Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Advanced Search

UHS RD Small Grants Scheme 2021_application_form

Description: UHS R&D Small Grants Scheme 2021 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) R&D is seeking grant applications from investigators across the Southampton Partnership for research funding proposals that align with research portfolios within UHS clinical divisions, and/or the UHS/UoS research infrastructure: * NIHR Southampton Clinical Research Facility (CRF) * NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) * NIHR Wessex Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) * Cancer Research UK Centre/ NIHR Southampton CRUK Experimental Medicine Cancer Centre (ECMC) * Southampton Emerging Therapies and Technology Centre (SETT) Background Pioneering research and innovation play a critical role at UHS as a teaching hospital and are vital to the successful delivery of the Trust’s corporate strategy. They drive the development of clinical services, improve patient outcomes, and secure external income through research awards and clinical funding streams. Fundamental to this is the long-standing partnership with the University of Southampton (UoS) that has jointly secured significant national infrastructure funding from the National Institute for Health Research. UHS R&D proposes to support a number of research projects through a small grants scheme to clinical researchers within the UHS-UoS Southampton Partnership. Strategic priorities Established NIHR infrastructures (CRF, BRC, ECMC and CRUK Cancer Centre) support the delivery of challenging and transformational early phase research, whilst the Wessex ARC identifies research and innovation priorities and accelerates their testing and adoption into practice. The SETT Centre aims to innovate and provide access to emerging capabilities; drive improved outcomes in gene and cell therapies, and the trial of new medical technology, devices and software; and utilise existing healthcare data to develop leading data science and artificial intelligence capability. Research and innovation is key to the foundation of the UHS Always Improving strategy, including data driven decisions and technology adoption, and will drive change and improvements in outcomes necessary to deliver the NHS Long Term Plan. Award details * Duration – up to 3 years * Value – up to £50k per project * Nature of research – all research designs, disciplines, scope and focus will be considered, including experimental laboratory science, provided the project aligns with the research and/or clinical strategies of the infrastructure. * Anticipated outcome – the award is expected to pump prime larger projects, further grant applications or clinical trials within 2-3 years. * Research team – the award is open to all UHS and UoS researchers, individually or as collaborations. The lead investigator will have a substantive or honorary contract with UHS. UoS investigators will have to show a clear involvement of UHS collaborators. * Outputs – an annual progress report and impact statement with respect to the strategic aims must be submitted to the management panel. Costing * Proposals must be fully costed using standard processes of either UHS R&D grants team or UoS research funding team. * If appropriate, costs from each institution must be included, and separately identified, in the final calculation. * FEC will not be paid on UoS costs and should be excluded in the final submission. * The substantive employer of the lead investigator will be the host organisation. * The host organisation will manage the award. * Eligible costs include: staffing, equipment up to £5k, study consumables, travel, participant costs. Reasonable costs for software and licences will be considered. This award is not intended for substantial capital investment; however, capital equipment >£5k may be considered if essential to providing significant added value to the research proposal. Full justification is required. * As projects funded by this scheme are not eligible for automatic CRN portfolio adoption, any service support costs must either be costed within the grant or covered by external sources. * A minimum of 10% of the total award must be allocated to core infrastructure support in the expectation that some or more of the following services will be required e.g. PPIE, communications, data management/statistics support. * UHS R&D has allocated up to £0.5m in total for research proposals within this scheme. The total number of projects awarded will be determined by quality and impact. Review process * Grant call opens 1 November 2021 * Closing date for applications is 26 January 2022 * Applications will only be accepted via a fully completed application form – appendix A – and must be accompanied by the appropriate UHS or UoS costing template. Applications to be sent to researchgrants@uhs.nhs.uk * Applications assessed by a panel convened under the direction of UHS R&D Director during February 2022. The panel will be drawn from UHS and UoS with appropriate experience. * Outcome letters (award letters for successful applications) will be sent no later than 31 March 2022. * Funding allocated to grant cost centres by end March 2022. Appendix A - application form Lead applicant details Full name Title Telephone No Contact address Email address Current post Employment contract with UHS UHS Substantive / UHS honorary (delete as appropriate) If neither, who is your UHS research partner? Research proposal Proposal title Proposal start and finish dates* *funds will be available from 1 April 2022. Project duration is up to 3 years. Project details – lay summary Include: * Background * Objectives * Project design * Outcomes 1500 words max Research partners * Detail your research team – names, post, and description of role/contribution to this project * Will this proposal involve collaboration between UHS and UoS individuals and teams? Please describe. Research impact (a) How does the project align with the strategic priorities of UHS-UoS Partnership? (b) How will this award enable future activity? 500 words max Budget and resources Detail the budget required for this project by year. Please attach a copy of the appropriate UHS R&D or UoS costing template to your application. Existing support Detail any funding or in-kind support already committed to deliver this project. Infrastructure support requirements* Describe the support your proposal will need from: (a) PPI team (b) R&D communications team (c) statistics (d) data management *these elements will be provided by the infrastructure and should not be costed in the finances. A proportion of the award will automatically be allocated to these functions. 500 words max Additional information Is there any further information that may support your application? Authorisation PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE SECURED AGREEMENT FROM YOUR HEAD OF DEPARTMENT TO SUBMIT THIS PROPOSAL AND FOR THE LEAD APPLICANT TO ACT IN THE CAPACITY OF CHIEF INVESTIGATOR SHOULD THE FUNDING BE AWARDED Head of department or R&D lead name and email address Head of department’s signature Name and signature of director of CRF, BRC, ARC, CRUK Centre, SETT as appropriate Applicant’s signature Date of application Send your completed application form and costing template to researchgrants@uhs.nhs.uk Closing date for submissions: 26 January 2022 UHS R&D Small Grants Scheme 2021 2
Url: /Media/Southampton-Clinical-Research/UHS-RD-Small-Grants-Scheme-2021-application-form.docx

UHS RD Small Grants Scheme 2021_application_form

Description: UHS R&D Small Grants Scheme 2021 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) R&D is seeking grant applications from
Url: /Media/Southampton-Clinical-Research/Grants/Download/UHS-RD-Small-Grants-Scheme-2021-application-form.docx

Grant writing bursary scheme

Description: Information for prospective applicants on University Hospital Southampton R&D research grant writing bursary scheme What is the opportunity? Research Design
Url: /Media/Southampton-Clinical-Research/SoAR/Grant-writing-bursary-scheme.pdf

Annual report 2021-2022

Description: 2021/22 Incorporating the quality report University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2021/22 Presented to Parliament
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/Annual-report-2021-2022.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 NHS Foundation Trust Annual report and accounts 2019/20 incorporating the quality account 2019/20 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25 (4) (a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 Page 4 ©2020 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Page 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview and performance report Welcome from our chair A word from the chief executive Overview of the Trust Statement of purpose and activities History of UHS Our executive team structure Structure of our services Our vision and values Our priorities, key issues and risks Voluntary disclosures Equality, diversity and inclusion 92 8 9 Environmental sustainability and climate chan ge 95 Quality account 10 Chief executive welcome 101 10 11 Annual accounts 12 Statement from the Chief financial officer 183 13 Independent Auditors report 185 14 Foreword to accounts 192 Performance report Going concern disclosure 16 Reporting structure 16 Key performance indicators 18 How we monitor performance 19 Overview of performance of UHS 18 Regulatory body ratings 19 Environmental matters 23 Social, community, anti-bribery and human rights issues 23 Accountability report Members of the Trust Board 25 Trust Board purpose and structure 30 Board meeting attendance record 2018/19 31 Well-led framework 32 Finance and investment committee 34 Quality committee 33 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 37 Independence of external auditor 37 Internal audit service 37 Better payment practice code 37 Statement as to the disclosures to auditors 38 Disclosures 38 Income disclosures 38 Governance disclosures 38 Approach to quality governance 38 Council of Governors 41 Annual remuneration statement 51 Remuneration and appointments committee 54 Governors’ nomination committee 57 Staffing report 61 Staff survey results 65 Trade union facility time 68 Statement of chief executive’s responsibilities as the accounting officer 72 Annual governance statement 73 Page 6 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Page 7 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Welcome from our chair 2019/20 was another challenging year for University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS). Demand for our services continued to rise rapidly, partly because of the ageing of the population we are here to serve and partly because of challenges in the external environment, but also because of our ability to offer exciting innovations for a range of conditions. As a result, we were not always able to offer treatment as rapidly as we wished. A major challenge towards the end of the year was the need to prepare the Trust for the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the need to re-engineer services on an unprecedented scale. The response of UHS staff to these challenges has, from start to finish, been magnificent. We saw major innovation in improved patient pathways to accommodate rising demand, and the creativity of colleagues in readying the Trust for COVID-19 was truly breath-taking in its scope and energy. UHS has had a long record of effective financial management. By constantly seeking operational innovation and better value for money in procurement, the Trust has been able to generate the funds necessary to make a number of capital investments which will provide huge patient benefit in future. There has been rapid progress in our major project to refurbish and extend our general intensive care unit. Our £2.2m investment in our new urology unit was completed this year; it will transform our patients’ experiences. We have continued wherever possible to work with partners and we are delighted that work on the £5m Maggie’s Centre has started. Quite apart from the need to navigate our way through the COVID-19 crisis and into the world beyond it, the Trust needs to prepare to play its full role in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight healthcare system as it develops in a way consistent with the NHS Long Term Plan. The responsibility for this falls of course to the Trust Board and I believe that even after having had more change on the Board this year than for some time, we continue to have a strong and committed leadership team. Following the retirement of Caroline Marshall, our long-serving chief operating officer, in September 2019 we welcomed Joe Teape into the position. Joe had not been at the Trust long before we were thrust into the COVID-19 pandemic and got to grips with it impressively rapidly. During the year we said farewell to three non-executive directors (NEDs); Catherine Mason who left us to become chair of Solent Healthcare, Mike Sadler our clinical NED and Simon Porter. After a series of rigorous selection processes, we were delighted to welcome Dave Bennett, Dr Tim Peachey and Keith Evans as replacements. Simon had been both deputy chair and senior independent director (SID) and on his departure Jenni Douglas-Todd succeeded him in both roles. The work of the Board is supported, stimulated and, quite correctly, challenged by the Council of Governors (COG) whose enthusiasm is of huge value to the proper governance of UHS. All of the elections to the COG were competitive, in some cases by a multiplicity of candidates. Unfortunately, one of those vacancies resulted from the death of Edward Osmond. Although Edward had only recently been elected as a governor, he had shown huge commitment to the role and I am sure would have gone on to make a major contribution to UHS. We welcomed nine new governors and one new young governor. I look forward to working with them and all the other governors as we move through and beyond the COVID-19 world. Peter Hollins Chair Page 8 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT A word from the chief executive My first full year as chief executive officer of UHS has been exciting, inspiring, and extremely rewarding but not, as you would expect, without a considerable degree of challenge! The pressures on the NHS have been well publicised as we strive to provide the highest possible standard of care at a time when demand for our services escalates rapidly. At the same time, at UHS we need to play our full part in working out how we shape and deliver the health and care provision for our community into the future. During the year we have done a great deal of work on how we turn our vision for the Trust, world-class care for everyone, into what happens on the front line every day. While the vision may be new it is built firmly on our long-standing values; patients first, working together, and always improving, which together describe who we are as an organisation. These values were central to the development of our new clinical and corporate strategy which sets out an exciting future for UHS over the coming decade. It includes how we will deliver the safest care, delivering the best outcomes, as well as how we will focus on improving the health of our population, supporting both health and wellbeing. The values also provided the basis for our CQC rating of ‘Good’ awarded during the year as were some other fantastic accolades. These included a prestigious British Medical Journal award for improving care for older patients with the development of our frailty unit and activity hub. Our women’s and maternity care at the Princess Anne Hospital was named as being among the best in the world. In addition, we adopted prehabilitation for cancer patients, a pioneering service. There are countless other examples of innovation which have sprung from the creativity and innovative spirit at UHS. Some of these have involved better outcomes for patients, some an improved patient experience and others simply lower the cost of doing things, liberating money which we can then invest in improving other services. I’d like to thank every one of our staff for creating the spirit of UHS which means that the extraordinary happens every day. The world of health and social care is changing dramatically and we continue to be integral to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP). UHS will have a leading part to play in ensuring that, with our partners, we forge a pattern for the provision of healthcare across the local system and beyond, delivering the highest possible standards of care on an enduring basis. As we entered 2020, we began preparing to face COVID-19, the largest pandemic we have seen. Some areas of the hospital are truly unrecognisable as we have adapted to the fight against this virus. The loss of life as a result of COVID-19 has been utterly devastating and it has, I am sure, touched us all personally. It has also challenged the health and wellbeing of all our staff, but particularly our frontline staff, in a unique way. I am not sure whether I am prouder of the spirit with which our staff have responded to the challenge or of the fact that they made us by common consent one of the best prepared trusts in the country. Finally, I’d like to recognise the acts of kindness I see throughout the Trust on a daily basis. It is one of the things that has struck me the most as I have got to know this organisation and the people within it. I watch how they support one another through challenging times, how they support patients and visitors in their own time and in work time, and how they go above and beyond every day for the people they’re caring for. Every day they make me hugely privileged to lead this amazing organisation. Paula Head Chief executive officer Page 9 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 postgraduate 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 12,000 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 2019/20 was £912m. 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)). Page 10 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our executive team structure Executive team structure as at 31/03/2020 Page 11 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. Page 12 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our vision and values Our 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: Patients first Patients and families will be at the heart of what we do and their experience within the hospital, and their perception of the Trust, will be our measure of success. Working together Our clinical teams will provide services to patients and are crucial to our success. We have launched a leadership strategy that ensures our clinical management teams are engaged in the day-today management and governance of the Trust. Always improving Our growing reputation in research and development and our approach to education and training will continue to incorporate new ideas, technologies and greater efficiencies in the services we provide Page 13 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Our priorities, key issues and risks Our goals 1. Improving patient journeys (system focus, integration) We will: • Write a strategic plan for integrated ‘front door; services to address capacity and demand mismatch and enable flow • Secure influence in primary care by establishing the hospital’s role in supporting primary care networks • Promote value-based healthcare, particularly: Introduce ‘advanced decision making’ • Redesign services to provide timely safe care and meet constitutional access trajectories • Deliver priorities relevant to UHS in the first year of the long-term plan including commissioning and long-term changes 2. Delivering value-based health and care We will: • Deliver the Trust financial plan and maximise any national funding • Prepare UHS for the new NHS financial regime • Deliver the Trust Quality Improvement plan to improve safety/experience and outcomes • Build capability for change by embedding quality improvement, innovation and transformation at a leadership level • Deliver the Cost Improvement Plan (CIP) without compromising on quality 3. Supporting health lives (prevention, wellbeing inequalities, outcomes and experience) We will: • Improve staff health and wellbeing • Improve population health, maximising the impact of UHS touch points • Develop an early warning tool to identify any deterioration in quality 4. Building an expert and inclusive workforce (diversity, engagement, leadership) We will: • Close the staffing supply gap in priority groups/services to provide high quality and timely care • Manage overall workforce cost to meet CIP challenge • Measure improvement in staff engagement by increasing participation in staff survey • Increase representation of diverse groups in leadership and decision making • Improve the staff engagement score 5. Being agile in meeting people’s needs (organisational elegance/design/flexibility) We will: • Reset organisational structure as necessary, responding to changes outlined in the NHS long-term plan • Leverage digital capability to support patient empowerment and self-care • Measure staff user satisfaction with the Trust IT systems and use this to support the digital strategy • Be agile in flexing resources, responding to fluctuating demand • Secure strategic influence by establishing UHS role in the transition from STP to ICS 6. Leading edge research, education and innovation (research and outcomes) We will: • Identify the capacity constraints to expand research and plan to address • Identify priority areas without a research base and set strategy • Improve quality and breadth of education and training programme Page 14 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) will continue to have a significant impact on public health, morbidity and mortality if adequate prevention and control is not in place. The Trust put rapid and robust arrangements in place early on to prepare for the potential surge in COVID-19 patients. As the government now announces the easing of the lockdown restrictions, the COVID-19 challenge continues to unfold and still represents a very significant future risk to the organization. Our response and mitigations will continue to evolve through 2020/21. Further details on our response to the COVID-19 challenge are in included in the Annual Governance Statement on page 73.. Key issues and risks 1. Inability to develop partnerships and redesign services innovatively renders the Trust unable to meet the expectations of the NHS long-term plan, our strategic plan, and sustainable elective and non-elective pathways. UHS continues to actively develop partnerships across the region and work within the Integrated Care System whilst promoting value-based healthcare and delivering priorities relevant to UHS in the first year of the longterm plan. 2. Failure to deliver regulatory requirements results in license breach and loss of local control with an enforced change in leadership, impacting on Goals 1 to 6. UHS continues to monitor progress against NHSI Performance framework at committee and Board level and build capability for change by embedding quality improvement, innovation and transformation at a leadership level. 3. Failure to achieve financial targets results in a shortfall in cash required to deliver the capital programme. A robust cost improvement programme is in place, continuously monitored through governance processes with a focus on delivery of the Trust’s financial plan. 4. Reduced access to resources compromises the quality of services. We will implement the Trust Quality Improvement plan to improve safety/ experience and outcomes. 5. Capacity and capability gaps in the workforce lead to an inability to provide safe and timely care. To mitigate this risk, we will continue to develop initiatives to improve staff health and wellbeing with proactive recruitment and retention initiatives in place. Staff engagement is monitored through staff survey and leadership and development training in place. 6. Lack of inclusion and diversity results in the failure to get the best from every individual. UHS has an equality, diversity and inclusion strategy, with established Trust networks and inclusive talent management programmes. Page 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. Page 16 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Monthly Trust Board Public meeting where executive directors present high level summary to chairman and non-executive directors. Audit andrisk committee Finance and Investment committee Quality Committee People & Organisational Development 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. 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. Page 17 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. The format of the monthly report follows our six strategic goals: • Improve patient journeys • Value-based health and care • Healthy lives • An expert and inclusive workforce • Being agile in meeting people’s needs • Leading edge research, education and innovation 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 has several KPIs that are relevant to the key risk of delivering the national access target. Some of the KPIs are: • Number of attendances • Time to initial assessment • Delayed transfers of care • Non-elective length of stay The Activity and Flow sections have several KPIs that are relevant to the key risk of capacity and occupancy. Some of the KPIs are: • Length of stay • New referrals • Number of attendances • Bed occupancy The Staffing (HR) section has several KPIs that are relevant to the key risk of Staffing. Some of the KPIs 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 Page 18 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 2020/21 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. Overview of performance Improving patient journeys 2019/20 was a challenging year in which we made only modest progress against some objectives to ‘Improve Patient Journeys’, and deteriorated in performance against others. • Inpatient length of stay remained stable but didn’t reduce as significantly as we had intended. The percentage of bed days used due to ‘Delayed Transfers of Care’ to other settings increased to nearly twice the national target. This, combined with growth in non-elective admissions (2.8% YTD excluding M12), resulted in occupancy rates which often exceeded our target, and an increase in patients cared for as ‘outliers’ away from their own speciality wards. • Emergency Access Performance (patients spending less than four hours in the emergency department) remained below both the national and local targets, though performance did show modest improvement during the year. There has been a further substantial increase in the volume of emergency department attendances. • The number of ‘elective’ patients waiting for treatment, the percentage of patients waiting within 18 weeks, and also the waiting time for first outpatient appointments, deteriorated significantly during the year. This has, in part, been impacted upon by reduced availability of clinical capacity due to staff concerns about the impact of new pension/tax regulations. There are, however, good indications that service changes are being implemented to increase consultation capacity in an efficient way as we had aimed to. There has been a substantial increase in consultations provided through ‘non-face-to-face’ routes, and a small decrease in the number of more traditional face-to-face consultations. • Urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer seen within two weeks saw a substantial and sustained improvement compared to the previous year, exceeding that target. • Performance against treatment within 62 days measures also demonstrated modest improvement during the year. Significant improvement in cancer performance continues to be required in order for UHS to deliver the national targets for timeliness of treatment. Page 19 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Delivering value-based healthcare • Complaints about UHS care have remained low, with the percentage of complaints ‘closed’ within 35 days above target for the first 11 months of 2019/2020. • Pleasingly, the availability of nursing care to our inpatients (expressed as care hours per patient per day) has increased progressively through the year from 8.6 to 8.9. An active overseas nursing recruitment and induction process has supplemented domestic recruitment and training. • The Trust has formed a 50/50 joint venture company with Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust called Wessex NHS Procurement Limited (WPL). From 1 December 2019, WPL is providing procurement, supply chain and materials management services to the Trust. The objectives of this innovative partnership include the consolidation of supplies purchases for both Trusts (combined revenue £1.4bn) to leverage better prices from suppliers and increased productivity through the elimination of previously duplicated procurement activity. Supporting healthy lives • There was very good performance on the Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio. The standard is 100 and we are consistently below this (83 in December, results are reported nationally retrospectively). This measure includes all patients in England with the same condition and compares those who have died with those that have survived. Being below 100 is a strong indicator of good care. • We continue to receive feedback, which is largely positive, through the national ‘Friends and Family’ survey for both our inpatient and maternity care. • The Board monitors a range of quality indicators. Of these, exceeding the target number of patients infected with clostridium difficile by six is of some concern, we are pleased that the number of severe/moderate medication errors has been maintained well below our target level, and following an increase in the number of Serious Incidents Requiring Investigation (SIRI) that were reported to Board in the early part of the year both the number of SIRIs has reduced and the timeliness of investigation has significantly improved. • Staff sickness levels were on target through the summer months, but significantly in excess of this through the winter months. As a whole, this is a cause for some concern. Building an expert and inclusive workforce • Very pleasingly, nursing vacancies were reduced significantly during the year, from 18% to 15%. Though still a challenge, this supports increases in the treatment capacity we can make available in the Trust, in our ability to open additional bed capacity to reduce our inpatient occupancy rates, and increases the care hours provided per patient per day. • Turnover rates have been in excess of our target throughout the year and there has also been a reduction in the percentage of staff who would recommend UHS as a place to work, though we remain above our target of 76%. The percentage of non-medical appraisals taking place within 12 months remains below target and is declining. • We have made steady progress this year towards our target of 15% of staff at Band 7 and above being from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds by 2023 (above 9% in March 2020). Being agile in meeting people’s needs • 2019/2020 has seen further progress in the implementation of digital tools that enable patients and clinicians to review and discuss patient specific clinical information in new ways, for example, large increases in usage of ‘My Medical Record’ and ‘digi-rounds’, modest further progress in electronic requesting and acknowledgement of tests, and stable usage of other tools. Page 20 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Leading edge research, education and innovation • The majority of recruitment targets have been achieved during 2019/20. • In Q4 UHS ranked 13th for contract commercial study recruitment, which is the same position achieved in the previous year and thus did not achieve our target of Top 10, with a constraint on pharmacy research capacity being a contributing factor. • The proportion of commercial studies closing in the 2019/20 financial year on time and to recruitment target ended the year below the 80% target at 68%, though the year-end target for the proportion of non-commercial studies closing on time and to recruitment target was exceeded at 88% compared to 80% target. Details of UHS performance can be found in the Integrated Performance report which is available in the Trust Board papers section of our website www.uhs.nhs.uk. UHS performance is scrutinised by the Board on a monthly basis. Paula Head, chief executive officer 22 June 2020 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 2019/20 the Trust was confirmed as being placed within segment ‘2’. This segmentation information is the Trust’s position as at 31 March 2020. 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. The Trust was on track to deliver a use of resources score of ‘2’. However, as a direct result of COVID-19 our staff were unable to take their full complement of annual leave. The Trust was required Page 21 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT to allow for this additional cost, which was an unfunded cost pressure allowable by NHS Improvement. This had the impact of moving the distance from financial plan score to a ‘4’ and subsequently the overall use of resources score to a ‘3’. Area Financial sustainability Financial sustainability Financial sustainability Overall scoring Metric Capital service cover Liquidity Income and expenditure margin Distance from financial plan Agency spend Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 Care Quality Commission ratings: 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 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. All sites and services across the organisation are now rated as ‘good’ in the effective and caring domains, with Southampton General Hospital rated as ‘outstanding’ in these areas. The Well-Led section of this report provides further details of the inspectors’ findings. “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) Page 22 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT 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. We are committed to environmental sustainability and consider it as part of the business culture. We continue to invest in energy saving initiatives and staff awareness campaigns that focus on promoting sustainability. We acknowledge that reducing waste and minimising the consumption of scarce resources is consistent with financial sustainability. Our sustainability disclosure section on pages 86 and 95 provides greater detail on the steps we are taking to reduce our activities’ impact on the environment. 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. Page 23 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE REPORT Page 24 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 Biography 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, in 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. David joined the Trust in February 2016 and served as interim chief executive officer from April to September 2018. 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. 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. Declarations Daughter is a medical student at University of Southampton; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Executive Delivery Group 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 joint-venture company owned 50/50 by UHSFT and Prime plc; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Counter Fraud Board; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Capital Planning Panel; Director of Wessex NHS Procurement Limited (WPL), a joint venture company owned 50/50 by UHSFT and Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (from December 2019) Husband is a consultant surgeon at UHS; Daughter is a midwife at UHS (from March 2019) Dr Derek Sandeman Joe Teape Medical director Chief operating officer Derek was appointed to the Trust as a consultant physician in 1993 and went on to develop a regional Director of UHS Pharmacy Limited, endocrine service. Throughout his career he has had a wholly-owned subsidiary of 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. UHSFT; Member of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership Clinical Executive Group Joe joined the Trust as chief operating officer in December Nil 2019. Previously he was deputy chief executive and director of operations of a large health board in Wales which managed integrated services across three counties including four district general hospitals as well as mental health, learning disability and community services. Prior to this, Joe worked in director roles across finance and strategy within provider acute trusts across the south west of England. Joe is passionate about providing leadership and support for all staff, whatever their profession, and contributing to excellent patient care. He is committed to open and ongoing engagement with the general public and often uses social media to engage with colleagues and with those who have an interest in healthcare. Page 25 ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Non-executive directors Name Title Peter Hollins Chair Dr Tim Peachey Non-executive director David Bennett Non-executive director Biography Declarations Peter graduated in chemistry from Hertford College, Chair of CLIC Sargent Cancer Care Oxford. Joining Imperial Chemical Industries in 1973, for Children (a company limited by he undertook a series of increasingly senior roles in guarantee) (until December 2019); marketing and then general management. Following Council member of University of three years in the Netherlands as general manager of Southampton 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 British Energy where he remained until 2001. From 2001, he held various chairmanships and non- executive directorships. In 2003, he decided to return to an executive role as chief executive of the British Heart Foundation in which post he remained until retirement in March 2013. He joined Southampton University Hospital Trust as a non- executive director in 2010, became senior independent director and deputy chairman of UHS in 2014, and was appointed chair in April 2016. Tim qualified as a doctor from Kings College Hospital Director, TP Medcon Ltd; Clinical School of Medicine in 1983. For nearly 20 years, he Safety Officer, Block Solutions Ltd; worked as a consultant anaesthetist at the Royal Free Non-executive director and Quality Hospital in London, specialising in pancreatic cancer Committee chair, Isle of Wight NHS surgery, liver surgery and liver transplantation. He also Trust developed an interest in medical leadership and management and has held positions such as clinical director, divisional director and medical director at the Royal Free. In 2012, Tim moved into full-time management as chief executive of Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust until its acquisition by the Royal Free. He then worked as the London associate medical director at the NHS Trust Development Authority before moving to Barts Health NHS Trust as improvement director and subsequently became deputy chief executive. Tim now holds two NHS non-executive posts. In addition to his role at University Hospital Southampton, Tim also serves on the board for Isle of Wight NHS Trust as deputy chair. He is a practicing mediator specialising in the healthcare sector. He also consults for companies in the medical information technology industry. Dave graduated in chemistry from the University of Director, Davox Consulting Limited; Southampton before entering management consulting, Non-executive director, Faculty of becoming a partner in Accenture’s strategy practice. Leadership and Medical In 2003 he joined Exel Logistics (later bought by DHL), Management (from November managing the company’s healthcare business across 2019); Director Royal College of Europe and the Middle East. During this time, he General Practitioners (RCGP) established NHS Supply Chain, a UK organisation Enterprises Ltd and RGCP responsible for procuring and delivering medical Conferences Ltd (from November consumables for the NHS in England, as well as sourcing 2019) capital equipment. Dave joined the board of Cable & Wireless as sales director in 2008. He later set up his own strategy consulting practice serving the healthcare sector, completing numerous projects in the UK and the US. Dave has also served as a non-executive director at The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust between 2009 and 2016. He chaired the Trust’s quality committee. Page 26 ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Board member Name Title Jenni DouglasTodd Senior independent director/deputy chair (from 01/02/2020) Biography Jenni is a former chief executive of Hampshire Police Authority and the office of the Hampshire police and crime commissioner. After beginning her career in the probation service, she was headhunted into the civil service, at the Home Office, where she spent four years before becoming director of policy and research for the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In the latter role she was responsible for establishing governance of the new police complaints system. She then spent two and a half years as a resident twinning adviser for the UK, based in Turkey to help set up a law enforcement complaints system before taking up the role of chief executive of the county’s police authority. During her three years in the post, she supported the authority in developing effective governance processes to increase accountability and transparency. She also helped the organisation deliver cost-savings whilst still improving performance and developing closer working relations with neighbouring forces. Declarations Independent chair, Dorset Integrated Care System. Managing director, Diversa Consultancy Limited; Member of the Judicial Conduct Investigative Office; Nonexecutive director, Hampshire Cricket Board; Trustee, NACRO; Member of English Cricket Board’s Regulatory Committee. Professor Non-executive Cyrus director Cooper In 2012, she became chief executive and monitoring officer for the Hampshire police and crime commissioner, where she led the development of the office’s vision, mission, values and organisational strategy. She took on the role of investigating committee chair for the General Dental Council in 2014 and, in April that year, founded the Diversa Consultancy, which supports organisations with changes in business, culture and behaviour. She is also a member of the Judicial Conduct Investigating Office, a public appointment. Cyrus Cooper is professor of rheumatology and director of the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit. He’s also vicedean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Southampton and professor of epidemiology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics (rheumatology and musculoskeletal sciences, University of Oxford). He leads an internationally competitive programme of research into the epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders, most notably osteoporosis. His key research contributions have been: • discovery of the developmental influences which contribute to the risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture in late adulthood • demonstration that maternal vitamin D insufficiency is associated with sub-optimal bone mineral accrual in childhood • characterisation of the definition and incidence rates of vertebral fractures • leadership of large pragmatic randomised controlled trials of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in the elderly as immediate preventative strategies against hip fracture. Director and professor of rheumatology, Medical Research Council (MRC) Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit; Vice-D
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 - 29 November 2022

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

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-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 20-21

Description: 2020/21 Incorporating the quality report University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2020/21 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 7, paragraph 25(4)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 © 2021 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Table of contents Welcome from our chair and chief executive 6 Overview and performance 8 Performance report 9 Overview 10 Accountability report 29 Directors’ report 30 Remuneration report 53 Staff report 65 NHS Foundation Trust Code of Governance 81 NHS Oversight Framework 81 Annual governance statement 84 Quality report 95 Statement on quality from the chief executive 96 Priorities for improvement and statements of assurance from the board 99 Other information 153 Annual accounts 180 Statement from the chief financial officer 181 Auditor’s report 182 Foreword to the accounts 188 Statement of Comprehensive Income 189 Statement of Financial Position 190 Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity 191 Statement of Cash Flows 192 Notes to the accounts 193 5 Welcome from our chair and chief executive 2020/21 was undoubtedly the most challenging year in the history of the NHS, and we have felt the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic here at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) in full. Responding to this has meant there isn’t a single part of our organisation that hasn’t changed in some way over the last year and we have all had to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. Our staff have been unwavering in their dedication, hard work and commitment to keeping our hospitals running, our patients cared for, and their colleagues supported. Every single member of the UHS family has played their part. The loss of life from COVID-19 has been devastating, and at UHS we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone affected by this tragedy, including the families of staff members whom we lost. We must recognise the incredible work of Southampton Hospital Charity, which has funded boost boxes, wellness rooms, a helpline and so much more to support staff at a time when their wellbeing is more important than ever. As the nationwide vaccination programme continues to offer hope of life more like pre-pandemic times, we are proud to have been at the forefront of these efforts - from being part of early research for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, to the opening of one of the largest vaccination hubs in the region on our site in December 2020. We will continue to play a key role in vaccination development by leading the world’s first clinical trial into the effectiveness of COVID-19 booster vaccines, as well as taking part in a study involving pregnant people. Our response to COVID-19 has prompted innovation and new ways of working across the Trust, to the benefit of patient experience. At the start of the pandemic we faced real challenges of capacity and increases in waiting times, which led to us working with Spire Southampton so cancer treatment and surgery could continue for patients at highest risk. We also increased the number of outpatient attendances which took place by telephone or video call, and our patient support hub was set up to provide a single point of support for patients who had been advised to shield. We are immensely proud of the record of the Trust during the pandemic, exemplified by the number of patients we were able to take into our care from well outside the local area. The Trust is in a strong financial position as a result of careful spending and efficiencies, which has allowed us to invest significantly in upgrading our estate. These improvements have seen the opening of the general intensive care unit, and the new cancer ward, which was built in just six months. These formed part of overall capital expenditure of £80 million during the year. The last year has seen us say goodbye to two members of our executive leadership team. Paula Head left the chief executive officer role in November to join the national response to COVID-19, before becoming a senior fellow at The King’s Fund. Derek Sandeman moved on from being our chief medical officer to take the same position at the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System. We are grateful to both for their efforts on the Trust leadership team during the most challenging of years. One of our non-executive directors, Jenni Douglas-Todd, also left the Trust to take on the important role of director of equality and inclusion with NHS England and NHS Improvement. 6 Looking ahead to the future, UHS will play a key role in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System. Our commitment is to deliver services with partners through clinical networks, collaboration and integration across geographical and organisational boundaries for seamless patient care. We as a Trust board are looking forward to implementing our own five year strategy, which sets out ambitions for what we want the hospital to be in 2025, for both patients and staff. Our focus will always be on enabling world class people to deliver world class care. Peter Hollins David French Chair Chief Executive Officer 7 OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE Performance report Introduction from our chief executive Over the last year, the way in which the Trust has worked and performance it has achieved, has been transformed by the COVID-19 pandemic. • UHS saw a number of large surges in demand for inpatient care, and for intensive respiratory support in particular, due to COVID-19 infection rates. Our capacity to deliver intensive care had to be increased, and many of our staff moved from other services such as our elective theatres in order to meet this need for care. • We have introduced and continue to maintain a number of changes to reduce the risk of COVID-19 being transmitted, or adversely affecting patient outcomes, within the Trust. Changes have included the wearing of additional personal protective equipment by our staff (especially when caring for patients who might have COVID-19 or undertaking higher risk procedures), reducing the number of patients coming to our outpatient departments and increasing the number of telephone and video consultations, separating elective and emergency patients within our departments and regular testing of our staff and all patients on or prior to their admission to hospital for treatment. • Public concerns about safety, government restrictions and the efforts of community services actually contributed to reductions in the total number of patients who sought hospital care this year. • Treatment plans have been modified by a number of services, in partnership with patients, to reduce the risk posed by COVID-19 to those patients. This was often appropriate in those circumstances in which the normal treatment would significantly reduce the patient’s own resistance to infections. Our performance has, in many cases, been strongly influenced by these profound changes. We have responded well to the need to provide the most urgent care, and the adverse impacts on elective care have been slightly less than the average across the NHS. However, we remain very concerned by the significant increase in the numbers of patients waiting longer than they should for elective care. It will take concerted and sustained action within both the Trust and the wider NHS in order to return elective performance to levels achieved before the pandemic whilst also continuing to meet urgent care needs as the restrictions that have been implemented within our society are progressively relaxed. 9 Overview About the Trust Our services University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust is one of the largest acute teaching trusts in England with a turnover of more than £1 billion in 2020/21. It is based on the coast in south east England and provides services to over 1.9 million people living in Southampton and south Hampshire and specialist services, including neurosciences, respiratory medicine, cancer care, cardiovascular, obstetrics and specialist children’s services, to more than 3.7 million people in central southern England and the Channel Islands. The Trust is also a designated major trauma centre, one of only two places in the south of England to offer adults and children full major trauma care provision. As a leading centre for teaching and research, the Trust has close working relationships with the University of Southampton, the Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. UHS is consistently one of the UK’s highest recruiting trusts of patients to clinical trials and in the top ten nationally for research study volume as ranked by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. 12,000 Every year over staff at UHS: treat around 160,000 inpatients and day patients, including about 75,000 emergency admissions see over 650,000 people at outpatient appointments deal with around 150,000 cases in our emergency department deliver more than 100 outpatient clinics across the south of England, keeping services local for patients The Trust provides most of its services from the following locations: • Southampton General Hospital – the Trust’s largest location, where a great number of specialist services are based alongside emergency and critical care and which includes Southampton Children’s Hospital. • Princess Anne Hospital – located across the road from Southampton General Hospital and providing maternity care and specialist care for women with medical problems during pregnancy and babies who need extra care around birth across the region. • Royal South Hants Hospital – although the Trust does not operate this site near the centre of Southampton it provides a smaller number of services from this location. • New Forest Birth Centre – located at Ashurst on the edge of the New Forest and run by experienced midwives and support staff it offers a safe, ‘home away from home’ environment for women having a healthy pregnancy and expecting a straightforward birth. The services provided by the Trust are commissioned and paid for by local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and, in the case of more specialised services (such as treatments for rare conditions), by NHS England. Over 50% of UHS services are paid for by CCGs and approximately 48% by NHS England. We provide these under a standard NHS contract, which incorporates ongoing monitoring of the Trust and the quality of the services provided. 10 Our structure UHS gained foundation trust status on 1 October 2011. A foundation trust is a public benefit corporation providing NHS services in line with the core NHS principles: that care should be universal, comprehensive and free at the point of need. The Trust is licensed as a foundation trust to provide these services by Monitor (the independent regulator, now part of NHS England and NHS Improvement) and the healthcare services we provide are regulated by the Care Quality Commission. Being a foundation trust has enabled greater local accountability and greater financial freedom and has supported the delivery of the Trust’s mission and strategy over a number of years. The 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 Opthalmology Theatres and Anaesthetics Division B Division C 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 Division D Trust Headquarters Division Cardiovascular and Thoracic Neurosciences Trauma and Orthopaedics Radiology Corporate Affairs Communications Estates, Facilities and Capital Development Finance Human Resources Informatics Patient Support Services Procurement and Supply Transformation and Improvement (‘Always Improving’) Research and Development Strategy and Business Development 11 The Trust is also part of an integrated care system in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, which is a partnership of NHS and local government organisations working together to improve the health and wellbeing of the population across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Our values Our values describe how we do things at UHS and act as a guide to all staff working with colleagues to deliver high quality patient care and a great patient experience every day. Our values are: Patients, their families and carers are at the heart of what we do. Their experience of our services will be our measure of success. Partnership between clinicians, patients and carers is critical to achieving our vision, both within hospital teams and extending across organisational boundaries in the NHS, social care and the third sector. We will ensure we are always improving services for patients through research, education, clinical effectiveness and quality improvement. We will continue to incorporate new ideas, technologies and create greater efficiencies in the services we provide. 12 Our strategy 2021-25 The Trust’s strategy was updated during 2020/2021 to take account of everything our staff had experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and what we had learnt from this. The vision for UHS is to continue on its journey to become an organisation of world class people delivering world class care. Our strategy is organised around five themes and for each of these describes a number ambitions we aim to achieve by 2025. Theme Ambitions Outstanding patient outcomes, • We will monitor clinical outcomes, safety and experience of our experience and safety patients regularly to ensure they are amongst the best in the UK By 2025 we will strengthen our and the world. national reputation for outstanding • We will reduce harm, learning from all incidents through our patient outcomes, experience and proactive patient safety culture. safety, providing high quality care • We will ensure all patients and relatives have a positive experience and treatment across an extensive of our care, as a result of the environment created by our people range of services from foetal and our facilities. medicine, through all life stages and conditions, to end-of-life care. Pioneering research • We will recruit and enable people to deliver pioneering research and innovation in Southampton. We will continue to be a leading teaching hospital with a growing, reputable and innovative research and development portfolio • We will optimise access to clinical research studies for our patients. • We will enable innovation in everything we do, and ensure that ‘cutting edge’ investigations and treatments are delivered in Southampton. that attracts the best staff and efficiently delivers the best possible treatments and care for our patients. World class people • We will recruit and develop enough people with the right Supporting and nurturing our knowledge and skills to meet the needs of our patients. people through a culture that values • We will provide satisfying and fulfilling roles, growing our talent diversity and builds knowledge and through development and opportunity for progression. skills to ensure everyone reaches • We will empower our people, embracing diversity and embedding their full potential. We must provide compassion, inclusion and equity of opportunity. rewarding career paths within empowered, compassionate, and motivated teams. Integrated networks and collaboration We will deliver our services with partners through clinical networks, collaboration and integration across geographical and organisational boundaries. • We will work in partnership with key stakeholders across the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care system. • We will strengthen our acute clinical networks across the region, centralising when necessary and supporting local care when appropriate. • We will foster local integration with primary and community care as well as mental health and social care services for seamless delivery across boundaries. • We will build on our successful partnership with University of Southampton (UoS), growing our reputation as a national leading university teaching hospital. 13 Theme Foundations for the future Making our enabling infrastructure (finance, digital, estate) fit for the future to support a leading university teaching hospital in the 21st century and recognising our responsibility as a major employer in the community of Southampton and our role in broader environmental sustainability. Ambitions • We will deliver best value to the tax payer as a financially efficient and sustainable organisation. • We will support patient self-management and seamless care across organisational boundaries through our ambitious digital programme, including real time data reporting, to inform our care. • We will expand and improve our estate, increasing capacity where needed and providing modern facilities for our patients and our people. • We will strengthen our role in the community as an employer of choice, a partner in delivery of services to our population and by leading the Greener NHS agenda locally. During each year of the strategy the Trust will set out a more detailed series of objectives to achieve and progress towards the delivery of its ambitions. In 2020/21 these objectives included: • Recovery, restoration and improvement of clinical services • Implementing the ‘Always Improving’ strategy • Restoring a full research portfolio • Continuing our focus on staff wellbeing including the long-term effects of coronavirus (long COVID) • Working in partnership with the newly established integrated care system • Creating a sustainable financial infrastructure • Making our corporate infrastructure (digital, estate) fit for the future to support a leading university teaching hospital in the 21st century, including an estates masterplan. Performance against these objectives will be monitored and reported to the Trust’s board of directors on a quarterly basis. Principal risks to our strategy and objectives The board of directors has identified and manages the principal risks to the delivery of its strategy and objectives through its board assurance framework. The principal risks to the delivery of its strategy and objectives identified by the Trust during 2020/21 were that: • it would be unable to form effective partnerships that achieve networked care for patients; • it could not develop the estate in line with the ambitions set out in the strategy; • it would fail to restore and increase capacity following the COVID-19 pandemic to meet waiting times for elective care and cancer care needs; • it would fail to introduce and implement new technology for the transformation of care; • it would be unable to retain, recruit, develop and train a diverse and inclusive workforce necessary to meet the strategic goals; • it could not develop a sustainable model within the new financial regime that preserves quality care; • it would fail to provide vulnerable service users with timely and high quality and appropriate care; • it would not reach the ambition of outstanding compliance and quality standards; • it could not sufficiently engage with key stakeholders and system partners to support effective interventions and maintain the health of the local population; • it would be unable to respond to the needs of the NHS in order to deliver our strategy; • it would fail to capitalise on its relationship with the universities in Southampton and other health education providers in line with our strategy; • it would not develop innovative education and training approaches. 14 While the COVID-19 pandemic presented the Trust with new risks as it introduced more stringent infection control processes, stopped certain types of activity and responded quickly to care for large numbers of seriously ill patients who had tested positive for COVID-19, it also prompted innovation across a wide range of areas. However the ongoing impact of the pandemic on both our staff, patients who have had COVID-19 and patients who have waited longer than expected for treatment as a result, added to the risks facing the Trust. National targets for performance have not been amended as a result of the pandemic, although the national plan has focussed on the recovery of activity levels as the first stage in a restoration of elective services. Capacity – The initial and subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic have led to increases in the waiting times for patients and the number of patients waiting more than 52 and 78 weeks has increased significantly. While the Trust was able to recover capacity quickly between waves of the pandemic, its ability to reduce the overall waiting list and the length of time patients are waiting for treatment remains one of the key risks for the Trust. This may be compounded by the reduction in the number of referrals from GPs during the pandemic, leading to a potential future increase in the number of patients being referred as people visit their GPs for the first time with more advanced disease. During the pandemic the Trust utilised the support available from the independent sector to continue cancer treatment and surgery for those patients at highest risk. It also increased the number of outpatient attendances which took place by telephone or video call. The Trust developed a clinical assurance framework during the year to better assess the risk of harm to patients as a result of delays in treatment and this has been utilised in decision-making around the allocation of resources to those areas where there is the greatest risk of potential harm to patients. In addition to opening additional capacity during 2020/21 (described in the Estates section below), the Trust also committed expenditure and commenced construction works in 2020/21 in order to be in a position to open an additional endoscopy room and four further operating theatres during 2021/22 and prepared plans for a significant expansion in ophthalmology outpatient capacity. These initiatives will contribute to improvements in elective waiting times that needed following the pandemic. Quality and compliance – The Trust continued to monitor the quality of care delivered throughout 2020/21. During the COVID-19 pandemic the primary focus became infection prevention and control, with the launch of a successful COVID ZERO campaign that saw the Trust reduce the transmission of the virus in hospital (nosocomial transmission). The Trust also achieved its annual target for reduction in Clostridium Difficile infections, however, there was one MRSA Bacteraemia during March 2021, the only such event in 2020/21. The Trust continued to develop its proactive patient safety culture during 2020/21 with changes to the way in which patient safety incidents are investigated and the approval of its Always Improving strategy, which will be launched in 2021. Reporting and investigation of incidents continued during 2020/21. Partnerships – During 2020/21, the Trust and its partners worked together very effectively to discharge patients safely and provide ongoing support to patients who had tested positive for COVID-19, to ensure patients requiring urgent cancer treatment and surgery were able to continue their treatment in the independent sector and to develop a COVID-19 saliva testing pilot with the University of Southampton and local authorities. Work to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, meant that as a system we were unable to progress the Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic plan delivery at the pace we would have wanted or had set out to achieve, particularly the development of networks. Nonetheless the application for Hampshire and Isle of Wight to become an integrated care system was approved with effect from 1 April 2021. 15 Existing networks continued to develop and improve. The Trust also became the Wessex Cancer Surgical Hub during 2020 as a result of a national initiative with the aim of maximising the number of patients receiving curative surgery. Both the Wessex Cancer Alliance and the Trust ended the year as the second highest performing among their respective peers for cancer treatment. Workforce – While additional staff were recruited to specifically assist the Trust during the pandemic, the Trust continued to recruit nurses from overseas during 2020/21 meaning that the number of vacancies has reduced compared to the position prior to the pandemic. Changes to recruitment processes were approved in 2020/21 to improve the fairness, transparency and quality of these. The Trust also continued to work with its staff networks and specific focus groups to increase diversity in leadership roles. While workforce capacity continues to be one of the biggest challenges faced by the Trust, during 2020/21 our main focus has been on supporting our staff to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and providing both the tools and time to help staff recovery. We are incredibly proud of the way that staff responded to the pandemic and continue to recognise this in whatever ways we can, however, we also want to ensure that staff continue to be able to contribute to patient care at their best and want to stay and develop with the Trust. Technology was also used at levels not previously achieved to continue to deliver training to staff and enable staff to work from home where possible, ensuring a safer environment for patients and staff in the hospitals. Estate – The Trust continued to invest in and develop its estate during 2020/21 including the opening a new general intensive care unit (GICU), a new operating theatre and a new cancer care ward, built in just six months. These were part of £80 million of capital expenditure in 2020/21. The Trust has also established a programme to reduce backlog maintenance in addition to continuing to add to and improve the environment in which services are provided to patients and the working environment for staff. Innovation and technology – There have been exceptional levels of achievement in relation to COVID-19 related research activity, including in partnership with the universities. You can read more about these from page 167 of the quality report. The board of directors also supported the funding of an expansion of research and innovation activity to allow the continued delivery of the Trust’s ambitions to innovate and improve and transform its services. Sustainable financial model – The Trust achieved its forecast breakeven position in 2020/21. Income was more predictable in 2020/21 as block contract arrangements were put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and ensured that costs were covered. The Trust continues to maintain a strong cash position and to implement improvements and efficiency savings, allowing it to continue to invest in its services. 16 Summary of performance COVID-19 bed occupancy UHS has experienced two distinct peaks in inpatient care for patients with COVID-19 infection, with smaller numbers of patients continuing to receive care outside these peak times. Bed occupancy reached a maximum of 173 in the first peak in April 2020, and 322 in the second peak in January 2021. All bed types Intensive care/higher care beds 17 Emergency access through our emergency and eye casualty departments Public concerns about safety, government restrictions on the activities people were able to do, and the efforts of community services contributed to significant reductions in the total number of patients who presented to our departments. All patients presenting to the emergency department Many changes were introduced within our departments in the course of the year to ensure that emergency assessment and treatment could be provided safely, including wearing of protective equipment by staff and patients, providing care in separate areas for patients suspected or known to have COVID-19, and using rapid laboratory tests to identify infection and confirm/exclude COVID-19 as a cause. Emergency access performance (measured as the percentage of patients discharged from emergency department care or admitted to a hospital bed within four hours of arrival to the department) improved significantly in 2020/21 compared to previous years. The national target of 95% was not achieved, however, the performance of our departments compared favourably with the average for acute trusts in England. 18 Emergency access four hour performance 19 Elective Waiting times Demand We saw a significant reduction in the number of elective referrals to hospital in the early part 2020/21, though they had returned close to pre-pandemic levels by the end of the year. It is likely that this pattern relates to a range of factors including reluctance from members of the public to attend healthcare facilities at that time, changes to the ways in which primary care was accessed, and efforts made within primary and community to avoid hospital referrals needing to be made. Accepted referrals The number of patients referred to hospital with suspected cancer also reduced during 2020/21; 7% fewer patients were seen across the year as a whole, though referrals returned to pre-pandemic levels or higher from July 2020 onwards. Patients seen following ‘Two week wait’ urgent referral for suspected cancer 20 Activity UHS hospital appointments, diagnostic tests and elective admissions were all significantly reduced during 2020/21 due to the impact of COVID-19. • During periods of higher bed occupancy with COVID-19 it was necessary to significantly reduce the number of elective admissions undertaken in order that additional staff could work in intensive care. Less clinically urgent and therefore longer waiting patients were primarily those affected. • Throughout the year, additional infection prevention measures have reduced the number of patients that can be seen in each session, particularly when higher risk ‘aerosol generating’ procedures are planned, but also as a result of additional PPE being worn or to enable greater distancing of patients attending outpatient departments. UHS was offered additional capacity at local independent sector hospitals and used this effectively to minimise these adverse impacts. Approximately 30% of outpatient appointments are now undertaken by telephone or video, helping to maintain the capacity for patient care whilst reducing the infection risk for those patients and helping to maintain distancing measures for those patients still attending our outpatient departments. The graphs below show 2020/21 activity levels as a percentage of those achieved in the previous year. Elective admissions (including daycase) 21 Outpatient attendances Performance The average waiting time for first outpatient appointments has remained close to nine weeks for the majority of the year. UHS has however experienced very significant deteriorations in the waiting times our patients experience for diagnostic tests to be undertaken and elective treatment to be provided. The reduced number of new patients referred to hospital early in 2020/21 has moderated the extent of the growth in the total numbers of patients waiting, and the greatest rate of growth has unfortunately been amongst those groups of patients already waiting longest. 22 Diagnostics Our performance measures for diagnostics report on a total of 15 different frequently used tests. The waiting list is approximately 50% bigger than it was before the pandemic and stable through the second half of the year. At the end of the year 28% of patients were waiting more than six weeks to receive their investigation compared to the national target of 1%. The tests with the largest numbers of longer waiting patients include non-obstetric ultrasound, MRI and endoscopies, and further recovery will be driven through a combination of recruitment, independent sector capacity and an additional endoscopy room which opened at the start of April 2021. Patients waiting for a diagnostic test to be performed (sum of 15 different frequently used tests) Percentage of patients waiting over 6 weeks for a diagnostic test to be performed 23 Referral to Treatment Our waiting list from referral to treatment increased in size by 6% (2,220 patients) during 2020/21, rising when the recovery in referral numbers exceeded the recovery in clinical activity, the total increase in waiting list size would have been significantly higher had it not been for the significant reduction in the referrals received by the hospital especially during the early months of the pandemic. Looking forward, we anticipate referrals numbers returning to pre-pandemic levels, and being able to maintain the total size of our waiting list by delivering an equivalent number of treatments each month. Number of patients waiting between referral and commencement of a treatment for their condition The national target is that at least 92% of patients should be waiting for treatment no more than 18 weeks from their referral to hospital. Our performance against this measure is now 12% worse than one year ago, at 66%. Our performance continues to be typical of the major teaching hospital trusts that we benchmark with and the trend has been similar to that experienced across trusts in England. Percentage of patients waiting up to 18 weeks between referral and treatment 24 Unfortunately, the number of patients waiting significantly longer than the 18 week target has increased at a faster rate than the size of the waiting list as a whole. The graph below shows how the percentage of patients who have waited more 52 weeks increased. The number of patients who have waited more 52 weeks increased from 40 in March 2020 to 3,419 by March 2021 (of these 445 patients had waited more than 78 weeks). Such patients often require surgical treatment, particularly in the orthopaedic, ear nose and throat and oral surgery specialities. The impact on surgical care has been greater than that in outpatients during the pandemic, and it is also more challenging to increase capacity due to the need for additional operating theatres and a combination of different healthcare professionals to work within them. UHS opened an additional operating theatre in 2020/21, and has a further four theatres scheduled to open during 2021/22, which will make a significant contribution to our capacity to treat more patients. Unfortunately, the number of patients waiting significantly longer than the 18 week target is likely to continue to grow further in the short term, due to diagnostic investigations having been progressed less quickly than usual during the pandemic, the need to prioritise our increased treatment capacity according to the clinical urgency of conditions and because our scheduled capacity increases will not be completed before the autumn of 2021. Percentage of patients waiting more than 52 weeks, between referral and commencement of a treatment for their condition 25 Cancer Waiting Times UHS has been mostly successful in maintaining the timeliness of urgent services for patients with suspected cancer through the pandemic, and our performance has been amongst the best in both the south-east and nationally. UHS prioritised the theatre and intensive care capacity we were able to provide during the pandemic in order to meet the needs of those patients with the greatest clinical urgency, used capacity offered by independent sector hospitals to supplement that available within NHS, and operated a hub through which hospitals in Wessex were able to collaborate to continue critical cancer surgery during periods of peak COVID-19 demand. The national target is to provide the first definitive treatment to at least 85% of patients with cancer with 62 days of referral to hospital. Whilst UHS performance remained below this level in the majority of months, our performance has been significantly better than the national average, and has improved relative to other trusts. Treatment for Cancer within 62 days of an urgent GP referral to hospital 26 The national target is to provide the first definitive treatment to at least 96% of patients within 31 days of a decision to treat being made and agreed with the patients; both for the first and any subsequent treatments for cancer. UHS achieved this level on average across the year, and in the majority of months. The treatments provided are typically by means of surgery, chemotherapy/immunotherapy or radiotherapy. The most significant performance challenge this year has been in radiotherapy, where more sophisticated treatment plans improve patient outcomes but take longer to prepare, and there was also reduced treatment capacity whilst we replaced one of our ‘Linear Accelerator’ treatment machines with a new model. First definitive treatment for cancer within 31 days of a decision to treat Equality in service delivery Identifying and addressing health inequalities have been the central part of the Trust’s approach to improving the experience of care for our patients, families and carers. Over the past year, new initiatives have augmented progress on existing work to ensure there is appropriate support, due regard and recognition of those patients and their families and carers who are most at risk of poor experiences, outcomes and access to services. In 2020 we added two questions to our patient surveys, asking first if patients felt themselves to have a disability or require a reasonable adjustment, and, if yes, whether the Trust met this need. In 2020/21, the results were: TOTAL Had a disability / required a reasonable adjustment 27% Had this need met by the Trust (positive response) 95% This question was added to our major Friends and Family Test surveys as well as our local service-specific patient surveys. In June 2020 the Trust launched the sunflower lanyard scheme for hidden disabilities, participating in the national initiative to ensure that people whose disabilities are not visible are able to access further support and reasonable adjustments by means of a nationally recognised indicator (the sunflower). In 2020/21, 618 lanyards were issued with those needs recorded to ensure future reasonable adjustments are made for those individuals. 27 Carers have always been essential partners in the care that we provide, and having introduced a new post at the end of 2019 to focus solely on carer experience, this work has culminated in a Trust strategy for improving the involvement, support and experience carers have of our services. We have, over the past year, introduced carers cards, virtual peer support and carer-specific information about services while actively participating in local and regional work on carers. In January 2021 we realised our ambition of becoming an accredited ‘Veterans Aware’ hospital, with our submission of evidence being recognised as ‘strong’ and indicative of an organisation that has made great progress in helping to provide enhanced support for the armed forces community. Towards the end of 2019 we worked with the disability organisation AccessAble to produce accessibility guides for all of our services and estate. These online guides allow patients and visitors with disabilities to plan their journey and identify potential challenges to the environment. In 2020/21 our guides had 5,000 unique visits per month. One of our COVID-19 initiatives, a patient support hub, was set up in May 2020 to provide a single point of support for our patients who had been advised to shield. The service has grown and now offers support to patients and carers who are vulnerable, disabled or with additional needs. This includes coordinating community transport, arranging companions to assist with attending appointments, hosting a technology library to support those who are digitally excluded in accessing virtual appointments and information, and most recently receiving funding to pilot volunteer-led support for diabetes patients. Across the Trust, we continue to actively promote the importance of asking patients and carers about disabilities and reasonable adjustments, flagging needs on our patient administrative system to prompt our services to take proactive steps to ensure that any needs or adjustments are met on each and every visit. This has been of vital importance for meeting accessible information and communication needs. We are currently one of first trusts to pilot a new translation app that provides immediate interpretation into different languages, and we have worked closely with our communication support partners to ensure that where virtual appointments are needed, people with communication needs (BSL, foreign language) are supported to access care virtually. Our specialist nursing liaison teams continued to support access to services throughout the pandemic, ensuring that patients with dementia, with learning disabilities and autism, were supported to attend hospital where necessary. Further information about the Trust’s work in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion can be found on page 69 and pages 106 and 160 in the quality report. Going concern After making enquiries, the directors have a reasonable expectation that the services provided by the Trust will continue to be provided by the public sector for the foreseeable future. For this reason, the directors have adopted the going concern basis in preparing the accounts, following the definition of going concern in the public sector adopted by HM Treasury’s Financial Reporting Manual. David French Chief Executive Officer 28 June 2021 28 Accountability report Directors’ report Board of directors The board of directors is usually made up of six executive directors and seven non-executive directors, including the chair. Since 1 January 2021 the number of non-executive directors has been reduced by one as Jane Bailey’s reappointment as a non-executive director was deferred to allow her to lead the Hampshire and Isle of Wight saliva mass testing programme. Jane is expected to return to the board of directors in her non-executive director role by 1 July 2021. Paragraph B.1.2 of the NHS foundation trust code of governance provides that at least half the board of directors, excluding the chair, should comprise non-executive directors determined by the board to be independent. Pending the reappointment of Jane Bailey as a non-executive director, the Trust has been operating with one fewer non-executive directors than is required by the Trust’s constitution and the Trust has been non-compliant with this paragraph of the code. During this period the provisions of the Trust’s constitution that a quorum for meetings of the board of directors requires at least one non-executive director and one executive director to be present and for the chair to have a second and casting vote in the case of an equal vote continued to apply. The board of directors has given careful consideration to the range of skills and experience it requires to run the Trust. Together the members of the board of directors bring a wide range of skills and experience to the Trust, such that the Board achieves balance and completeness at the highest level. The chair was determined to be independent on his appointment and the other non-executive directors have been determined to be independent in both character and judgement. This included specific consideration of Jane Bailey’s continued independence following her role leading the Hampshire and Isle of Wight saliva mass testing programme. The chair, executive directors and non-executive directors have declared any business interests that they have. Each director has declared their interests at public meetings of the board of directors. The register of interests is available on the Trust’s website. 30 The current members of the board of directors are: Non-executive directors Peter Hollins Chair 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, in 1992 he was appointed 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, before returning in 1998 to the UK as chief executive officer of British Energy where he remained until 2001. From 2001, he held various chairmanships and non-executive directorships. In 2003, he decided to return to an executive role as chief executive of the British Heart Foundation in which post he remained until retirement in March 2013. He joined Southampton University Hospital Trust as a non-executive director in 2010, became senior independent director and deputy chairman of UHS in 2014 and was appointed chair in April 2016. Trust roles: • Chair of remuneration and appointment committee • Chair of governors’ nomination committee Jane Bailey Non-executive director In 1985, Jane joined the pharmaceutical company Glaxo as a management trainee, having graduated from London University with a degree in environmental science and pharmacology. Here she rose to senior commercial vice-president, gaining experience of a broad range of disease areas across different regions of the world. She specialised in leading global research and development teams in the formation of strategies to bring new medicines to patients. She also worked to ensure that the medicines developed were supported by robust evidence demonstrating their clinical and cost-effectiveness. In delivering this she gained extensive experience of leading large diverse teams across a complex global organisation. For five years, Jane ran her own strategy development consultancy, working across a breadth of healthcare organisations. In 2017 Jane gained an MSc in public health, with distinction, at King’s College, London University. Her studies focused on how to ensure the public are engaged in development of healthcare services and how social theories can help inform effective disease prevention and management. Jane is a director of Wessex NHS Procurement Limited, a joint venture between the Trust and Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and a director of Healthwatch Portsmouth. Trust roles: • Deputy chair and senior independent director • Chair of finance and investment committee • Audit and risk committee member • Charitable funds committee member • People and organisational development committee member • Remuneration and appointment committee member • Wellbeing Guardian 31 Non-executive directors Dave Bennett Non-executive director Dave graduated in chemistry from the University of Southampton before entering management consulting, becoming a partner in Accenture’s strategy practice. In 2003 he joined Exel Logistics (later acquired by DHL), managing the company’s healthcare business across Europe and the Middle East. During this time, he established NHS Supply Chain, a UK organisation responsible for procuring and delivering medical consumables for the NHS in England, as well as sourcing capital equipment. Dave joined the board of Cable & Wireless as sales director in 2008. He later set up his own strategy consulting practice serving the healthcare sector, completing numerous projects in the UK and the US. Dave has also served as a non-executive director at The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust between 2009 and 2016, where he chaired the Trust’s quality committee. Dave is a non-executive director at the Faculty of Leadership and Medical Management and a director of Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Enterprises Ltd and RCGP Conferences Ltd. Trust roles: • Chair of charitable funds committee • Chair of finance and investment committee (from 1 January 2021) • Audit and risk committee member (from 9 February 2021) • Quality committee member • Remuneration and appointment committee member • Chair of Trust’s organ donation committee 32 Non-executive directors Cyrus Cooper Non-executive director Cyrus Cooper is professor of rheumatology and director of the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit. He is also vice-dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Southampton and professor of epidemiology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics (rheumatology and musculoskeletal sciences, University of Oxford). He leads an internationally competitive programme of research into the epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders, most notably osteoporosis. His key research contributions have been: • discovery of the developmental influences which contribute to the risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture in late adulthood • demonstration that maternal vitamin D insufficiency is associated with sub-optimal bone mineral accrual in childhood • characterisation of the definition and incidence rates of vertebral fractures • leadership of large pragmatic randomised controlled trials of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in the elderly as immediate preventative strategies against hip fracture. He is president of the International Osteoporosis Foundation, chair of the BHF Project Grants Committee, an emeritus NIHR senior investigator, a director of The Rank Prize Funds and associate editor of Osteoporosis International. He has previously served as chairman of the Scientific Advisors Committee (International Osteoporosis Foundation), the MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network and the National Osteoporosis Society of Great Britain. He has also been president of the Bone Research Society of Great Britain and has worked on numerous Department of Health, European Community and World Health Organisation committees and working groups. Cyrus has published extensively on osteoporosis and rheumatic disorders and pioneered clinical studies on the developmental origins of peak bone mass. In 2015, he was awarded an OBE for services to medical research. Trust roles: • Quality committee member • Remunerati
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/annual-report-20-21.pdf

Papers Trust Board - 15 July 2025

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

1 to 10 of 199

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … Next

Browse site A to Z

Search results

UHS RD Small Grants Scheme 2021_application_form

UHS RD Small Grants Scheme 2021_application_form

Grant writing bursary scheme

Annual report 2021-2022

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

Papers Trust Board - 29 November 2022

UHS AR 23-24 Final

Annual-report-2018-19

Annual report 20-21

Papers Trust Board - 15 July 2025

Site policies

Contact details

Useful links