysses. A task and finish group has been established to explore patient wellness questions, which is a fixed agenda item at the DPG. The bi-monthly DPG has been established, with increasing medical engagement, and regular reports are submitted to the patient safety and quality committee (PSSG). Key areas identified for further development • Further roll out of Martha’s rule UHS-wide including Call 4 Concern. • Gain feedback from divisional governance teams regarding incidents to ensure learning is identified and appropriate action plans are devised and implemented. Collaboration with maternity and neonatal services. • Development of acuity dashboard. • Medium- and long-term service development commenced including workforce planning. 13 QUALITY ACCOUNT How will ongoing improvements be measured and monitored? • Bimonthly deteriorating patient group meetings to review current trends and themes, implementation of appropriate actions and evaluation of actions. • Biannual review of deteriorating patient group terms of reference. • Quarterly report to patient safety steering group. • Yearly assurance report – Trust quality committee. Progress metrics • Patient observation compliance data. • NEWS2 and NPEWS activations and data analysis. • Analysis of all unplanned admwissions to ICU from ward areas – adult and paediatric for themes to inform education and practice. • Adult and paediatric ICU stepdown data. • Adult critical care outreach team activity and outcome data. • Adult and paediatric cardiac arrest and outcomes data. • Adult TEP & DNACPR data. • Complaints and adverse event reports related to failure to rescue and failure to escalate. • Percentage of patients diagnosed with sepsis within the emergency department receiving appropriate antibiotics within one hour of sepsis diagnosis. • Analysis of adult and paediatric Call 4 Concern data, action plan developed, implemented, and adjusted in response to themes. • Analysis of patient/service user feedback on Call 4 Concern service. • Analysis of staff feedback on Call 4 Concern service. Volunteers and quality patient safety partners helped to promote the Call 4 Concern work 14 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Five: Fundamentals of Care Why was this a priority? Patient Experience - Fundamentals of Care (FoC) was established as a priority in 2024/25 due to evidence that post COVID we had not yet returned to a less task-focussed and more patientfocussed level of care. The priority was developed to create a foundation and structure to tackle these care standards of care and to challenge practices, in response to patient and relative feedback. What have we achieved? Since commencing in late 2023 the following has been achieved: • We have established the FoC project board and this group continues to meet every three months to provide an overall project view, share successes and opportunities for learning, discuss the workstreams continuing under the eight standards and to escalate challenges through a formal governance structure (through quality committee and QGSG). • We have had one quality patient safety partner (QPSP) on the project board since conception. Subsequent events have involved two other QPSPs and have broadened the ‘patient voice’. • Each of the standards has a lead who oversees a multi-professional working group with clinical team representation. Some groups have chosen to pair due to links in their primary and secondary project drivers and actions. Matron involvement is driving the patient facing team involvement. • The project board is minuted, with an action tracker. The board is attended by the corporate nursing team and is supported by our deputy chief nurse, chaired by our head of patient experience. It is also supported by our chief nursing informatics officer, members of the transformation team and communications. • There is a FoC project manager in place who has worked with the transformation team to create a project plan in collaboration with workstream leads, a communications plan and drive forward key initiatives including business intelligence and the development of a clinical quality dashboard so we can measure the impact of the FoC. • Enhancing leadership and role modelling of the FoC has been a key focus through leadership in practice study days. These sessions, held three times annually, target leaders across the organisation to address and challenge behaviours related to the FoC. Incorporating the patient voice, these study days are grounded in real patient stories and involve the practical application of skills using simulated patients. 15 QUALITY ACCOUNT • As part of the patient hygiene working group, we have undertaken surveys using volunteer support, of patients and staff in the clinical decision unit (CDU), acute medical unit (AMU3), trauma assessment unit (TAU) and Macmillan acute oncology service (MAOS) in relation to their experiences of patient hygiene care and the impact of the trial patient hygiene packs. • Existing surveys, PALS interactions, complaints, adverse event reports (AER), Friends and Family Test (FFT) are followed up and reviewed by senior managers accordingly. These inform the FoC workstream through the head of patient experience. • Since conception, sharing the patient perspective and reflecting what patients would like to hear from us has been key. The posters around the organisation on our care commitments and resources on staffnet and the virtual learning environment (VLE) for staff, support this. These resources include: o Resources developed by each group to share during the monthly focussed trolley dashes. o Videos developed by staff for staff, to improve awareness of some key facts about each of the eight standards. Staff on Bassett ward engaging patients with dementia in crafting activities • Strong presence of the FoC throughout education as it has been mapped to the health care support worker (HCSW) induction, is included on preceptorship for all staff groups, has been presented to some university students at the University of Portsmouth and is embedded in lots of local training and development initiatives. The head of patient experience delivers many sessions across the organisation and beyond. Head of patient experience engaging with clinical staff in cardiovascular and thoracics on how to assess the FoC in their area 16 QUALITY ACCOUNT • The What Matters To Me (WMTM) project was trialled in some clinical areas from October 2024 (F7 and G7). Due to challenges in engaging the volunteer support to maintain this project it has temporarily been halted. The boards have an agreed template, agreed by a QPSP, and based upon feedback from staff and patients. The values of this project are echoed in local projects we have seen. • The FoC is being reviewed in conjunction with matron walkabout and the clinical accreditation scheme (CAS). Starting in February 2025, a new monthly focus is being established, with five core questions associated with a FoC standard and five specialist questions associated with that topic. This is forming past of ward benchmarking with a new self-assessment tool being implemented. Key areas identified for further development • Clinical representation in these working groups is to be re-established/built upon to support further engagement in the clinical areas/teams. • Continuing to establish links and support in child health, maternity and outpatients to ensure a bespoke but collaborative roll out of FoC. • To continue strong patient engagement and involvement, linking with involved patients where required with the support of our existing FFT results, the national inpatient and urgent and emergency (U&E) care surveys. • Resources to continue to grow to create a repository of information for staff and develop their knowledge around the FoC and to support each other in challenging behaviours and practices. • Employ interim project manager to maintain the project and support new ones whilst the current project manager is on maternity leave, focusing on establishing the dataset to evidence the FoC. • Strengthen the recruitment of volunteers for WMTM through the successful bid to Volunteering for Health (VfH) through the recruitment and investment in a volunteer coordinator, as part of a partnership with other organisations in Hampshire and Isle Of Wight (HIOW), including the charity sectors. • Successful implementation and evaluation of WMTM boards across key areas in organisation, with full volunteer support for the obtaining of photographs of the patients from themselves/ families to maintain that person-centred focus. How will ongoing improvements be measured and monitored? Improvements will be measured and monitored through FFT feedback, feedback from selfassessment tools and ongoing surveillance of the clinical quality dashboard. Progress metrics Reduction in clinical Iincidents: We’ve seen a decrease in the number and severity of incidents related to the FoC across inpatient settings. A key theme in early 2024 involved patients reporting being asked to urinate in incontinence pads. Six adverse event reports (AERs) were recorded in Q1, with none reported in Q3, indicating improvement. Reduction in complaints: While we don’t yet tag complaints specifically to FoC, we’ve observed a decline in ‘patient care’ complaints - from 14.67% in Q1 to 13.91% in Q3. We’re also exploring refinements in complaint categorisation to better align with FoC themes. 17 QUALITY ACCOUNT Increase in compliments: Patient and family feedback is gathered through various channels. For example, our urgent and emergency care survey showed an overall satisfaction score of 7.68/10. Improved oerformance against metrics: Throughout 2024, we’ve redesigned our improvement metrics in collaboration with clinical teams. These are now reflected in the clinical quality dashboard, supported by a comprehensive data dictionary developed by our project manager. 18 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Six: Improving our morbidity and mortality (M&M) meetings Why was this a priority? The Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) sets out the NHS’s approach to developing and maintaining effective systems and processes for responding to patient safety incidents. It supports our processes for learning and improving patient safety and clinical effectiveness and replaces the old serious incident framework. An important element of the PSIRF is the focus on strengthening the processes for local learning through M&M meetings. M&M meetings (or clinical review meetings) have a central function in supporting our services to achieve and maintain high standards of care. They allow us to review the quality of the care that is being provided to our patients and learn lessons from outcomes. They are multi-disciplinary meetings which provide a safe place for learning, for supporting comprehensive conversations and ensuring governance standards are met. They allow us to identify any opportunities for improvement and are an important opportunity for education. They also provide opportunities for senior staff to model appropriate professional behaviour and engage the significant expertise of clinicians at the point of care. There is also a growing trend in M&M meetings to identify how resilience within complex systems enables good outcomes in the face of the kind of challenges and uncertainties which we are experiencing, and which are inherent within healthcare delivery. What have we achieved? The medical advisor for patient safety is leading efforts on morbidity and mortality (M&M) meetings. A comprehensive framework for M&M meetings at UHS has been developed, establishing expectations for a safe learning environment that is multiprofessional and multi-disciplinary, with a systematic meeting structure and agenda focused on learning, governance integration, and patient-centred care. This framework is supported by a handbook, resources, and education for M&M leads. A dedicated Teams channel has been created to provide resources for M&M leads. An M&M workshop was held as part of the WHO Patient Safety Day on 12 September 2024, focusing on creating strong learning environments, maintaining patient centrality, and learning from palliative care. The workshop was attended by 20 M&M leads and governance representatives. Additionally, 20 M&M leads attended a study day on 23 January 2025, covering topics such as human factors and systems thinking, PSIRF, keeping the patient central, appreciative inquiry in M&M, creating strong learning environments, managing difficult behaviour, and expanding the scope of M&M beyond mortality. The study day was well received, and another is planned for early April. Regular meetings are held with M&M leads and the medical patient safety advisor to provide support and identify areas needing assistance. An electronic M&M recording system was developed and trialed to capture and evidence outcomes, but it is no longer supported by the Trust, prompting the investigation of alternatives. A clear escalation process from M&M meetings to the existing governance structure has been established, with actions recorded. M&M meeting outcomes are now a standing agenda item in governance meetings. 19 QUALITY ACCOUNT UHS - 6 key principles of M&M Safety A safe space for learning. A meeting atmosphere that is conductive to open discussion with a focus on ‘Just and Learning Culture’ and an emphasis on understanding the systems factors, not focusing on individuals. Multiprofessional and Multi-disciplinary Ensuring active participation across staff groups and different disciplines. Meeting Framework Systematic agenda selection process, structured meeting format and objective analysis of data, including consideration of systems factors, and human factors and ergonomics. Learning Focus Comprehesive discussions to generate actionable learning and system improvement. Using an appreciative inquiry approach to emphasise and learn from the every day, as well as where things can go wrong. Governance Hospital-wide system to record outcomes, lessons learned, and dissemination of recommendations to ensure action and learning. Supporting our integrated approach to quality across the organisation. Folow up to ensure actions are completed. Clear pathways for central reporting and escalation of concerns. Patient Centred Keeping the patient and the family central to the learning. Ensuring that the patient voice is heard when learning from events. Completing feedback and duty of candour to help build trust. Training as part of the WHO World Patient Safety Day: Discussing how to create psychological safety in meetings 20 QUALITY ACCOUNT Key areas identified for further development • Development of electronic recording process that can be used for all M&M meetings. • Need to develop stronger links and greater support from local governance. How will ongoing improvements be measured and monitored? Regular review of M&M meetings with the M&M leads to ensure that: • M&M meetings are represented by the multi-disciplinary. • Terms of reference are in place. • Incorporating mortality data. • Using a recording app (when available). • Outcomes are linked to actions and governance processes. Progress metrics The electronic recording system is not currently supported so we cannot measure this (and it makes it hard to audit actions and escalations as these would be audited via this). Survey of clinical staff (163 replies) and their view on M&M. Key findings: • 73% staff feel UHS views the meetings as important. • 75% that their department views these as important. • 60% that they are fit for purpose. • 75% that they make a difference to patient safety. • 80% agree that systems factors are considered. • 35% felt they were well supported by local governance. 21 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Seven: Develop the Trust’s approach to reducing the impact of health inequalities (HIs) (year one) Why was this a priority? The causes of health inequalities are complex, but research has shown that the main drivers of health inequalities are social determinants; the environments people live in, access to employment and the kind of start they had in life. Inequalities are also driven by the ways in which health services are designed and delivered, and by the quality of clinical care received. The NHS plays an important role in both mitigating against the wider determinants and in reducing healthcare-based inequalities. As well as a moral and social responsibility, NHS trusts have a legal duty to consider health inequalities. A new requirement from NHS England asks that trusts describe the extent to which they have exercised its functions consistently with NHS England’s views set out in the statement on information on inequalities. Addressing health and care inequalities is a core focus of the CQC’s 2021 strategy. To reinforce this commitment, the CQC has outlined five equality objectives aimed at tackling disparities in health outcomes. They have made it clear that action will be taken where care falls short for particular groups. Providers are expected to proactively identify, engage with, and respond to individuals who face barriers to accessing care or experience poorer outcomes. These efforts will be reflected in the CQC’s assessment frameworks. Failure to address health inequalities also carries a significant financial burden for NHS trusts. Estimates suggest these disparities cost the NHS around £5.5 billion each year. Eliminating health inequalities could potentially reduce the volume of treatments provided by the NHS by up to 15%, easing pressure on services and resources. What have we achieved? Governance A health inequalities board has been convened, chaired by the chief medical officer and attended by representation across UHS, patient partners, public health teams from the local councils and the population health team within the integrated care board. The board has set some initial objectives. These will be delivered through five areas of focus, each with a dedicated sponsoring director and a detailed delivery plan. These areas of focus are: • Clinical priorities. • Data and measurement. • Enabling the organisation. • Communications and engagement. • Strategy and approach. Clinical priorities Three clinical priorities have been set, based on national guidance on services where there is greatest health inequalities impact. The public health leadership from the local councils and integrated care board were involved in this prioritisation to ensure that we chose areas with high prevalence locally, and where it was felt an acute trust can have greatest impact. Priorities set are tobacco dependency, hypertension and obesity. 22 QUALITY ACCOUNT Tobacco dependency In Southampton, smoking rates are higher than the national average. It is estimated that one in six Southampton deaths are attributable to smoking (JSNA, 2021). 70% of our lung cancer patients and 86% of our COPD patient deaths are directly attributable to smoking. People who smoke are 36% more likely to be admitted to hospital than non-smokers and have poorer treatment outcomes including reduced response to treatments, prolonged recovery and increased risk of complications, across many areas including surgery, cancer and cardiovascular disease (Royal College of Physicians, 2020). This leads to increased length of stay, higher rates of emergency department attendance and greater pressure upon outpatient clinics due to smoking-related comorbidities. We have been focusing on improving identification of those who have been admitted who smoke, increasing the delivery of very brief advice to all patients who smoke and increasing referral to tobacco dependency services on the ward for those who do not opt out. We’ve been reviewing our data to understand how we are supporting those most at risk of being impacted by health inequalities. Obesity In 2022 to 2023, 29.5% of adults in Southampton were estimated to be living with obesity, above the national average. Southampton has one of the highest childhood obesity rates in the county. There are a large number of conditions linked with obesity, including cardiovascular disease, hypertension and liver disease. There is a multi-disciplinary service provided at UHS for children which provides excellent outcomes, reversing clinical impacts such as hypertension and type two diabetes. This programme seeks to identify opportunities to collaborate with our system to prevent the increasing levels of childhood obesity, reflecting the national focus on left shift and prevention. Adult obesity services are in review across our system. Hypertension Hypertension is amongst the leading causes of death in Southampton and Hampshire. High blood pressure causes threat to life expectancy linked with stroke, vision loss, heart failure, heart attack, kidney disease/failure. Hypertension identification and control have both been a challenge across Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Although hypertension treatment is delivered in primary care, there are actions we are taking as a trust to support this important priority. This includes: • As the largest employer in the city we have the opportunity to improve health by supporting our staff. We are developing materials to support our staff to understand the importance of blood pressure monitoring and approach to accessing help with high blood pressure. We hope this knowledge will extend to families, communities and how we support our patients. • Support people to ‘wait well’ whilst on our waiting list, with improved guidance on controlling and monitoring blood pressure while waiting for surgery, reducing the number of cancelled procedures due to high blood pressure. • Consider how improved data sharing on blood pressure readings between UHS and GPs can support onward support for hypertension. 23 QUALITY ACCOUNT w Data and measurement Several positive steps have been taken in measuring and understanding health inequalities within our services. These have been: • Building new dashboard that enables us to assess whether access to our services in equitable related to IMD decile, age, gender and ethnicity. • Assessment of equitable delivery of smoking cessation services. • Assessing the acute impact of hypertension control. • Collaborating with the Integrated care board on producing the data required for national reporting guidelines. Enabling the organisation We wish to support staff across our organisation to understand health inequalities, to recognise them within services, to access to tools to enable service change and to have routes to escalate issues. We have appointed a health inequalities officer who will be a key link to support services to achieve this. We have begun developing training that will be available across the organisation. We have also established escalation routes for raising concerns related to health inequalities. Communications and engagement There have been a number of excellent case studies communicated during this year through existing communications channels such as the Connect magazine. HELIXR, a pioneering programme that supports vulnerable patients with chronic liver disease through the introduction of peer support workers, attracted news coverage and was featured on the BBC and ITV Meridian in March. We have been attending events across Southampton including Pride and the Black Business and Arts Festival to show our support and to connect with our communities. We’ve been reaching out to grow the number and diversity of our involved patients, aiming to reflect the diversity of our population in our feedback and helping us to better serve the needs of our community. Strategy and approach We have worked on establishing this approach to delivering health inequalities over the year, which is now seeing results in progress in all prioritised areas for improvement. We have taken discussions to our Trust Board to establish how we will move this important work forward in years to come. We have also reflected on how population health, prevention and health inequalities will feature in our developing updates to our trust and clinical strategies. Key areas identified for further development There are detailed delivery plans for all of our priority areas over the next year, which will enable us to keep driving towards our aims. Highlights from these plans include: • Designing and publishing health inequalities training for all staff. • Creating an internal staff campaign, recognising the impact of health inequalities within our people and providing advice. • Establishing a health inequalities operational group who receive escalations of health inequalities issues and assess trust-wide implications and support improvements. • Delivery of planned improvements within our three prioritised clinical specialties. • Connecting with our communities and engagement leads across our city, improving our insights into the local drivers of health inequalities and identifying improvement opportunities. • Reviewing our use of QEIAs for change and decision making. 24 QUALITY ACCOUNT • Development of Trust and clinical strategies with making impact on health inequalities included. • Making use of the data sets we have built to drive change within our services and measure our impact. How will ongoing improvements be measured and monitored? We have clear objectives against all priorities with delivery timelines. We will continue to assess our progress in delivering against these. The dashboards that have been built will enable us to measure change over time, demonstrating where we have been able to impact on the equality of access to services. We will continue to work with our patients to gain feedback on how well we have met their needs while under our care. Progress metrics During 2024/25, we significantly advanced data capabilities to measure health inequalities across UHS services. We now track outpatient and inpatient waiting lists, discharges, and emergency department performance by age, gender, ethnicity, and Index of Multiple Deprivation - enabling long-term impact assessment. Staff access to this data will also be monitored. While some planned measures were successfully implemented, others remain in progress and will continue into year two (2025/26) of this quality priority. As part of our hypertension programme, we aimed to reduce theatre cancellations and non-elective admissions. Pathway improvements are underway and will be implemented in 2025/26, supported by expanded data sources. Combined with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Intergrated Care Board’s (HIOW ICB) cardiovascular disease (CVD)-focused ‘signature move’ in primary care, these efforts are expected to reduce non-elective admissions. HIOW ICB data for 2024/25 shows: • ~95 CVD-related ED attendances/month • ~420 non-elective admitted episodes of care/month • ~2,340 bed days/month Our tobacoo quit rates continue to be better than expected nationally. Throughout the year, the health inequalities board reviewed case studies from eight services, showcasing impactful improvement work. These have been documented to support organisational learning. 25 QUALITY ACCOUNT Quality Improvement Priority Eight: Develop a UHS quality management system approach (year one) Why was this a priority? In April 2023, NHS Improving Patient Care Together (IMPACT) was launched to support all NHS organisations, systems, and providers at every level (including NHS England) to have the skills and techniques to deliver continuous improvement. NHS IMPACT’s five components form the basis of all evidence-based improvement methods and underpin a systematic approach to continuous improvement: • Building a shared purpose and vision. • Investing in people and culture. • Developing leadership behaviours. • Building improvement capability and capacity. • Embedding improvement into management systems and processes. Taking a more integrated quality approach is also a key component of our ‘always improving’, clinical effectiveness and Trust strategies in support of our ‘outstanding patient outcomes, safety and experience’ strategic pillar. To establish our current position, the Trust undertook a self-assessment to gauge its organisational maturity against the IMPACT framework and identified ‘embedding improvement into management systems and processes’ as an area of opportunity to improve and employ best practice. It was also a recommendation from the Thirlwall Inquiry that organisations focus on their ability to triangulate different quality indicators to build
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/quality-account-24-25-final1.pdf

Papers CoG 29.04.2025 v2

Description: Date Time Location Chair Agenda Council of Governors 29/04/2025 14:00 - 15:45 Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd 1 Chair’s Welcome and Opening Comments 14:00 2 Declarations of Interest 14:04 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting 14:05 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 29 January 2025 4 Matters Arising/Summary of Agreed Actions 14:06 5 Strategy, Quality and Performance 5.1 Chief Executive Officer's Performance Report 14:07 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendee: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer 5.2 Annual Report and Quality Accounts Timetable 2024/25 14:27 Note the timetable Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendee: Karen Russell, Council of Governors Business Manager 5.3 Draft Quality Accounts 2024/25 14:32 Review and feedback Sponsor: Gail Byrne, Chief Nursing Officer Attendee: Helena Blake, Head of Clinical Quality Assurance 5.4 Corporate Objectives 14:42 Review and feedback Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Attendee: Kelly Kent, Head of Strategy and Partnerships 5.5 Non-NHS Activity 14:52 Receive and note the update Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer Attendee: Pete Baker, Commercial and Enterprise Director 5.6 Break 15:02 6 Governance 6.1 Governor Attendance at Council of Governors' Meetings 15:12 Review governor attendance at Council of Governors' meetings Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair Attendee: Karen Russell, Council of Governors' Business Manager 6.2 Council of Governors' Elections 2025 15:17 Note the timetable Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair Attendee: Karen Russell, Council of Governors' Business Manager 6.3 Appointment to the GNC 15:19 Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair Attendee: Karen Russell, Council of Governors' Business Manager 7 Membership Engagement and Governor Activity 7.1 Membership Engagement 15:21 Receive the report Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair Attendee: Sam Dolton, Events and Membership Officer 7.2 Governors' Nomination Committee Feedback 15:31 Chair: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 8 Review of Meeting 15:36 Review and feedback on the content of this meeting Sponsor: Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair 9 Any Other Business 15:41 Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda 10 Date of Next Meeting: 16 July 2025 15:44 Note the date of the next meeting Page 2 Minutes - Council of Governors (CoG) Open Session Date Time Location Chair Present 29 January 2025 14.00-15.30 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre and Microsoft Teams Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd, Trust Chair Shirley Anderson, Elected, New Forest, Eastleigh and Test Valley Theresa Airiemiokhale, Elected, Southampton City Katherine Barbour, Elected, Southampton City Patricia Crates, Elected, New Forest, Eastleigh and Test Valley Sandra Gidley, Elected, New Forest, Eastleigh and Test Valley Lesley Gilder, Elected, Southampton City Ben Grassby, Elected, Rest of England and Wales Linda Hebdige, Elected, Southampton City Councillor Pam Kenny, Appointed, Southampton City Council Professor Sue Latter, Appointed, University of Southampton Jenny Lawrie, Elected, Southampton City Brian Lovell, Elected, Rest of England and Wales Councillor Louise Parker-Jones, Appointed, Hampshire County Council Cat Rushworth, Elected, Isle of Wight Karen Smith-Baker, Elected, Health Professional and Health Scientist Staff Jake Smokcum, Elected, Nursing and Midwifery Staff Mike Williams, Elected, New Forest, Eastleigh and Test Valley JDT SA TA KB PC SG LG BG LH PK SL JL BL LPJ CR KSB JS MW In attendance Tracey Burt, Minutes TB Sam Dolton, Events and Membership Officer SD David French, Chief Executive Officer (for item 5.1) DF Steve Harris, Chief People Officer (for item 6.1) SHa Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and CM Company Secretary Karen Russell, Council of Governors’ Business Manager KR Apologies Professor Cathy Barnes, Appointed, Solent University CB Sathish Harinarayanan, Elected, Medical Practitioners and Dental SH Staff Esther O’Sullivan, Elected, New Forest, Eastleigh and Test Valley EO Liz Taylor, Elected, Non-Clinical and Support Staff LT 1 Chair’s Welcome and Opening Comments The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and in particular, BG and SL, who were attending their first CoG, although they had attended the strategy day at the end of last year. 1 2 Declarations of Interest There were no new declarations of interest relating to matters on the agenda. 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting held on 23 October 2024 were approved as an accurate record of the meeting. 4 Matters Arising/Summary of Agreed Actions All actions had been completed. 5 Strategy, Quality and Performance 5.1 Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Report The Chair welcomed DAF who joined the meeting to present the performance report. He highlighted the following from the report and commented on various national issues:- • the Trust had been under significant pressure related to urgent and emergency care. Whilst this was also a national problem, attendances at the UHS Emergency Department had been higher than last year, averaging 448 patients a day. During the Christmas period, attendances and admissions had been exacerbated by Covid-19 and flu. Various Trusts had declared critical incidents but UHS had not, although it had been close to doing so. • pressure on the Emergency Department had eased slightly in January but during the last week it had increased again. At midnight on 27 January 2025 there had been 150 patients in the department, which was double the normal capacity. • infection prevention was a greater challenge when the hospital was under intense pressure but the Trust was focussed on it. • the Trust had seen an increase in Never Events. A theme related to invasive procedures and missed opportunities to stop, before procedures had started, had been identified. A plan to mitigate such events had been put in place and the Trust would implement the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs). • the Trust’s referral to treatment (RTT) waiting list had remained above 60,000 in quarter three. 62% of patients on the waiting list had been waiting less than 18 weeks, which meant that UHS was in the top quartile when compared to peer teaching hospitals. • UHS had delivered elective recovery fund activity (ERF) at 128% of 2019/20 levels, which was 15% above the Trust’s target. • the physical capacity of the UHS estate continued to be a challenge. • the funding mechanism related to how ERF money was paid, continued to be a challenge for the Trust. It was hoped that national planning guidance, due out on 30 January 2025, would provide clarity. • the annual staff survey had now closed and the Trust was beginning to receive initial results. These would be shared in due course. • there had been a slight increase in staff sickness absence, largely due to Covid-19 and flu. • the Trust had a significant financial deficit and needed to get back to breakeven. 2025/26 was likely to be another difficult year and it was known that three national priorities would be safe emergency care, reductions in the elective waiting list and the need for Trusts to live within their means. BL queried whether the Trust had done everything it could, in terms of its financial situation. DAF advised that UHS had recently received productivity benchmarking data, which showed that it was fourth in the country, when compared to others, so the Trust was struggling to see what it could do better. 2 SG queried whether all activity for 2025/26 had been capped. DAF advised that new operations and elective outpatient procedures were presently paid for on a price per unit basis, whilst almost everything else was on a block contract. UHS was generally doing more activity than the block assumed and it was likely that elective activity would also be capped next year. The Trust may, therefore, need to consider pulling back on the things that added the least value. CR noted that people were generally living longer and asked whether that was being considered, from a financial perspective. DAF advised that UHS would always support clinical decisions, regardless of a patient’s age. The Chair thanked DAF for attending CoG. 6 Governance 6.1 Chair and Non-Executive Director Appraisal Process The Chair welcomed SHa to the meeting and noted that as a Foundation Trust, UHS was required to conduct a robust appraisal process. The process started in January and would conclude in April. The governors had a vital role in providing feedback on the work of the Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) and system partners would also be asked to provide feedback on the Chair. The Chair would conduct the NEDs appraisals and Jane Harwood, Senior Independent Director (SID) would undertake the Chair’s appraisal. SHa advised that NHS England was due to launch a new appraisal process, nationally, for NEDs but it was still outstanding. However, a refreshed appraisal process for Chairs had been released in 2024. SA noted that governors often found it difficult to provide feedback on the NEDs and advised that she had some helpful tips to share with them, at the end of the CoG meeting. Decision: The CoG approved the Chair and NED appraisal process for 2024/25. 6.2 Audit and Risk Committee Terms of Reference CM advised that the Audit and Risk Committee had carried out the annual review of its Terms of Reference and two minor amendments had been proposed: • to amend 10.2 to Code of Governance for NHS Provider Trusts. • to remove Charitable Funds Committee from Appendix A. Decision: the CoG supported the proposed changes to the Audit and Risk Committee Terms of Reference. 6.3 Governors’ Nomination Committee Terms of Reference CM advised that the Governors’ Nomination Committee had reviewed its Terms of Reference on the 15 January 2025 and the CoG was asked to approve the removal of the words “deputy chair” from paragraph 3.2. Decision: the CoG approved the proposed, minor change, to paragraph 3.2. 6.4 Council of Governors’ Annual Business Plan 2025/26 KR advised that each year the CoG was required to review its Annual Business Plan for the coming financial year. Decision: the CoG approved its Annual Business Plan for 2025/26. 3 6.5 Non-Executive Director Appointment The Chair reminded the CoG that at its meeting on 15 April 2024 it had approved the appointment of David Liverseidge as a NED, for a three-year term. However, due to his position at Ramsay Health Care UK and the potential conflict of interest, it had been agreed to delay his appointment until his retirement at the end of 2024. The CoG was therefore asked to note that following completion of the Fit and Proper Persons checks and declaration processes, his appointment as a NED had commenced on 1 January 2025. 6.6 Governor Attendance at Council of Governors’ Meetings KR introduced the report and advised that if a governor failed to attend two successive meetings of the CoG, their appointment would be terminated unless the absences were due to reasonable cause. The Chair, CM or KR would contact the governor, to understand the reasons and would then provide confirmation to the CoG that the causes were reasonable. BL said that he would find it difficult to approve the continued tenure of a governor, if he did not know the reasons for their absence. The Chair clarified that the CoG would be asked to confirm that it was satisfied the Chair or Company Secretary had followed the process, rather than be asked to approve the reasons for any absence. SG queried what was meant by a “reasonable period” and the Chair advised that it would depend on the circumstances, which would be discussed with the individual governor. Action: It was agreed that CM and KR would review the constitution to check whether any amendments to the wording were needed. 7 Membership Engagement and Governor Activity 7.1 Membership Engagement SD introduced the Membership Engagement report and highlighted the following:- • the monthly newsletters continued to keep members updated. • the quarterly Connect digital magazines had been sent out in November 2024 and January 2025. There had been an emphasis on health inequalities in the community, in the latter edition. • the open evening and annual members’ meeting had been held, in person, at UHS in November 2024. It had not been as well attended as he would have hoped (it had snowed that day) and going forward, ways to maximise attendance would be considered. However, there had been positive feedback from those who had attended. • during December 2024 a virtual event, focused on healthy ageing, had been held. He encouraged governors to register for the forthcoming virtual event on cancer research. • due to the extreme pressures on the hospital, the team had actively used social media channels to remind people of the alternatives available, rather than attending the emergency department. • the opening of Woodland Ward, special care baby unit at the Princess Anne Hospital, had featured in the quarterly update. • the continued production of the monthly updates and the Spring edition of the Connect quarterly digital magazine were priorities for the team. 4 • attendance at external events (e.g. the Mela Festival) and opportunities to collaborate with other teams, were being planned and governors were encouraged to offer their support. Governors made the following comments:• it was helpful to have an engaging activity available at external events, as these helped to draw people in. • whether it would be appropriate to attend the Southampton marathon, which attracted a large number of people. SD advised that the team had attended in the past but had not found it the ideal event to have conversations with people. He would, however, contact the hospital charity, to see whether there was information that could be handed out. • SL suggested that she and SD discuss ways to recruit students as members. The Chair thanked SD for his informative report. 7.2 Governors’ Nomination Committee Feedback The Chair advised that the Governors’ Nomination Committee had met on the 15 January. It had undertaken the annual review of its Terms of Reference and had looked at the appraisal process for the Chair and NEDs. It had also noted the commencement of David Liverseidge as a NED. 8 Review of Meeting The governors said that they had found the meeting very informative, with the right level of information provided. 9 Any Other Business The following were mentioned by governors:- • the increased aggression towards staff was noted and the Chair advised that greater detail would be available once the annual staff survey results were available. • KB advised that she had visited Heartbeat House (on the edge of the UHS site) where friends and relatives of patients undergoing cardiac surgery could stay. A coffee morning was held every Tuesday morning in Heartbeat House and KB encouraged governors to attend, as it provided a good opportunity to meet members of the public. She also raised awareness of the Heart & Stroll event being held on 29 June 2025 to raise funds towards the renovation of the Heart Failure Unit at UHS. • CM advised that due to changes in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (ICB) and a possible conflict of interest, the ICB did not intend to replace Helen Eggleton, who had previously represented them as a governor on the CoG. It was therefore proposed to reduce the number of governors to 21, which would require the constitution to be amended. The CoG expressed its disappointment at the ICB’s decision and the Chair agreed to discuss the decision, when she next met with the Chair of the ICB. • the Chair advised that with effect from 11th March, all UHS Trust Board meetings would be held in person. A hybrid option would, however, still be available for the CoG meetings. • the Chair asked governors to ensure that they advised KR of any board committees they wished to attend, at least a week in advance. This would enable KR to liaise with the committee Chair, to ensure that it was appropriate for a governor to attend. 10 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the CoG would be held on 29 April 2025. 5 List of action items Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Council of Governors 29/01/2025 6.6 Governor Attendance at Council of Governors’ Meetings 1199 Governor Attendance at Council of Governors’ Meetings . Machell, Craig Russell, Karen 29/04/2025 Completed Explanation action item Under the Trust’s constitution if a governor failed to attend two successive meetings of the council of governors, his or her tenure of office is to be immediately terminated by the CoG unless the CoG is satisfied that the absences were due to reasonable cause; and he/she will be able to attend meetings of the CoG within such a period as the CoG considers reasonable. The CoG was happy to confirm it was satisfied that the correct process had been carried out but could not comment on the reasons for absence or their ability to attend future meetings within a reasonable period of time, as these had been a confidential part of the discussion with the governor. CM and KR agreed to look at the Trust's constitution to establish if an amendment was required to the wording regarding this. Explanation Russell, Karen The wording in the constitution relating to this issue requires amendment and this will be carried out when the Trust's constitution is reviewed during 2025/26. In the meantime, the wording in future papers relating to governor attendance at CoG meetings will be adjusted accordingly. Item 5.1 Report to the Council of Governors - 29 April 2025 Title: Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer Author: Sam Dale, Associate Director of Data and Analytics Purpose (type an ‘x’ in the appropriate box(es)) (Re)Assurance Approval Ratification Information x Strategic Theme (type an ‘x’ in the appropriate box(es)) Outstanding patient Pioneering research World class people outcomes, safety and innovation and experience Integrated networks and collaboration Foundations for the future x x x Executive Summary: Information about Trust performance supports the Council of Governors in their role. This report is intended to inform the Council of Governors about aspects of the Trust’s performance. Contents: The Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Report is attached. Risk(s): N/A Equality Impact Consideration: N/A UHS Council of Governors April 2025 Chief Executive’s Performance Report 1. Purpose and Context The purpose of this report is to summarise the Trust’s performance against a range of key indicators. Where available, this report covers data from the period January to March 2025, noting that some performance data is reported further in arrears and therefore unavailable. As the organisation transitions to the national 25/26 NHS priorities, notable features of 24/25 quarter four include: • The financial position of the organisation remains extremely challenging as the trust prioritises the national request to live within its means despite restrictions on funding for emergency activity and elective growth. • Despite the economic challenges, the organisation continues to benchmark well for productivity measures including theatre utilisation and length of stay whilst recognising there remains an opportunity to go further. • The waiting list continued to grow in quarter four, however the trust has maintained performance on 18 week targets and reduced the volume of patients waiting over 65 weeks to a small cohort of services. • The organisation has maintained robust performance on cancer and diagnostic waiting times and anticipates that the validated year end position will place the organisation in the top quartile compared to peer organisations. • The volume of patients with no criteria to reside remains above 200 per day which continues to place a barrier on our bed availability. • The trust ranking for recommendation as a place to work has improved four places placing UHS at 18th out of 122 trusts. 2. Safety Infection Control Clostridium Difficile infection MRSA Bacterium infection Target 78.0% January 2025 39 35 74 70 40 24 33 7 0 January 2025 63.9% February 2025 44 12 56 46 33 19 27 5 0 February 2025 57.4% March 2025 54 25 79 59 43 25 36 2 0 March 2025 60.1% Performance against the emergency access target continues to be challenging with attendances growing by 3.2% compared to the previous financial year. In March 2025, 60.1% of patients spent less than four hours in the department which places the trust in the third quartile when compared to peer teaching hospitals. There is significant focus on improving this, with the plan based on two areas; improving decision making speed within the Emergency Department and improving timely flow from the department when patients need admission. The former is looking at consistency of practice, speciality in-reach into the department, and ensuring rotas reflect known peaks in attendance. The latter is looking at enhanced access, and increased pathways, to same day emergency care, flow and discharge throughout the hospital and embedding internal professional standards. Referral to Treatment (RTT) Target January 2025 % incomplete pathways within 18 weeks in month Total patients on a waiting list => 92% 62.0% 60,910 February 2025 61.5% 61,333 March 2025 62.5% 61,686 Whilst the trust continues to deliver more elective activity year on year, the RTT (referral to treatment) waiting list has continued to climb in each month of quarter four peaking at 61,686 at the end of the financial year. Despite this the organisation has maintained performance of 62% for the percentage of patients on the waiting list who are below 18 weeks. The trust ensures the appropriate prioritisation of our longest waiting patients with those of more urgent clinical need. The hospital reported just one patient waiting over 78 weeks in March 2025 due to the continued national delays for corneal tissue release. There were 21 patients waiting over 65 weeks - whilst some were also corneal transplant patients, others were services impacted by the prioritisation of urgent cancer patients or services managing unexpected emergency demand. Page 3 of 5 The trust is now transitioning focus to new 25/26 national waiting list targets. The organisation is committed to maintaining the strong improvements seen in 24/25 for theatre utilisation, length of stay reduction and optimisation of outpatient clinics. Alongside this, the organisation is closely reviewing referral trends and opportunities to manage them through increased advice and guidance. Cancer Target Faster Diagnosis - within 28 days 31 Day target - decision to treat to first definitive treatment 62 day target - urgent referral to first definitive treatment > =77% => 96% => 70% December 2024 83.6% 94.9% 82.2% January 2025 80.6% 95.1% 79.9% February 2025 84.4% 92.8% 72.1% The organisation continues to prioritise cancer patients and their treatments for all tumour sites and cancer types. The trust has maintained its strong performance against the 28 day faster diagnosis standard, consistently hitting the target and benchmarking in the top quartile compared to peer teaching hospitals across the country. Diagnostic capacity and the impact of provider referrals into UHS specialised services impacted our 62 day performance in February but unvalidated data provides assurance that the position has recovered to above 80% in March 2025. 5. Finance The financial environment remains extremely challenging for UHS. One off income received by the ICB and several technical adjustments have however helped reduce the scale of the deficit to £7m at the end of February 2025. This is £3.7m behind the annual plan of £3.3m deficit. The trust is targeting a breakeven position in March 2025 to ensure the deficit doesn’t further deteriorate and HIOW ICS can achieve a breakeven position for the year. The trust’s underlying position, so removing one off income, is significantly more challenging than this with an underlying deficit of c£6.5m per month. The organisation therefore continues to put significant focus on financial recovery with the aim of ensuring the organisation ‘lives within its means’ and makes progress towards the delivery of a breakeven run rate. The deficit drivers remain similar to those previously reported, focusing on three key areas: 1. Urgent and Emergency activity is in excess of block funding levels by c£2m per month. This has meant surge capacity has been required across all months of the financial year with peak usage in winter months. Demand management schemes are under development with HIOW ICS partners as part of agreeing plans for 2025/26 as is an increased funding envelope. 2. Non-criteria to reside numbers have increased to peaks of 250 from an average of 220. This is c20% of the trusts bed base and has a significant cost in addition to clinical risks of patient deconditioning and infection. This remains a focus of the inpatient flow programme. 3. Mental health patient demands have also increased noticeably over previous years with patients requiring enhanced levels of support often at a significant cost premium to the trust. UHS continues to work with system providers on improvements for this patient group. Despite these pressures however the trust has continued to ensure value for money remains an organisational priority with £73m of savings achieved YTD particularly focused on transforming services under the three workstreams of theatre optimisation, outpatients and inpatient flow. The trust also continues to overperform on the elective recovery target which supports financial sustainability via increased tariff income and helps support waiting list reduction targets. Currently 126% of 2019/20 levels of elective, daycase and outpatient first attendances are being delivered compared to a target of 113%. YTD this has generated over £26m of additional income for the trust. Page 4 of 5 Further to this the trust remains on target to spend its full capital allocation for 2024/25 totalling over £95m including £20m on decarbonisation and improved energy infrastructure which is externally funded. This continued investment in capacity, digital and infrastructure helps support continued ongoing financial sustainability and efficiency improvements. Despite the scale of the financial challenge the trust continues to look forward with optimism that our investments in infrastructure and transformation provide the right “foundations for the future”, including sustainable finances, and supporting “world class people, delivering world class care” as outlined in our strategy. 6. Human Resources Indicator Staff recommend UHS as a place to work Staff survey engagement score (out of 10) Q3 24/25 68.3% 7.0 Q4 24/25 66.4% 6.8 Trust wide, we have maintained our above average position across all the People Promise domains in the annual staff survey (Q3), with results remaining broadly unchanged from 2023 across all questions, with minimal improvements or declines which would be considered statistically significant. Year-on-year results over a three-year period shows there to be continued improvements in relation to satisfaction with immediate managers, opportunities for flexible working, appraisals, and increased confidence in reporting of incidences of unsafe practice, violence, bullying and harassment. However, we continue to see downward trends associated with civility and respect, and team dynamics which align to the themes in recent patient safety events and F2SU themes. Additionally, our national ranking for recommendation as a place to work has improved four places from last year, we now rank 18th out of 122 trusts, compared to 22nd in 2023. Participation rate has continued to decline to 39% from 41% in 2023, a 15% drop since 2022. This represents a total participation of 5,410 people out of a total eligible of 13,795 including subsidiaries. When reviewing the quarterly survey results, such as Q4 above, it must be noted that these results are less representative of views across UHS as we hear from less people. We maintain around a 20% response rate with quarterly surveys, hearing from 2,878 staff in Q4 out of an eligible 14,636 (this number is higher as more staff are eligible to participate in the quarterly surveys. WPL do their own quarterly survey so are not included). Indicator Target January 2025 Staff Turnover (internal target; rolling 12 month) Sickness absence 12 month rolling (internal target) 75% of staff in each area has received training, including neonatal medical team. • Trolley dashes. • Train the trainer. Progress Metrics Audit of compliance: • Has it been undertaken for the appropriate babies? • Was the frequency of observation undertaken correctly? • Was the score accurately calculated? • Did escalation take place if required? • Was the response to escalation appropriate? Quality Improvement Priority Four: Implementation of the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs) 2 at UHS. Core Dimension Patient Safety Rationale for Selection The new National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs 2) represent the progression of the original NatSSIPs. The key aim to standardise, harmonise and educate (SHE) across organisations and procedural teams remains central to the NatSSIPs purpose. Critical changes include bolstered organisational standards and proportionate checks that recognise different levels of risk during major and minor invasive procedures, and the adaptions to processes that may be necessary in life-threatening situations. This standardisation, harmonisation and education goals are set out in the table below. Investigations into the increase of never events in 2023 and 2024 has identified that the majority of these had contributing factors related to stop points for safety. The key learning identified: All these factors will be addressed through NatSSIPs2 implementation. Safer invasive procedures is to be included as a local quality indicator by the ICB within the 2025/26 national contract. Key Aims • Establish a NatSSIPs oversight committee. • Set up an invasive procedures committee. • Establish the following workstreams: o Audit of stops point for safety in theatres and for minor procedures in outpatient and ward areas o Multi-disciplinary safety walkabouts o VLE and induction workstream • Education: recruitment of medical education led to set up simulation-based MDT training. • Patient involvement • NatSSIPs 8 and communications. • Stop points for safety staff resources. Progress Metrics • Increase in the completion of VLE stop points training. • Develop and implement a programme to deliver non-technical skills to the MDT. • All areas with a never event in the last two years have an up-to-date audit and action plan for compliance with NatSSIPs2. Quality Improvement Priority Five: Fundamentals of Care Core Dimension Patient safety Rationale for selection The term Fundamentals of Care (FoC) describes the eight standards that staff across the Trust have committed to in collaboration with the patient, to support the physical and emotional needs of patients’, relatives, and carers. This is not a new concept, it underpins the core values of what it means to be a healthcare professional, to truly ‘care’ and will build upon our achievements in year one. Operational challenges have led the workforce to become more task-focused and less person-focused, taking away from that personalised care experience but we are committed to changing that culture, following our trust value, Patients First. The FoC exemplifies how the interdisciplinary team connects and builds relationships with our patients, getting to know them and what matters to them as a person, not just as a patient, supporting and encouraging independence and rehabilitation from the beginning of their hospital stay. These activities are the essentials of our daily living such as personal hygiene, skin care, oral hygiene, toileting, eating and drinking, and mobilising. Communication is also essential and includes both listening and hearing patients, understanding what is important to them using communication tools they need, coming to shared decisions with patients about their care and recognising the diversity of our population, embracing accessibility for those with people with learning disabilities, sight/hearing loss or other disabilities, or if English may not be their primary language. In addition, the FoC encourages us as healthcare professionals to consider the whole person, support cultural, spiritual, mental health, emotional wellbeing and dignity needs of people we care for and those that matter to them. We know here at UHS that not everyone experiences this level of care, but we acknowledge the need to change the rhetoric from ‘we are busy’ to ‘we are never too busy to care’ empowering and educating our staff at all levels to challenge the ‘we have not got time’ rhetoric and ensure fundamental care is at the heart of what we do at UHS. Thus improving, patient care and experience. Key Aims We will grow the multi-disciplinary engagement and involvement in workstreams that embrace the FoC and encourage person centred to care. We will continue to pursue the digitalisation of the Friends and Family Test (FFT), using this data and the national inpatient and urgent and emergency care survey as a baseline, while linking with involved patients where required with to encourage feedback on the FoC. We will listen to the voice of our patients, their relatives, and carers to make sure their stories and experiences are heard by our workforce to encourage the organisation wide change. We will ensure the FoC will has clear and measurable improvement metrics as part of a live clinical quality dashboard that will afford ward managers and senior leaders, the opportunity to monitor, review and report on to FoC in their areas. We will embed the FoC into the matron walkabout and CAS processes, supported by consistent evaluation metrics that ask the patients about their experiences and encourage clinical areas to continually assess and evaluate the FoC in their areas through a self-assessment tool. We will enhance the availability of existing resources on our virtual learning wnvironment (VLE) in collaboration with our patient partners for all staff groups and embed the FoC into training across the organisation, to improve the knowledge, skills and awareness ensuring the delivery of quality care. We will continue to test and evaluate the What Matters To Me project, growing our volunteer role to support staff in finding out what is important to the patient and using their personalised board to remind staff of the ‘person’ they are caring for. We will continue to establish project links in child health, maternity and outpatients to ensure a bespoke, but collaborative roll out of FoC, considering how these different care environments may impact care. Progress Metrics • Patient hygiene – We will see an improvement in the number of patients who report having their personal care needs met, particularly within their first 24 hours coming through emergency admission routes. • Skin integrity – We will support the reduction in incidences of avoidable pressure ulcers across the organisation. • Communication – We see an increase in the number of people accessing our interpreting services and a reduction in complaints related to interpretation. • Pain – We will see an improvement in patients reporting that their pain was well controlled when coming through the emergency department. • Mouthcare – We will see a positive uptake in the implementation of the new mouthcare assessment tool and an improvement in patients reporting that their oral hygiene needs have been met. • Nutrition and hydration – We will see an increase in patients reporting they are being offered adequate food and drink provisions throughout their hospital stay, including access to equipment for those with conditions or disabilities that impact their ability to do so independently. • Bowel and bladder care – We will see improved assessment of bowel and bladder habits through increased documentation using the Inpatient Noting system. • Enhancing safe movement – We will support a reduction in the incidence of high harm falls and high harm falls that have preventable causes. • Infection prevention – We will see a reduction in nosocomial infections through increased hand hygiene standards and more effective cleaning of equipment Quality Improvement Priority Six Develop the Trusts’ approach to reducing the impact of health inequalities (HIs) - year two. Core Dimension Clinical effectiveness Rationale for selection Tackling health inequalities is a key priority for the NHS. At UHS we have been working to have an impact on health inequalities for several years. In 2024/25 we formalised these efforts with a governing board, chaired by our chief medical officer and with a clear programme of improvement based on recognised priorities. This formed the basis of our quality priority in 2024/25. This year’s quality priority is a continuation of the work that started in 2024/25. We intend to continue to grow our understanding and actions as an organisation, improving the equity of access, outcomes and experience of our services across our community. Key Aims We are continuing our health inequalities board, with focus on five priorities: enabling our organisation, data and measurement, clinical service priorities, communication and engagement and strategy and approach. Each of these priorities have aligned directors to oversee improvement and a detailed delivery plan. Key priorities and expected outcomes from each of these are listed below: Enabling the organisation: • Developing supporting structures - set up governance so that teams who identify health inequality related issues know where they can go for help, so that we can understand frequently arising challenges and notice when a problem raised might be affecting other of the hospital too. This will aid improvement, learning from issues identified and escalation of issues that cannot be resolved locally • Capability building - develop training for our staff to understand health inequalities, identify them within services and access tools to make improvement. • Delivery of the health inequalities officer role - grow knowledge of the health inequalities officer role across the organisation and utilise this role to share knowledge, training and support improvements. Data and measurement • Continue to develop our understanding of inequalities in access across outpatients and diagnostics, inpatients, theatres and the emergency department. • Enable the measurement of improvement in areas recognised as clinical priorities. • Enable completion of national reporting. Clinical priorities • Improve services and support for patients and staff with obesity (children and adults). • Improve identification and control of hypertension. • Improve services and support for patients and staff who smoke. Communication and engagement • Adopt health inequalities into leadership and decision making. • Learning from our communities and our staff. • Communicating improvements internally and externally. • Staff support campaign. Strategy and approach • Overseeing and agreeing UHS approach and strategy for HIs. • Overseeing annual delivery against priorities. • Aligning programme resource. • Maintaining collaborative working with public health and Integrated Care Board teams and other local healthcare providers. • Keeping up to date with national recommendations and expectations, sharing this knowledge with our organisation. • Overseeing trustwide improvement and health inequalities maturity. Progress Metrics • Increasing numbers of staff trained. • Numbers of health inequalities issues reported (expected to increase through understanding before reducing due to improvement work). • Case studies shared of successful improvement projects. • Increased involvement and collaboration with patients and public on improvement. • Increased use of QEIA templates in decision making. • Demonstration of improved access to care for obesity, tobacco dependency and hypertension. 2.3 Statements of assurance from the Board This section includes mandatory statements about the quality of services that we provide relating to the financial year 2024/25. This information is common to all quality accounts and can be used to compare our performance with that of other organisations. The statements are designed to provide assurance that the board of directors has reviewed and engaged in cross-cutting initiatives which link strongly to quality improvement. 2.3.1 Review of services During 2024/25 UHS provided and/or sub-contracted 118 relevant health services (from total Trust activity by specialty cumulative 2024/25 contractual report). UHS has reviewed all the data available to them on the quality of care in all these relevant health services. The income generated by the relevant health services reviewed in 2024/25 represents 100% of the total income generated from the provision of relevant health services by UHS for 2024/25. 2.3.2 Participation in national clinical audits and confidential enquiries The UHS clinical audit programme was developed in support of the Trust’s vision by putting patients first, working together and always improving. This leads on to a specific strategy for clinical outcomes, to ensure robust and measurable processes are in place to plan locally and participate strategically. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) produces a National Clinical Audit & Enquiries Directory which identifies those national audits which are included in the NHS England Quality Account List 2024/25, those audits which are part of National Clinical Audit and Patient Outcomes Programme (NCAPOP). NCAPOP audits are commissioned and managed on behalf of NHS England by HQIP. These collect and analyse data supplied by local clinicians to provide a national picture of care standards for that specific condition. On a local level, NCAPOP audits provide local trusts with individual benchmarked reports on their compliance and performance, feeding back comparative findings to help participants identify necessary improvements for patients. The audits listed on the NCAPOP are ‘must-do’ national audits. The quality accounts national clinical audit list includes audits which we regard as ‘best practice’ to participate in (in addition to those from the NCAPOP) and for that reason we always include these in our corporate audit plans as a priority where they are relevant to our Trust. UHS has a strong history for completing clinical audits. The clinical effectiveness team has a robust approach to governing and supporting the completion. We’ve opened discussions with senior clinical leadership within Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board regarding the current challenges with contributing to and using the outputs of national audits. Benchmarked data resulting from national audits provides strong guidance on areas of excellence and improvement, however completion can be challenging in its complexity and resource intensiveness, and timeliness of outputs can reduce our ability to be responsive to indications. Real time data supports our clinical teams to be proactive in striving to meet our always improving objectives. During 2024/25 68 national clinical audits and four national confidential enquiries covered NHS services that UHS provides. During 2024/25 UHS participated in 97% of national clinical audits and 100% national confidential enquiries of which it was eligible to participate in. NCEPOD studies participated in during 2024/25 were: • Emergency (non-elective) surgery in children and young people. • Juvenile idiopathic arthritis. • Blood sodium (hyponatraemia). • Acute Limb Ischaemic. UHS fully supports the Maternal, Newborn and Infant Clinical Outcome Review Programme (MBRRACE-UK) and all the reviews that take place under this umbrella. The national clinical audits that UHS participated in, and for which data collection was complete during 2024/25, are listed below (Table A) alongside the number of cases submitted to each audit or enquiry as a percentage of the number of registered cases required by the terms of that audit or enquiry if known at time of writing this report. Eligible (68) Participated 66 = 97%) Table A. Total number of NCAs UHS were eligible to participate in (n=68) % Actual cases submitted / expected submissions 1. BAUS Penile Fracture Audit ✓ Not yet started 2. BAUS I-DUNC (impact of Diagnostic Ureteroscopy on Radical ✓X Nephroureterectomy and Compliance with Standard of care practices) 3. BAUS Environmental lessons learned and applied to the bladder cancer ✓ care pathway audit (ELLA) 4. Breast and Cosmetic Implant Registry ✓✓ 5. Case Mix Programme (CMP) (ICNARC) ✓✓ 1677 for 3 quarters 6. Emergency Medicine QIPs – Time critical medications ✓✓ 63 pts 7. Emergency Medicine QIPs – Care of older people ✓✓ 182 pts 8. Falls and Fragility Fractures Audit Programme (FFFAP) national hip ✓✓ 971 all pts fracture database 9. Falls and Fragility Fractures Audit Programme (FFFAP) fracture liaison ✓ ✓ 2910 all pts database 10. Falls and Fragility Fractures Audit Programme (FFFAP) National Audit of ✓ ✓ Inpatient Falls 11. Learning disability and autism programme - Learning from lives and ✓✓ 100% deaths of people with a learning disability and autistic people (LeDeR) 12. National Adult Diabetes Audit – National Diabetes Inpatient Safety ✓✓ audit 13. National Adult Diabetes Audit – National Pregnancy in Diabetes ✓✓ 100% 14. National Diabetes Audit - transition ✓ ✓ Collects data from database 15. National Diabetes audit – gestational diabetes ✓ ✓ Collects data from database 16. National respiratory Audit Programme (NRAP) - asthma in children ✓✓ 17. National respiratory Audit Programme (NRAP) - asthma in adults ✓✓ 18. National respiratory Audit Programme (NRAP) - COPD secondary care ✓ ✓ 19. National respiratory Audit Programme (NRAP) Pulmonary rehabilitation ✓ ✓ 20. National Audit of Care at the End of Life (NACEL) ✓✓ 250 pts 21. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre - National Audit of ✓ ✓ Data entry not Metastatic Breast Cancer required 22. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre - National Audit of Primary ✓ ✓ collected Breast Cancer nationally 23. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre – National Kidney Cancer ✓✓ Audit (NKCA) 24. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre – Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma ✓ ✓ Audit (NNHLA) 25. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre –National Pancreatic ✓✓ Cancer Audit 26. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre - National Bowel Cancer ✓✓ Audit (NBOCA) 27. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre - National Oesophago- ✓✓ gastric Cancer (NOGCA) 28. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre - National Lung Cancer ✓✓ Audit (NLCA) 29. National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre - National Prostate Cancer ✓ ✓ Audit (NPCA) 30. National Cardiac Arrest Audit (NCAA) ✓✓ 150 Approx 31. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) - Adult cardiac surgery ✓✓ 32. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) - Cardiac Rhythm ✓✓ Management (CRM) 33. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) - congenital heart disease ✓✓ (CHD) paeds 34. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) - Heart Failure audit ✓✓ 35. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) - Acute Coronary Syndrome ✓ ✓ 100% or Acute Myocardial Infarction 36. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) - Percutaneous coronary ✓✓ 100% interventions (PCI) 37. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) - The UK Transcatheter ✓✓ Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Registry 38. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) -Left Atrial Appendage ✓✓ Occlusion (LAAO) Registry 39. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) – Patent Foramen Ovale ✓✓ Closure (PFOC) Registry 40. National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) – Transcatheter Mitral & ✓✓ Tricuspid Valve (TMTV) Registry 41. National Child Mortality Database (NCMD) ✓✓ 100% 42. National Clinical Audit of Seizures and Epilepsies for Children and ✓✓ *1 pt Young People (Epilepsy12) 43. National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion – Audit of NICE ✓✓ Quality Standard QS138 44. National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion – Bedside Transfusion ✓ ✓ Audit 45. National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA) ✓✓ 46. National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) - Laparotomy ✓✓ 47. National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) – No lap ✓✓ 48. National Joint Registry ✓ ✓ 834 (data run to 10/02/2025) 49. National Major Trauma Registry ✓ ✓ 600 for 3 quarters 50. National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) ✓✓ 51. National Neonatal Audit Programme (NNAP) (Neonatal Intensive and ✓✓ 100% Special Care) 52. National Ophthalmology Audit Database ✓✓ 53. National Paediatric Diabetes Audit ✓✓ 54. National Vascular Registry (NVR) ✓✓ **100% 55. Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet) ✓✓ 100% 56. Perinatal Mortality Review Tool (PMRT) ✓✓ 100% 57. Perioperative quality improvement programme ✓✓ 12 pts 58. Quality & Outcomes in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (QOMS) – Oncology ✓ Data taken & reconstruction straight from 59. Quality & Outcomes in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (QOMS) – Trauma ✓ other 60. Quality & Outcomes in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (QOMS) – ✓ databases Orthognathic surgery 61. Quality & Outcomes in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (QOMS) – Non- ✓ melanoma skin cancers 62. Quality & Outcomes in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (QOMS) – Oral & ✓ Dentoalveolar Surgery 63. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) continuous SSNAP ✓ ✓ Clinical patient Audit, organisational audit 64. Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) UK National haemovigilance ✓✓ scheme 65. Society for Acute Medicine's
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Governors/Papers-CoG-29.04.2025-v2.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 13 January 2026

Description: Date Time Location Chair Apologies Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 13/01/2026 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre Jenni Douglas-Todd Diana Eccles 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 Note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. 2 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 11 November 2025 9:15 Approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 11 November 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 Finance, Investment & Cash Committee 9:20 David Liverseidge, Chair 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the People and Organisational Development 9:30 Committee Jane Harwood, Chair 5.3 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee 9:40 including Maternity and Neonatal Safety 2025-26 Quarter 2 Report Tim Peachey, Chair 5.4 Chief Executive Officer's Report 9:50 Receive and note the report Sponsor: David French, Chief Executive Officer 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 8 10:20 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer 5.6 11:00 5.7 11:15 5.8 11:25 5.9 11:30 5.10 11:45 5.11 11:55 5.12 12:05 5.13 12:15 6 6.1 12:25 7 12:35 8 Break Finance Report for Month 8 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer ICB System Report for Month 8 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Ian Howard, Chief Financial Officer People Report for Month 8 Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 2 Report Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: Jenny Milner, Associate Director of Patient Experience Infection Prevention and Control 2025-26 Quarter 2 Report Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer Attendees: Julian Sutton, Clinical Lead, Department of Infection/Julie Brooks, Deputy Director of Infection Prevention and Control Medicines Management Annual Report 2024-25 Receive and discuss the report Sponsor: Paul Grundy, Chief Medical Officer Attendee: James Allen, Chief Pharmacist Annual Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 2025 Discuss and approve the review Sponsor: Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) Review and discuss the report Sponsor: Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer Attendee: John Mcgonigle, Emergency Planning & Resilience Manager Any other business Raise any relevant or urgent matters that are not on the agenda Note the date of the next meeting: 10 March 2026 Page 2 9 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. 10 Follow-up discussion with governors 12:45 Page 3 Agenda links to the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) 13 January 2026 – Open Session Overview of the BAF Risk 1a: Lack of capacity to appropriately respond to emergency demand, manage the increasing waiting lists for elective demand, and provide timely diagnostics, that results in avoidable harm to patients. 1b: Due to the current challenges, we fail to provide patients and their families / carers with a high-quality experience of care and positive patient outcomes. 1c: We do not effectively plan for and implement infection prevention and control measures that reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections and limit the number of nosocomial outbreaks of infection. 2a: We do not take full advantage of our position as a leading University teaching hospital with a growing, reputable, and innovative research and development portfolio, attracting the best staff and efficiently delivering the best possible treatments and care for our patients. 3a: We are unable to meet current and planned service requirements due to the unavailability of staff to fulfil key roles. 3b: We fail to develop a diverse, compassionate, and inclusive workforce, providing a more positive staff experience for all staff. 3c: We fail to create a sustainable and innovative education and development response to meet the current and future workforce needs identified in the Trust’s longer-term workforce plan. 4a: We do not implement effective models to deliver integrated and networked care, resulting in sub-optimal patient experience and outcomes, increased numbers of admissions and increases in patients’ length of stay. 5a: We are unable to deliver a financial breakeven position, resulting in: inability to move out of the NHS England Recovery Support Programme, NHS England imposing additional controls/undertakings, and a reducing cash balance impacting the Trust’s ability to invest in line with its capital plan, estates/digital strategies, and in transformation initiatives. 5b: We do not adequately maintain, improve and develop our estate to deliver our clinical services and increase capacity. 5c: Our digital technology or infrastructure fails to the extent that it impacts our ability to deliver care effectively and safely within the organisation, 5d: We fail to prioritise green initiatives to deliver a trajectory that will reduce our direct and indirect carbon footprint by 80% by 2028-2032 (compared with a 1990 baseline) and reach net zero direct carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero indirect carbon emissions by 2045. Agenda links to the BAF No Item Linked BAF risk(s) 5.5 Performance KPI Report for Month 8 5.7 Finance Report for Month 8 5.8 ICB System Report for Month 8 5.9 People Report for Month 8 5.10 Learning from Deaths 2025-26 Quarter 2 Report 5.11 Infection Prevention and Control 2025-26 Quarter 2 Report 5.12 Medicines Management Annual Report 2024-25 5.13 Annual Ward Staffing Nursing Establishment Review 2025 6.1 Annual Assurance for the NHS England Core Standards for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) 1a, 1b, 1c 5a 5a 3a, 3b, 3c 1b 1c 1b 1b, 3a 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 x x Minutes Trust Board – Open Session Date 11/11/2025 Time 9:00 – 13:00 Location Conference Room, Heartbeat Education Centre Chair Jenni Douglas-Todd (JD-T) Present 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) Andy Hyett, Chief Operating Officer (AH) David Liverseidge, NED (DL) Tim Peachey, NED (TP) Alison Tattersall, NED (AT) Natasha Watts, Acting Chief Nursing Officer (NW) In attendance Craig Machell, Associate Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary (CM) Lauren Anderson, Corporate Governance and Risk Manager (LA) (item 6.2) Martin de Sousa, Director of Strategy and Partnerships (MdS) (item 6.1) Lucinda Hood, Head of Medical Directorate (LH) (item 5.13) Diana Hulbert, Guardian of Safe Working Hours and Emergency Department Consultant (DH) (item 5.12) Vickie Purdie, Head of Patient Safety (VP) (item 7.3) Kate Pryde, Clinical Director for Improvement and Clinical Effectiveness (KP) (item 5.13) Scott Spencer, Health and Safety Advisor (SS) (item 7.3) 4 governors (observing) 2 members of staff (observing) 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 no apologies had been received. The Chair provided an overview of meetings she had held and events that she had attended since the previous Board meeting. 2. Patient Story Item deferred to the next meeting. 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 9 September 2025 The draft minutes tabled to the meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 9 September 2025, subject to a minor correction at 5.10. Page 1 4. Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions The matters arising and actions were noted. • Actions 1281, 1283 and 1284 were closed. • Action 1282 was to be addressed through item 5.6 below. • In respect of action 1285, the Quality Committee would monitor progress on complaints response times. 5. QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 5.1 Briefing from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee Keith Evans was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 13 October 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • In terms of the internal audit reports, which had been received by the committee, whilst there were a number of points for the Trust to address, no areas of significant concern had been identified. • There was a focus on ‘imposter fraud’ whereby individuals who had turned up to carry out a shift were not who they claimed to be. Whilst there had been no reported incidents at the Trust, the Trust had implemented controls at the ward level, which would be subject to testing during 2025/26. 5.2 Briefing from the Chair of the Finance, Investment & Cash Committee David Liverseidge was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Reports in respect of the meetings held on 22 September and 3 November 2025, the contents of which were noted. It was further noted that: • In September 2025, the Trust had reported that it was in line with its Financial Recovery Plan. Of the £110m Cost Improvement Programme (CIP) target, 76% had been fully developed. • The committee had reviewed the Finance Report for Month 6 (item 5.8), noting that the Trust had reported an in-month deficit of £5.4m, which was in line with the Financial Recovery Plan. • The committee had expressed concern that 17% of the CIP target was not fully developed and that the Trust was £2.5m off-track in terms of delivery of the target at Month 6. • Whilst progress had been made in terms of addressing patients with no criteria to reside and mental health patients, this remained an area of concern. • The committee considered the NHS England Medium Term Planning Framework, noting that the first submission by the Trust was due prior to Christmas 2025. 5.3 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 22 September and 3 November 2025, the contents of which were noted. It was further noted that: • There continued to be little improvement in terms of the number of patients with no criteria to reside or mental health patients, which impacted staffing numbers. • The Trust was adopting a harder line in respect of its approach to violence and aggression, which included a greater willingness to exclude individuals. • The current participation rate in the Staff Survey was lower than the national average, which was likely indicative of staff morale and engagement. Page 2 • The Trust’s workforce numbers remained above plan, with limited options available to address this issue, especially in the absence of funding for restructuring costs. 5.4 Briefing from the Chair of the Quality Committee Tim Peachey was invited to present the Committee Chair’s Report in respect of the meeting held on 13 October 2025, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The committee received an update in respect of mental health patients, noting that although there were significant issues in the Emergency Department, the whole pathway for these patients remained a problem. • The committee carried out a six-monthly review of the Trust’s progress against its Quality Priorities, noting that good progress had been made on four of the six priorities and two were slightly behind. 5.5 Chief Executive Officer’s Report David French was invited to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • NHS England had published the Medium Term Planning Framework, which was intended to encourage organisations to think beyond a 12-month time horizon and to progress the NHS 10-Year Plan. The Trust was expected to provide its first submission prior to Christmas 2025, but the detailed planning assumptions had yet to be received from NHS England. It was noted that a more detailed report on the Medium Term Planning Framework was to be received as part of the closed session of the meeting. • The Strategic Commissioning Framework had been published by NHS England, which provided welcome clarifications about the future role of integrated care boards. • The Trust had been placed into Tier 1 for both Urgent and Emergency Care and for Elective performance. There was a national expectation that trusts would have no patients waiting over 65 weeks for elective care by 21 December 2025. Where organisations had more than 100 such patients at the end of October 2025, they had been placed into Tier 1. The Trust was taking steps, including mutual aid, to attempt to address the number of long waiters, but there was insufficient capacity in the system. • Resident doctors were due to strike for a further five-day period commencing on 14 November 2025, having rejected the Government’s latest offer to resolve the ongoing dispute with the British Medical Association. • The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board and NHS England South East Region had carried out a visit to the Trust’s paediatric hearing services in May 2025. The report, received in October 2025, had been positive about the service. • The Trust and the University of Southampton had been awarded £16.3m by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The Trust was one of only four organisations out of 15 applications to receive an award. • The NHS Business Services Authority had announced the award of a £1.2bn contract to Infosys to deliver a new and enhanced workforce management system for the NHS to replace the existing Electronic Staff Record system. The 2030 target date for implementation was considered ambitious. Further details would be considered by the People and Organisational Development Committee when available. Page 3 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 Andy Hyett was invited to present the ‘spotlight’ report in respect of Diagnostics, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Diagnostics performance was a key element of the pathway, as delays in diagnosis had a consequential impact on the overall length of pathways such as those for cancer and patients on a Referral To Treatment pathway. • Although there were some concerns with Diagnostics in the Trust, the Trust, generally, performed better than other organisations. The Board discussed the matters raised in the Diagnostics ‘spotlight’. This discussion is summarised below: • There had been a long-standing issue with waiting times for cystoscopy due to insufficient capacity. However, a plan was being developed to improve the situation, although it was considered appropriate that the plan should also address broader issues with urology as a whole. • There was concern regarding the availability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, particularly as two scanners were out-of-action. It was noted that the current set-up in terms of MRI scanners was not fit for the longer term and a strategy for the future needed to be developed. • There was a disparity between capacity and demand in respect of the neurophysiology service, as this service had previously relied on outsourcing. • Generally, activity was increasing, but overall performance appeared to be declining. There was also the additional financial challenge that Diagnostics was funded under a ‘block’ contract arrangement which did not fully take into account the demand for these services. • There were concerns about the electrical supply capacity at the Southampton General Hospital site and the ability of the Trust to expand its Diagnostic capacity with this limitation. It was considered that a better longer-term model would be for scanners at local community diagnostics centres. Actions Andy Hyett agreed to work on and present at either a future Board meeting or Trust Board Study Session the Trust’s longer-term strategy with respect to MRI scanners and imaging. Andy Hyett agreed to develop a longer-term plan for cystoscopy/urology and to report back to the Board during Quarter 4. Andy Hyett agreed to develop a long-term solution to the neurophysiology service. Andy Hyett 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 Emergency Department had recorded performance of 67.6% against the four-hour standard during September 2025. The department remained busy with c.450 patients and 120 ambulance attendances per day. • There had been some initial performance impacts with the roll out of the MIYA system in the Emergency Department, but this appeared to have now been addressed with performance up to previous levels. • A number of initiatives were being introduced into the Emergency Department in order to improve performance. These included the layout of the service, pathway re-designs, having General Practitioners in the department, and arranging with non-urgent patients to attend at a scheduled time rather than waiting in the department. Page 4 • In October 2025, the Trust had recorded 363 patients waiting over 65 weeks on a Referral To Treatment pathway against a national target of no such patients by the end of December 2025. • The Trust was making use of the independent sector, weekend working, and was requesting capacity from other providers to address the number of patients waiting over 65 weeks. • The planned industrial action by resident doctors posed a challenge, noting that the national expectation was that trusts maintain 95% of their capacity during this period. It was noted that, in contrast to previous instances of industrial action, resident doctors were apparently less forthcoming in terms of whether they intended to participate in the industrial action. • The Trust continued to report one of the lowest Hospital Standardised Mortality Rates in England. • The Trust’s cancer performance, based on a BBC article, was 21 out of 121 trusts. It was noted that whilst the number of patients being referred on a cancer pathway had increased significantly, the number of patients diagnosed with cancer had not materially changed. • There appeared to have been an increase in the number of pressure ulcers and ‘red flag’ incidents. Work was ongoing to address the findings of the pressure ulcer audit which had been presented to the Quality Committee on 2 June 2025. • The number of patients having no criteria to reside and mental health patients remained high. Actions Andy Hyett agreed to clarify the basis of the calculation of the ‘Watch & Reserve antibiotics usage per 1,000 adms’ metric. 5.7 Break 5.8 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 submitted its Financial Recovery Plan to NHS England in August 2025, which committed to an additional £23m improvement in the Trust’s financial position to deliver a full-year position of a £54.9m deficit. In the absence of these additional improvements, the Trust had been forecasting a year-end position of a £78m deficit. The revised target was subject to a number of assumptions, including the need for demand management and improvements in non-criteria to reside and mental health patient numbers. • There were a number of risks to the achievement of the Financial Recovery Plan, including whether there would be improvements in mental health and non-criteria to reside and/or steps taken to manage demand, high levels of activity, and whether it would be possible to reduce the workforce and close theatres. The need for the Trust to focus on achieving the 65-week wait target in particular could impact the Trust’s ability to close capacity. • The Trust had reported an in-month deficit of £5.4m (£30.8m year-to-date), which was in line with the trajectory set out in the Financial Recovery Plan. The Trust’s underlying deficit had seen some marginal improvement during the period. • The Trust’s cash position remains an area of significant concern. Cash requests had been made to NHS England, but the latest request for November 2025 had been rejected. It was therefore likely that the Trust would need to manage its supplier payments in accordance with its available cash. Page 5 5.9 ICS System Report for Month 6 Ian Howard was invited to present the ICS System Report for Month 6, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System had reported a year- to-date deficit of £48m. • A significant improvement in the run-rate would be required for the system to be able to deliver its 2025/26 plan. • The system was one of the worst in England in terms of the number of beds occupied by patients having no criteria to reside with approximately 23% of beds being occupied by such patients compared with a national average of 12%. • The system was also below plan in terms of its targets for access to General Practitioners and targets relating to mental health patients. It was noted that the performance in these areas had a consequential impact on the Trust’s performance in areas such as urgent and emergency care performance. 5.10 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 overall workforce fell by 73 whole-time-equivalents (WTE) during September 2025 and was reported as being 54 WTE above the Trust’s 2025/26 plan. The reduction in workforce had been driven through a combination of the impact of the recruitment controls, mutually agreed resignation scheme (MARS) leavers, and a significant drop in use of temporary staff during the month. • On 15 October 2025, the Trust had heard the collective grievance brought by the Royal College of Nursing in respect of the removal of enhanced NHS Professionals rates. It was decided not to reverse the decision in order to maintain equity with the rest of the workforce and consistency across other local providers. A number of actions had been agreed following the hearing. • Sickness rates had increased to 3.8%, although the Trust still benchmarked well against peers. • There were concerns about the potential impact of influenza during the winter period and therefore the Trust was taking a number of actions to promote vaccination of staff. The Trust was currently third in terms of uptake in the Region. • The level of participation in the national Staff Survey remained a challenge with only 32% of staff having completed the survey compared with a national average of 38%. It was considered likely that the recent difficult decisions taken and the impact on staff was impacting staff experience and engagement. • The People and Organisational Development Committee would be examining statutory and mandatory training levels together with the latest proposed national changes. Page 6 5.11 NHSE Audit and review of 'Developing Workforce Safeguards' including UHS Self-Assessment Return Natasha Watts was invited to present the NHS England audit and review of ‘Developing Workforce Safeguards’ (2018), including the Trust’s Self-Assessment Return, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • ‘Developing Workforce Safeguards’ was published in October 2018 and included a range of standards to assure safe staffing across the workforce. NHS England had initiated an audit, review and improvement plan amidst concern about a national reduction in compliance. • The Trust had submitted a self-assessment as part of this NHS England review. This assessment showed that the Trust continued to comply with the majority of the standards. • The audit exercise has been used as an opportunity to identify opportunities for improvement. Twelve recommendations have been developed, of which nine were assessed as ‘green’ and three as ‘amber’. 5.12 Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report and Update on 10-Point Plan Diana Hulbert was invited to present the Guardian of Safe Working Hours Quarterly Report and Update on the 10-Point Plan, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Resident doctors were due to strike for five days from 14 November 2025. This would be the thirteenth strike in recent years. It was noted that, in addition to pay, the dispute also concerned working conditions and the shortage of posts and consequent risk to resident doctors of unemployment. • The Trust had performed a self-assessment against the 10-Point Plan and it was noted that the majority of the plan’s contents had been considered by the Trust for some time. There were also a number of dependencies on the part of NHS England in areas such as lead employer models. • A national review of statutory and mandatory training was expected to enable portability of training records to facilitate staff moving between NHS organisations. • There had been significant improvements in respect of gaps in rotas. 5.13 Annual Clinical Outcomes Summary Luci Hood and Kate Pryde were invited to present the Annual Clinical Outcomes Summary Report, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The paper provided an overview of the clinical outcomes reviewed by the Clinical Assurance Meeting for Effectiveness and Outcomes (CAMEO) over the 12-month period to September 2025. • The majority of specialities provide reports to CAMEO, although outcome data can be more difficult in some areas to capture than in others. • The outcomes reviewed by the CAMEO and outputs from this body were also influencing the development of the Trust’s clinical strategy. • The strains on the capacity of services posed a risk to clinical outcomes. Page 7 • There was potential that a ‘quality’ override could form part of the NHS Oversight Framework in the future, operating in a similar manner to the ‘financial’ override by limiting the segmentations available to an organisation. 6. STRATEGY and BUSINESS PLANNING 6.1 Corporate Objectives 2025-26 Quarter 2 Review Martin De Sousa was invited to present the review of Corporate Objectives 2025/26 for the second quarter, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • Of the 12 objectives agreed for 2025/26, six were rated ‘green’, four were ‘amber’ and two were ‘red’. • The ‘red’ rated risks were that relating to the Trust’s financial performance and that relating to the Trust’s achievement of its workforce plan for 2025/26. 6.2 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: • BDO had completed its audit of the Trust’s risk maturity and had presented its report to the Audit and Risk Committee on 13 October 2025. The audit had highlighted a number of strengths including the Board Assurance Framework, risk definition, and use of risk in decision-making. In terms of opportunities for improvement, the audit report suggested some improvements in articulation of operational risks and use of ‘SMART’ methodology for actions. • The Board Assurance Framework had been reviewed by relevant executive directors and committees since it was last presented to the Board. There had been no changes to the ratings or target dates. 7. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 7.1 Feedback from the Council of Governors’ (COG) Meeting 28 October 2025 The Chair presented a summary of the Council of Governors’ meeting held on 28 October 2025. It was noted that the meeting had considered the following matters: • Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Report • Governor attendance at Council of Governors’ meetings • Review of the Council of Governors’ Expenses Reimbursement Protocol • Appointment of Jane Harwood as Deputy Chair with effect from 1 October 2025 • Membership engagement • Feedback from the Governors’ Nomination Committee It was noted that the Trust’s work on violence and aggression received particular attention from the Governors. 7.2 Register of Seals and Chair’s Action Report The paper ‘Register of Seals and Chair’s Actions Report’ was presented to the meeting, the content of which was noted. Page 8 It was further noted that one further item had been sealed on 7 November: Deed of Guarantee between University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (Guarantor) and CHG-Meridian UK Limited (Beneficiary) regarding the payment and due performance obligations of UHS Estates Limited (UEL) under the Guaranteed Contract and specifically the Stryker Power Tools delivered to UEL under the pre-contract open build period with CHG. Seal number 307 on 7 November 2025. 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’ and to the additional document referred to above. 7.3 Health and Safety Services Annual Report 2024-25 Spencer Scott was invited to present the Health and Safety Services Annual Report 2024/25, the content of which was noted. It was further noted that: • The number of incidents reportable pursuant to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) had increased substantially to 68 such incidents compared to 39 in 2023/24. The majority of these incidents related to moving and handling or exposure to infectious diseases. • There was a concern that there had been a reduction in the number of health and safety related reports and escalations whilst at the same time the number of RIDDORs had increased. • Four areas of concern were highlighted: Entonox surveillance of maternity staff, display screen equipment compliance, the Southampton General Hospital loading bay, and workplace temperatures during the summer. 8. Any other business There was no other business. 9. Note the date of the next meeting: 13 January 2026 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 9 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 10/03/2026 Pending Explanation action item Christine Mbabazi to include data from other mechanisms for reporting concerns in future Freedom to Speak Up reports. Trust Board – Open Session 09/09/2025 - 8 Any other business 1286. Organ donation Machell, Craig 03/02/2026 Pending Explanation action item Craig Machell agreed to add organ donation to the agenda of a future Trust Board Study Session. Update: Scheduled for TBSS on 03/02/26. Trust Board – Open Session 11/11/2025 - 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 1293. MRI scanners and imaging Hyett, Andy 13/01/2026 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to work on and present at either a future Board meeting or Trust Board Study Session the Trust’s longer-term strategy with respect to MRI scanners and imaging. 1294. Cystopscopy/urology Hyett, Andy 13/01/2026 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to develop a longer-term plan for cystoscopy/urology and to report back to the Board during Quarter 4. Page 1 of 2 Agenda item Assigned to Deadline Status Trust Board – Open Session 11/11/2025 - 5.6 Performance KPI Report for Month 6 1295. Neurophysiology Hyett, Andy 13/01/2026 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to develop a long-term solution to the neurophysiology service. 1296. Watch & Reserve antibiotics usage Hyett, Andy 13/01/2026 Pending Explanation action item Andy Hyett agreed to clarify the basis of the calculation of the ‘Watch & Reserve antibiotics usage per 1,000 adms’ metric. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 5.1 i) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 13 January 2026 Committee: Finance, Investment and Cash Committee Meeting Date: 24 November 2025 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Any Other Matters: • The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s commercial activities, noting that the Trust had robust systems in place to maximise cost recovery for private patient and overseas visitor income. The Trust’s private patient unit project continued to progress. The Trust was also seeking a partner to manage its parking provision. • The committee received the Finance Report for Month 7. The Trust had reported a £5.1m in-month deficit (£35.9m year-to-date), which was in line with the trajectory contained in the Financial Recovery Plan. The underlying deficit remained flat at £6.4m. Whilst there had been a slight reduction in the number of mental health patients, there were c.240 patients having no criteria to reside at any point during the period. There was an increased level of scrutiny in respect of non-pay expenditure. • The committee reviewed an update on the Trust’s measures for financial improvement, noting that the Trust was forecasting achievement of £85-95m against its target of £110m Cost Improvement Programme delivery for 2025/26. • The committee noted the Trust’s approach and the timelines associated with the Medium Term Planning submission. It was noted that the framework set ambitious financial and performance targets. • The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s Theatre Experience Programme, noting that there had been a 3% increase in utilisation and a 3% reduction in cancellations. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s productivity, noting that the Trust’s productivity had fallen by 3.3% compared to the prior year due to high-cost growth. • The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s cash position and forecast and supported a proposal to request further cash support for January 2026. • The committee received an update on Capital Planning for 2026/272029/30. It was noted that it was expected that the Trust would be allocated c.£40m per annum, although there were concerns about the impact of the Trust’s cash position and the ability of the Trust to meet this level of expenditure. N/A N/A 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 5.1 ii) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 13 January 2026 Committee: Finance, Investment and Cash Committee Meeting Date: 15 December 2025 Key Messages: • • • • • • The committee received the Finance Report for Month 8 (see below). The committee discussed the Trust’s future transformation programmes, noting that the areas of focus would be: urgent and emergency care, elective care, and automation of administrative processes. The committee was assured that the programmes were felt to be suitably ‘bold and ambitious’ and were grounded in realistic opportunities, rather than ‘blue sky’ ideas. The committee reviewed the draft capital plan for 2026/27 – 2029/30, noting that the Trust had been allocated c.£40m of capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL) per year. It was noted that the Trust’s cash position could place constraints on the Trust’s capital programme. The opportunity to secure funding from national programmes outside of CDEL should be pursued vigorously. The plan was to be discussed in a Trust Board Study Session prior to submission in February 2026. The committee reviewed, challenged and discussed the Trust’s medium-term plan ahead of the first submission to NHS England on 17 December 2025. The committee provided feedback in respect of the proposed submission noting that some of the assumptions within the 2025/26 plan had not materialised with regard to matters such as reductions in non-criteria to reside numbers and the committee sought assurance that learnings had been applied to the development of the medium-term plan submission. The committee was assured that such assumed reductions within the 2026/27 plan were based purely on actions which were deemed to be within the Trust’s control. The committee suggested some changes with regard to the plan, particularly around growth assumptions in the cost base, and agreed to recommend the revised plan to the Board for approval. It was noted that more detail and reviews would be required prior to the final submission date in February 2026. The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s cash position and supported a proposal to make a further request for cash support from NHS England for January 2026. The Trust reviewed and supported a proposal for transforming the Southern Counties Pathology network. 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 had reported an in-month deficit of £4.9m (£40m year-todate), which was consistent with the Trust’s Financial Recovery Plan. • November 2025 had been a challenging month due to costs associated with industrial action, patients with no criteria to reside and mental health patients. • The Trust had received c.£3m of income out of £6.1m for elective over-performance. • There had been a slight improvement in the Trust’s underlying deficit. Page 1 of 2 Any Other N/A Matters: Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. 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 13 January 2026 Committee: People & Organisational Development Committee Meeting Date: 21 November 2025 Key Messages: • • • • The committee reviewed the People Report for Month 7 including progress against the workforce plan. During October 2025, the overall workforce grew by 14 whole-time-equivalents (WTE). Although the substantive workforce had reduced by 15 WTE, there had been lowerthan-expected turnover and increased temporary staffing usage due in part to high sickness levels. The Trust remained on track, however, with respect to its Financial Recovery Plan trajectory. There were concerns about the response rate to the Staff Survey, which was below the national average. The Trust’s vaccination campaign for staff had started well with the uptake rate for the flu vaccine amongst staff at 43%. The committee considered the outputs of the review by NHS England of statutory and mandatory training and the implications for UHS. It was noted that a revised framework would facilitate passporting of training between NHS organisations. The Trust was aligned to the Core Skills Training Framework across six out of eleven areas and ten out of eleven areas for the Utilising E-Learning for Health material. The committee received an update in respect of the Trust’s Inclusion and Belonging strategy. It was noted that resource constraints and the impact of the current financial and operational environment on staff morale had impacted progress towards achievement of the objectives set out in the strategy. The committee reviewed the People risks contained within the Trust’s Board Assurance Framework. Assurance: N/A (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) Any Other N/A Matters: Assurance Rating: Substantial There is a robust series of suitably designed internal controls in place upon Assurance which the organisation relies to manage the risk of failure of the continuous and effective achievement of the objectives of the process, which at the time of our review were being consistently applied. 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 5.2 ii) Committee Chair’s Report to the Trust Board of Directors 13 January 2026 Committee: People & Organisational Development Committee Meeting Date: 15 December 2025 Key Messages: Assurance: (Reports/Papers reviewed by the Committee also appearing on the Board agenda) • The committee reviewed the People Report for Month 8 (see below) including progress against the workforce plan and Financial Recovery Plan. • The committee considered the workforce implications of the Trust’s medium term plan submission, noting that there were a number of national expectations and targets, such as those relating to sickness rates and elimination of agency spend. In addition, the committee noted the risks associated with the plan, including those where the Trust was reliant on progress with respect to non-criteria to reside and mental health numbers. • The committee received an update regarding the Trust’s Violence and Aggression workstream, noting that the Trust had adopted a revised approach to violence, aggression and abuse directed at staff with a greater willingness to take action against violent/abusive patients and members of the public. A violence and aggression board had been established to provide executive oversight and leadership, and the Trust’s policy was being revised. This work would be accompanied by a comprehensive communication plan for both staff and members of the public. • The committee reviewed the Trust’s progress against its objectives for Year 4 of its People Strategy. 5.9 People Report for Month 8 Assurance Rating: Risk Rating: Substantial High • The overall workforce fell during November 2025, with substantive numbers falling by 52 whole-time-equivalents (WTE). However, temporary staffing use had increased during the month due to increased sickness and operational pressures, which offset much of the reduction in substantive numbers. • The Trust was over its original plan by 214 WTE despite a decrease of nearly 400 WTE since 31 March 2025. In order to hit the Trust’s Financial Recovery Plan target, the overall workforce would need to fall by a further 137 WTE (including a 72 WTE reduction in temporary staffing) by the end of March 2026. • A forecast based on the previous year’s temporary staffing usage for the remaining months of the year indicated that the Trust would end the year approximately 500 WTE above the Trust’s 2025/26 plan. • The Trust had submitted a baseline assessment against the 10 Point Plan to improve Resident Doctors’ working lives in August 2025, which indicated that the Trust compared favourably against other organisations in the South East. The main issues concerned space available for doctors to work in and timeliness of reimbursement of course-related expenses. • The Trust was expected to meet a target of 95% of job plans having been signed off prior to 31 March 2026. At the start of December 2025, 55% of job plans had been signed off. Page 1 of 2 Any Other Matters: • Sickness absence had increased in November 2025 to 4.2% in month due to seasonal illnesses. • The staff survey closed on 28 November 2025. The completion rate for the staff survey had been lower t
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2026-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-13-January-2026.pdf

What to expect in the last days and weeks of life: When your loved one has been discharged from hospital - patient information

Description: This booklet provides information for family, friends and carers who will be supporting a loved one during their last days and weeks after they are discharged from hospital.
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Patientinformation/Bereavement-and-end-of-life/What-to-expect-in-the-last-days-and-weeks-of-life-When-your-loved-one-has-been-discharged-from-hospital-3685-PIL.pdf

AmB-LISOCEL-Cyclophosphamide (300)-Fludarabine (30)

Description: Chemotherapy Protocol CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR T-CELL (CAR-T) THERAPY AmB – LISOCEL – CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE (300) – FLUDARABINE (30) Ambulatory Regimen This regimen is for AMBULATORY CARE pathway use only and will only be available to prescribe at the Wessex Blood and Marrow Transplant Unit Regimen • Lymphoma – Amb –Lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) Indication • CAR-T therapy with Lisocel (lisocabtagene maraleucel) for the treatment of adult patients with: - Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) and follicular lymphoma grade 3B (FL3B), who have relapsed, within 12 months from completion of, or are refractory to first-line chemoimmunotherapy. - Relapsed or refractory DLBCL, PMBCL and FL3B, after two or more lines of systemic therapy. • Lymphodepleting chemotherapy must be administered prior to Lisocel. This protocol includes both lymphodepletion and CAR-T administration. • Lymphodepleting chemotherapy is given in Ambulatory Care setting and CAR-T product can be administered either as inpatient or in Ambulatory Care setting. • For autologous use only. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 1 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) Toxicity Drug Adverse Effect Cyclophosphamide Chemical haemorrhagic cystitis, leucopenia, nausea and vomiting, hepatic toxicity, altered carbohydrate metabolism, pancreatitis, hyper and hypoglycaemia, inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone, interstitial pulmonary fibrosis. Fludarabine Transfusion related GVHD, fever, malaise, neurotoxicity, opportunistic infections, GI disturbances -nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea. Lisocel (lisocabtagene maraleucel) Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, cardiac dysfunction, neurologic adverse reactions -immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), opportunistic infections, febrile neutropenia, HBV reactivation, HHV-6 reactivation, prolonged cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinaemia, tumour lysis syndrome (TLS), hypersensitivity reactions, hypophosphataemia, delirium, anxiety, encephalopathy, aphasia, peripheral neuropathy, hypotension, hypertension, thrombosis, cough, dyspnoea, vomiting, diarrhoea, acute kidney injury, fatigue, pyrexia, oedema. The adverse effects listed are not exhaustive. Please refer to the relevant Summary of Product Characteristics for full details. Patients treated with fludarabine carry a lifelong risk of transfusion associated graft versus host disease (TA-GVHD). Where blood products are required, these patients must receive only irradiated blood products for life. Local blood transfusion departments must be notified as soon as the decision to treat is made and the patient must be issued with an alert card to carry with them at all times. Symptoms of CRS or ICANS can occur weeks after infusion and therefore the patient must be issued with an alert card to carry with them at all times. Any suspected adverse reaction to a CAR-T cell infusion should be reported. Reporting forms and information can be found at – www.mhra.gov.uk/yellowcard. Consideration should also be given to reporting adverse events to the relevant manufacturer via their usual channels. Monitoring Regimen • FBC, U&Es, renal, liver and bone, CRP, coagulation screen, ferritin and LDH prior to initiating treatment and daily thereafter. • Screening for HBV, HCV and HIV must be performed before collection of cells for Lisocel manufacture. • Echocardiogram and baseline measure of lung function must be taken prior to initiating lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 2 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) Lisocel Nearly all patients treated with Lisocel experience some degree of CRS, including life-threatening and fatal reactions. -See WBMT Policy P-G-1 and SOP P-P-78 and P-P-79 for monitoring requirements. CRS: • Symptoms: pyrexia, tiredness, cardiac failure, tachycardia, cardiac arrythmias, dyspnoea, hypoxia, capillary leak syndrome, chills, renal impairment, headache, malaise, transaminitis, nausea, diarrhoea, hypotension. • Temperature, blood pressure and oxygen saturation monitored 4-hourly after Lisocel. administration on Day 0 and then twice daily as directed in accordance with local procedures. • This must be documented, and CRS graded on the WBMT CRS Assessment Form in the patient’s notes. ICANS: • Symptoms: seizures, somnolence, headaches, confusion, agitation, speech disorders, tremor, encephalopathy, ataxia, memory impairment, mental status changes, hallucinations, depressed level of consciousness, delirium, dysmetria. • ICE score of the patient must be assessed twice daily and documented on the WBMT ICE Assessment Form in the patient’s notes. Dose Modifications As a cell-based therapy and based on the mechanism of action, renal and hepatic impairment is not expected to impact lisocel expansion and cellular kinetics; hence no formal renal and hepatic impairment studies have been performed. The dose modifications listed are for haematological, liver and renal function only. Dose adjustments may be necessary for other toxicities as well. Please discuss all dose reductions / delays with the relevant consultant before prescribing if appropriate. The approach may be different depending on the clinical circumstances. The following is a general guide only. Haematological Confirm with consultant before proceeding if there are signs of possible disease relapse. Hepatic Impairment No dose modification is recommended for hepatic dysfunction in those receiving fludarabine. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 3 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) Severe hepatic impairment may be associated with a decreased activation of cyclophosphamide. This may alter the effectiveness of the cyclophosphamide treatment and should be considered when selecting the dose and interpreting response to the dose selected. Renal Impairment Drug Cyclophosphamide Creatinine Clearance (ml/min) Greater than 50 30-50 Less than 30 Fludarabine Greater than 70 50-69 30-49 Less than 30 Dose (% of original dose) 100% 75% As directed by cell therapy consultant. 100% Reduce dose by 20% Reduce dose by 40% As directed by cell therapy consultant. Other Prophylactic use of systemic corticosteroids is not recommended as it may interfere with the activity of the cellular therapy and therefore, they should not be administered as part of the premedication. However, corticosteroids may be used in the treatment of CRS or ICANS under consultant advice. Due to the risks associated with Lisocel treatment, infusion should be delayed if a patient has any of the following conditions: • Unresolved serious adverse events (especially pulmonary events, cardiac events or hypotension) including those after preceding chemotherapies. • Active infections or inflammatory disorders. • Active graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). - NOTE: It is not recommended that patients who underwent an allogeneic stem cell transplant and suffer from active acute or chronic GVHD receive treatment because of the potential risk of Lisocel worsening GVHD. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 4 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) Regimen Drug Dose Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 Days -5, -4, -3 Fludarabine Lisocel (lisocabtagene maraleucel) 30mg/m2 Target dose: 100 x106 CAR+ viable cells consisting of: CD8+ cell component and CD4+ cell component -5, -4, -3 0 Route Intravenous bolus over 10 minutes Intravenous infusion in 100ml sodium chloride 0.9% over 30 minutes Intravenous infusion from 2 or more syringes -see below Dose Information • Lymphodepleting regimen must only be started after availability of Lisocel is confirmed. • Cyclophosphamide will be dose banded in accordance with national dose banding table (20mg/ml). • Fludarabine will be dose banded according to the national dose band (25mg/ml). • A minimum period of time must elapse between last dose of lymphodepleting chemotherapy and CAR-T infusion, and a longer period may be required for patients with renal insufficiency. This information can be found on the patient’s CAR-T cell schedule. • CAR-T administration should not occur out of core hours or over the weekend. • Lisocel has a total target dose of 100 x106 cells. However, there is a dosing range of 44 to 120 x 106 CAR-positive viable T cells. The dose will vary between patients. - This dose consists of a target 1:1 ratio of CD4+ and CD8+ cell components. Administration Information Lisocel • Lisocel contains genetically modified human blood cells. Exposure to Lisocel must be avoided. Procedures for handling, personal protective equipment, accidental spills and waste disposal must be adhered to. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 5 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) • Lisocel is supplied as two components: CD8+ and CD4+ - These will be supplied as vials. Each vial will be a “single dose” vial which requires draw up into a separate syringe (supplied with Lisocel). • Lisocel cells are cryopreserved in vial(s) and require thawing at room temperature prior to administration. - Both component vials must be thawed at the same time at room temperature. • One individual treatment dose comprises a minimum of 2 vials and a maximum of 8 vials (up to 4 vials of CD8+ and 4 vials of CD4+ components). More than one vial of each of the CD8+ component and /or CD4+ component may be needed. • Each vial contains an extractable volume of 4.6ml however a variable volume may be drawn up from each vial and each component for the required dose. The total volume may differ between components. - Refer to Release for Infusion Certificate for each component which will be provided with the Lisocel. • Following thaw, one Luer-lock syringe per vial is required for Lisocel extraction. The CD8+ component syringe(s) should be prepared for infusion prior to CD4+ syringe(s). • Once both component syringe(s) are prepared, the CD8+ component must be administered first, and CD4+ administration following immediately after CD8+ infusion is complete with flush of line. - If more than one syringe is required per component, these must be administered consecutively. • The cells must not be administered via a volumetric pump, as there is no data to assure cell integrity is maintained via a pump. • Administer via a giving set with a non-leukodepleting in-line filter primed with sodium chloride 0.9% at approximately 0.5ml/minute. • The infusion must be administered within 2 hours from start of thaw (i.e. removal from frozen storage). The start and stop time of infusion must be documented. • Once the full volume of Lisocel has been administered, rinse the tubing at the same rate with 0.9% sodium chloride solution to ensure all Lisocel is delivered. Once completed, the infusion bag and giving set must be disposed of in clinical waste, in accordance with Trust policy. • If the intended dose is not fully administered, this must be documented and the consultant & pharmacist notified. The manufacturer must be informed and the remaining Lisocel should be discarded in clinical waste, with their approval. • A GM spill-kit must be transported with Lisocel and available on the ward of administration. Local procedures must be followed in the event of a spill. • Local guidelines on handling of waste of human-derived-materials must be followed in case of accidental exposure. Work surfaces and materials which have potentially been in contact with Lisocel must be decontaminated with approved disinfectants. • See WBMT SOP P-P-78, P-P-79 and Policy P-G-1 for further administration direction. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 6 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) Extravasation • Cyclophosphamide – non-vesicant • Fludarabine – non-vesicant Additional Therapy • Antiemetics - metoclopramide 10mg three times a day oral or intravenous - ondansetron 8mg twice a day oral or intravenous • Anti-infective prophylaxis as follows: - Aciclovir 400mg oral twice a day - Pentamidine 300mg nebuliser during lymphodepletion. To be continued every 28 days until count recovery sufficient for co-trimoxazole use at consultant advice. - Fluconazole 100mg once a day - Posaconazole 300mg once daily if prolonged neutropenia or previous invasive fungal infection • Gastric protection with a proton pump inhibitor or a H2 antagonist to commence on first day on lymphodepletion until platelet count > 50 x109/L • Mouthwashes according to local or national policy on the treatment of mucositis. May include: - Nystatin 1ml four times a day - Sodium chloride 0.9% 10ml four times a day • Prior to the administration of the Lisocel - Chlorphenamine 10mg intravenous - Paracetamol 1000mg oral Pethidine 25mg intravenous can be administered under the supervision of a doctor for the treatment of rigors. • Seizure prophylaxis may be considered due to the risk of neurotoxicity associated with Lisocel or if the patient has a history of seizures. - Levetiracetam 500mg twice daily orally commencing on day 0 until day +28. - For weaning, this may then be reduced to 250mg orally twice daily for two weeks, and then stopped. • Tocilizumab must be prescribed as when required in advance of CAR-T infusion, in the event of CRS. - Tocilizumab 8mg/kg (maximum 800mg) intravenously 8-hourly if required. Maximum of four doses. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 7 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) - Four doses of tocilizumab must be available on the ward prior to infusion of Lisocel. Follow local procedures for administration. • Tumour lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis should be prescribed according to the individual patient TLS risk and at consultant review. This must start on the day of lymphodepleting chemotherapy and be re-reviewed on the day of Lisocel infusion. TLS prophylaxis may include: - Allopurinol 300mg oral once a day - Rasburicase 3mg intravenous injection once a day References 1. Dosage Adjustments for Cytotoxics in Hepatic Impairment January 2009 University College London Hospitals 2. P-P-78 Wessex Blood and Marrow Transplant – CAR-T and IEC infusion procedure Version 1.3 3. P-P-79 Wessex Blood and Marrow Transplant – Immune effector cells including CAR-T cells policy Version 2.1 4. P-G-1 Wessex Blood and Marrow Transplant -Patient monitoring after CAR-T cell infusion Version 1.1 5. Pan UK Pharmacy Working Group for ATMPs -Supportive medications recommended for adults receiving licensed chimeric antigen receptor -T (CAR-T) cell therapy Version 1 May 2022 6. Pan UK Pharmacy Working Group for ATMPs -Medication restrictions for patients having CAR-T cell therapy Version 4 July 2022 7. European Medicines Agency Summary of product characteristics & Summary of risk management plan for Breyanzi 2023. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/breyanzi 8. Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency: Lisocabtagene Maraleucel. Available from: https://products.mhra.gov.uk (accessed 29/01/2025) 9. Summary of Product Characteristics for Fludarabine (Sanofi) -Last updated 18 March 2019 10. Summary of Product Characteristics for Cyclophosphamide (Sandoz Limited) -Last updated 6 April 2021 Version 1 (January 2025) Page 8 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) REGIMEN SUMMARY Lymphoma - AmB – LISOCEL – CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE (500) – FLUDARABINE (30) Other than those listed below, supportive medication for this regimen will not appear in Aria as prescribed agents. The administration instructions for each warning describe the agents that must be prescribed on the in-patient chart or general electronic prescribing system. Supportive care should be prescribed on ARIA and given to the patient on day -5. Supportive care should be transcribed to the electronic inpatient prescribing system on admission to hospital. Day – 5 1. Warning – Check blood transfusion status Administration instructions Patients treated with fludarabine carry a lifelong risk of transfusion associated graft versus host disease. Where blood products are required these patients must receive ONLY IRRADIATED BLOOD PRODUCTS for life. Ensure transfusion departments are notified and the patient has been issued with an alert card to carry with them at all times. Ensure patient has been issued with Lisocel treatment alert card. 2. Ondansetron 8mg oral or intravenous 3. Metoclopramide 10mg oral or intravenous 4. Cyclophosphamide 300mg/m2 intravenous bolus over 10 minutes 5. Fludarabine 30mg/m2 intravenous infusion in 100ml sodium chloride 0.9% over 30 minutes 6. Furosemide 20mg injection bolus Administration instructions – to be given if required for fluid overload. 7. Warning -Ensure take home medicines are supplied Take home medicines – To be taken home on Day -5: 8. Ondansetron oral 8mg once a day in the evening for 3 days starting on day -5 (first day of chemotherapy). Then from day -2, take 8mg twice a day for 3 days, then from day 0, take up to 8mg twice a day when required Administration instructions –Please supply 28 tablets or an original pack as appropriate 9. Metoclopramide oral 10mg twice a day in the afternoon and evening for 3 days starting on day -5 (the first day of chemotherapy). Then, starting on day -2, take 10mg three times a day for 3 days, then from day 0 take 10mg up to three times a day when required Administration instructions –Please supply 28 tablets or an original pack as appropriate 10. Aciclovir 400mg oral twice a day for 28 days Administration Instructions Please supply 28 days or an original pack if appropriate. 11. Fluconazole 100mg oral once a day for 14 days Administration instructions – please supply 14 days with no stop date 12. Nystatin 1ml four times a day Administration instructions – please supply 1 x OP 13. Paracetamol 1000mg oral four times a day when required. Administration instructions please supply 1 x OP Version 1 (January 2025) Page 9 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) 14. Gastric Protection Administration Instructions The choice of gastric protection is dependent on local formulary choice and may include; - esomeprazole 20mg once a day oral - omeprazole 20mg once a day oral - lansoprazole 15mg once a day oral - pantoprazole 20mg once a day oral - rabeprazole 20mg once a day oral - cimetidine 400mg twice a day oral - famotidine 20mg once a day oral - nizatidine 150mg twice a day oral - ranitidine 150mg twice a day oral Please supply 28 days or the nearest original pack size. 15. Sodium Chloride 0.9% oral rinse 10mL four times a day Administration instructions – pharmacy please supply 50 x 10mL pods 16. Thromboprophylaxis according to local formulary choice and patient schedule. Continued until platelets are less than 50x109/L, or as directed by the consultant, according to local formulary choices: - enoxaparin 40mg once a day subcutaneous injection - heparin 5000units twice a day subcutaneous injection Please supply 28 days or nearest original pack size. 17. Tumour lysis prophylaxis according to patient schedule. - Allopurinol 300mg oral once a day from day -5 until advised to stop by CAR-T team. Supply 28 days - Rasburicase 3mg intravenous injection once a day 18. Levetiracetam 500mg twice a day oral for 28 days Administration Instructions: To start on Day 0 19. Ciprofloxacin 250mg twice a day oral for 28 days Administration Instructions: To start only when advised by your CAR-T team Day – 4 20. Ondansetron 8mg oral or intravenous 21. Metoclopramide 10mg oral or intravenous 22. Cyclophosphamide 300mg/m2 intravenous bolus over 10 minutes 23. Fludarabine 30mg/m2 intravenous infusion in 100ml sodium chloride 0.9% over 30 minutes 24. Furosemide 20mg injection bolus Administration instructions – to be given if required for fluid overload. Day – 3 25. Ondansetron 8mg oral or intravenous 26. Metoclopramide 10mg oral or intravenous 27. Cyclophosphamide 300mg/m2 intravenous bolus over 10 minutes 28. Fludarabine 30mg/m2 intravenous infusion in 100ml sodium chloride 0.9% over 30 minutes 29. Furosemide 20mg injection bolus Administration instructions – to be given if required for fluid overload. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 10 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) Day 0 30. Warning – See paper chart for IV fluids to be administered pre- CAR-T. 31. Chlorphenamine 10mg intravenous Administration Instructions Administer 30 minutes prior to Lisocel. Check on the in-patient system if the patient has already received a dose 32. Paracetamol 1000mg oral Administration Instructions Administer 30 minutes prior to Lisocel. Check to ensure the patient has not already been administered paracetamol. The maximum dose is 4000mg/24 hours. 33. Lisocabtagene maraleucel CD8+ cell component 1 dose intravenous infusion Administration Instructions Prescribed CD8+ dose for this patient: ……………………… Prescribed Total CAR+ viable cell dose for this patient: ……………………… This is also known as LISOCEL Administer at approximately 0.5ml/minute via a giving set with a non-leukodepleting in-line filter primed with sodium chloride 0.9%. The cells must not be administered via a volumetric pump. Lisocel is supplied as two components: CD8+ and CD4+. CD8+ component must be administered first, and CD4+ administration following immediately after CD8+ infusion is complete with flush of line. Lisocel infusion should be infused within 2 hours of thaw start time. 34. Lisocabtagene maraleucel CD4+ cell component 1 dose intravenous infusion Administration Instructions Prescribed CD4+ dose for this patient: ……………………… Prescribed Total CAR+ viable cell dose for this patient: ……………………… This is also known as LISOCEL Administer at approximately 0.5ml/minute via a giving set with a non-leukodepleting in-line filter primed with sodium chloride 0.9%. The cells must not be administered via a volumetric pump. Lisocel is supplied as two components: CD8+ and CD4+. CD8+ component must be administered first, and CD4+ administration following immediately after CD8+ infusion is complete with flush of line. Lisocel infusion should be infused within 2 hours of thaw start time. 35. Warning – Check supportive medication prescribed (if inpatient) Administration instructions Please refer to the individual CAR-T schedule for full details of the required supportive medicines. 1. Antibacterials in accordance with the individual CAR-T schedule 2. Antifungals in accordance with the individual CAR-T schedule 3. Antivirals in accordance with the individual CAR-T schedule 4. Tocilizumab 8mg/kg (maximum 800mg) intravenous 8-hourly when required in the event of CRS. Maximum four doses. 5. Metoclopramide 10mg three times a day oral or intravenous 6. Ondansetron 8mg twice a day oral or intravenous 7. Nystatin mouthwash 1ml four times a day 8. Sodium chloride 0.9% mouthwash 10ml four times a day 9. Chlorphenamine 10mg intravenous when required as a premedication 10. Paracetamol 1000mg when required as a premedication oral 11. Furosemide 20mg four times a day when required for the treatment of fluid overload oral or intravenous 12. Gastric protection 13. Levetiracetam 500mg twice daily oral 14. Heparin line lock in accordance with Trust central venous access device management procedure 15. Reminders for chemotherapy administration and Lisocel. Ensure patient has been issued with Lisocel treatment alert card. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 11 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30) DOCUMENT CONTROL Version Date Amendment Written By Approved By 1 November 2025 None Alexandre Guedes Pharmacist Robert Lown Consultant Haematologist This chemotherapy protocol has been developed as part of the chemotherapy electronic prescribing project. This was and remains a collaborative project that originated from the former CSCCN. These documents have been approved on behalf of the following Trusts; University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust All actions have been taken to ensure these protocols are correct. However, no responsibility can be taken for errors which occur as a result of following these guidelines. Version 1 (January 2025) Page 12 of 12 AmB – Lymphoma – lisocabtagene maraleucel – Cyclophosphamide (300) – Fludarabine (30)
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/Chemotherapy-SOPs1/Lymphoma/AmB-LISOCEL-Cyclophosphamide-300-Fludarabine-30.pdf

1 to 10 of 87

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … Next

Browse site A to Z

Search results

UHS AR 23-24 Final

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

Papers Trust Board 6 June 2024

Annual-report-2018-19

Annual-report-24-25-final

Quality account 24-25 final

Papers CoG 29.04.2025 v2

Papers Trust Board - 13 January 2026

What to expect in the last days and weeks of life: When your loved one has been discharged from hospital - patient information

AmB-LISOCEL-Cyclophosphamide (300)-Fludarabine (30)

Site policies

Contact details

Useful links