DOCSLIB.ORG

North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust Annual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust Annual North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2018/19 1 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................ 4 1. PERFORMANCE REPORT ................................................................................ 7 1a Overview ............................................................................................................... 7 Our Year at a Glance .......................................................................................... 8 Our Values .......................................................................................................... 9 Our Priorities 2018/19 ....................................................................................... 10 Principal Activities of the Trust .......................................................................... 10 Our Key Issues and Risks ................................................................................. 12 1b Performance Analysis ......................................................................................... 12 Care Quality Commission (CQC) Registration and Inspections ........................ 20 Our Achievements 2018/19 .................................................................................. 29 2. Accountability Report ........................................................................................ 32 3a Corporate Governance Report ............................................................................ 32 Charitable Funds ............................................................................................... 43 Annual Governance Statement 2018/19 ............................................................... 46 3c Remuneration and Staff Report ........................................................................... 63 Staff Numbers and composition ........................................................................ 63 Remuneration Report ........................................................................................... 79 3d Parliamentary Accountability and Audit Report ................................................... 88 Statement of the Chief Executive’s Responsibilities as the Accountable Officer of the Trust ............................................................................................................... 88 Statement of Directors’ Responsibilities in Respect of the Accounts .................... 89 Head of Internal Audit Opinion .............................................................................. 90 4. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2018/19 .................................................................. 105 5. QUALITY ACCOUNTS 2018/19 ......................................................................... 106 PART 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 108 What is a Quality Account? .............................................................................. 108 Chief Executive Statement .............................................................................. 109 Statement of Directors’ in respect of the Quality Account ............................... 111 PART 2: PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT AND STATEMENTS RELATING TO QUALITY OF NHS SERVICES ........................................................................... 112 Our Priorities ................................................................................................... 112 CQUIN Priorities 2018/19 ................................................................................ 113 2 Mandatory Statements of Quality Standards ................................................... 114 Performance in National and Clinical Audit ..................................................... 130 Clinical Research ............................................................................................ 170 Review of Services – Mandatory Statements .................................................. 172 Data Quality..................................................................................................... 172 Information Governance 2018/19 .................................................................... 173 Being Open and Duty of Candour ................................................................... 178 PART 3: OTHER INFORMATION ....................................................................... 181 Care Quality Commission (CQC) Registration and Inspections ...................... 181 Delivering Our Quality Improvement Plan 2018/19 – Key Headlines ............... 183 Appendix A - Quality Improvement Plan 2018/19 – Delivery Summary .......... 201 Annex 1: Statements from commissioners, local Health watch organisations and Overview and Scrutiny Committees ................................................................ 212 AUDITORS STATEMENT ............................................................................... 220 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................... 221 3 Foreword 2018 was a special year for the NHS as it turned 70 years old on 5 July. To mark the occasion, we held a variety of celebrations looking back at how the NHS and its staff has saved and transformed so many lives and also looking to the future. The future of the NHS is very much centred on much closer working between health and care partners. During 2018/19, we are pleased to say that our work to integrate our services made great strides. In May 2018, the North Cumbria Health and Care System was confirmed by NHS England as part of the next wave of Integrated Care Systems (ICS), putting our area at the forefront of national policy. This has given us the green light to further integrate health and care services across organisational boundaries, making it easier for teams to work together for the benefit of patients and communities. As part of our system working, we have also been progressing the merger of North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust (NCUH) and Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT) which is set to take place in October 2019. Since April 2018 we have been working as a joint Trust Board across the two organisations and our teams are working closely together so this next step feels like a natural progression. As part of the joint Trust Board, Professor Robin Talbot is now joint Chair of both NCUH and CPFT after Gina Tiller retired as Chair of NCUH in March 2019. We would like to thank Gina for her passion and commitment to North Cumbria during her six years in post. A programme management approach has been adopted to prepare for and manage the merger transaction. Work streams led by Executive Directors deliver the required activity and report progress into the Programme Board which is chaired by the Chief Executive. CPFT’s Governors Council are engaged in the process and have been involved in the review and development of the Constitution for the new Trust. At the time of writing, following agreement from CPFT Governors Council in November 2018 and approval of the Strategic Case by NHS Improvement (NHSI) in February 2019, activity is underway to prepare for both Trusts to merge to become a single organisation. The aim is that the new Trust will ‘go-live’ in October 2019 following approval of the Full Business Case by the Board in June 2019, and subject to successful progress through the Transactions process with NHSI. As this transaction is technically an acquisition of NCUH by CPFT the merged Trust (name not yet confirmed at time of writing) will be a Foundation Trust. 4 One of the ways we are working to join up health and adult social care services in north Cumbria is in the development of eight Integrated Care Communities (ICCs) to enable closer working, help people to stay well and provide more out of hospital care. The first phase of ICCs aimed to increase the capacity of community teams to keep more people at home and support people to leave hospital sooner. This has already had a significant impact with hundreds of people avoiding a hospital stay. As well as investment in out-of-hospital care, we have also seen great progress this year with our major investment projects at the acute hospitals. The demolition of the old tower block at the Cumberland Infirmary is making way for the new £35m cancer centre with construction set to begin in summer 2019. The centre will open in summer 2021 and will offer services to patients across the north of the county, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy. At West Cumberland Hospital, the redevelopment work is continuing with cardiology, vascular and breast services moving into a newly refurbished area. Work will continue into the forthcoming year with the demolition of the older buildings meaning the new hospital will be more visible when you arrive at the hospital. We are also developing new ways of working at West Cumberland Hospital in order to provide a more joined-up service. The Same Day Health Centre opened in the Outpatients department at February 2019 which offers Copeland patients more appointments for those who need to see a GP, nurse or other primary care staff urgently. In terms of performance this year, the Trust has continued to be in the top quartile nationally for performance against the 95% four hour emergency care standard which translates to more patients being seen quicker when they need us the most. In addition, we have significantly reduced delayed transfers of care which means people
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public–Private Partnerships for Hospitals Martin Mckee,A Nigel Edwards,B & Rifat Atun C
    Public–private partnerships for hospitals Martin McKee,a Nigel Edwards,b & Rifat Atun c Abstract While some forms of public–private partnerships are a feature of hospital construction and operation in all countries with mixed economies, there is increasing interest in a model in which a public authority contracts with a private company to design, build and operate an entire hospital. Drawing on the experience of countries such as Australia, Spain, and the United Kingdom, this paper reviews the experience with variants of this model. Although experience is still very limited and rigorous evaluations lacking, four issues have emerged: cost, quality, flexibility and complexity. New facilities have, in general, been more expensive than they would have been if procured using traditional methods. Compared with the traditional system, new facilities are more likely to be built on time and within budget, but this seems often to be at the expense of compromises on quality. The need to minimize the risk to the parties means that it is very difficult to “future-proof” facilities in a rapidly changing world. Finally, such projects are extremely, and in some cases prohibitively, complex. While it is premature to say whether the problems experienced relate to the underlying model or to their implementation, it does seem that a public–private partnership further complicates the already difficult task of building and operating a hospital. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2006;84:890-896. ميكن اﻻطﻻع عىل امللخص بالعربية يف صفحة Voir page 894 le résumé en français. En la página 895 figura un resumen en español.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Health and Social Care Economy Sefton MBC, Liverpool and Greater Manchester City Regions and North West Regional Economy
    The New Health and Social Care Economy Sefton MBC, Liverpool and Greater Manchester City Regions and North West regional economy Dexter Whitfield New Directions Head Office 3rd Floor, The Investment Centre 375 Stanley Road Bootle L20 3EF Tel: 0151 934 3726 www.ndirections.co.uk A care provider owned by Sefton Council July 2015 (Continuing the work of the Centre for Public Services) Dexter Whitfield, Director Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Workplace Innovation and Social Research Centre, University of Adelaide Web: www.european-services-strategy.org.uk The European Services Strategy Unit is committed to social justice, through the provision of good quality public services by democratically accountable public bodies, implementing best practice management, employment, equal opportunity and sustainable development policies. The Unit continues the work of the Centre for Public Services, which began in 1973. Research has included health and social care economy studies for the North West and East of England regions; two social and economic audits of health care in North Ireland; critical analysis of the case against the sale of residential care homes and/or outsourcing adult social care in over 15 local authorities, many in the North West; a successful alternative to the outsourcing and offshoring of prescription processing by NHS Business Services; the case for a Public Duty for Age Equality; the gender impact of outsourcing; and a analysis of the original Cashing in on Care proposals in 1984. THE NEW HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE ECONOMY
    [Show full text]
  • PFI and the National Health Service in England
    1 PFI and the National Health Service in England Allyson M Pollock, Professor David Price, Senior Research Fellow Queen Mary, University of London June 2013 Key points By April 2011, across the public sector, more than 700 PFI contracts had been signed in the United Kingdom with an estimated capital value of almost £50 billion in England alone and annual repayments estimated at £8 billion for 30 to 60 years. PFI has been the dominant form of procurement for large national health service (NHS) projects. More than 90% of the £11.6 billion of capital expenditure contracted to take place under England’s hospital-building programme has come through PFI. By April 2009, 101 of the 133 new hospitals built between 1997 and 2008, or under construction, were privately financed. PFI costs drive service closures, bed and staff reductions due to the high cost of debt servicing and enormous transfers of resources from patient care to bankers, shareholders and financiers. PFI lacks accountability as the contracts are secret and hidden from public view. PFI involves a long term, 30 to 60 year, contract between the public and the private sector. Sovereign debt is always cheaper that finance borrowed privately for individual investments (‘project finance’). Successive governments have argued that the higher cost of private finance reflects risk transfer to the private sector, which generates savings that outweigh the extra cost. However, risk can be transferred to the private sector by using fixed price contracts and public borrowing instead of private finance. Although governments justify PFI on cost efficiency grounds, they are usually thought to adopt the policy for fiscal not efficiency reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Shaoul, J., Stafford, A, Stapleton, P
    FIN(3)-PPP-014a Papers on PFI/PPP Papers SHAOUL J., STAFFORD A., STAPLETON P. “Private finance: public infrastructure without accountability? The case of privately financed roads in the UK Forthcoming in Journal Tidsskriftet Politik. ACERETE B., SHAOUL J., STAFFORD A. “Taking its toll: the cost of private roads in Spain” (2009, Public Money and Management) SHAOUL, J., STAFFORD, A, STAPLETON, P. “The cost of using private finance to build, finance and operate the first 12 NHS hospitals in England”, Public Money and management, 2008, forthcoming SHAOUL, J., STAFFORD, A, STAPLETON, P. (2007) “Evidence based policies and the meaning of success: the case of a road built under Design Build Finance and Operate”, Evidence and Policy, Vol 3, Issue 2, SHAOUL, J., STAFFORD, A, STAPLETON, P. “Private control over public policy: financial advisors and the private finance initiative”, Policy and Politics, July 2007. SHAOUL, J., STAFFORD, A, STAPLETON, P. (2006) “Highway Robbery? A financial evaluation of Design Build Finance and Operate in UK roads”, Transport Reviews, Vol 26, No 3, pp257-274 SHAOUL, J., “A Critical Financial Analysis of the Private Finance Initiative: Selecting a financing method or reallocating economic wealth?” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol 16, 2005, pp441-471. SHAOUL, J., “Financial analysis of the National Air Traffic Services Public Private Partnership”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 3, No 23, July 2003, pp185-194. EDWARDS, P., and SHAOUL, J., “Partnerships: For Better for Worse?” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 16, No 3, 2003, pp397-421. EDWARDS, P., and SHAOUL, J., “Controlling the PFI Process: The Case of Pimlico School”, Policy and Politics, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wrong Medicine
    The wrong medicine A review of the impacts of NHS reforms in England New Economics Foundation (NEF) is an independent think-and-do tank that inspires and demonstrates real economic well-being. We aim to improve quality of life by promoting innovative solutions that challenge mainstream thinking on economic, environmental and social issues. We work in partnership and put people and the planet first. Contents Summary 2 Introduction 4 The ground prepared: changes prior to 2012 7 Changes since 2010 13 Where is the evidence? 24 Lessons from UK experience 27 Costs of market reforms 41 Who will bear the brunt of the changes? 44 Conclusion 45 End notes 47 2 DiversityThe wrong and medicine Integration Summary The NHS is rated more highly than any other comparable healthcare system in the world. But it is often thought to be beset by crises and in danger of falling into decline. Market-based reforms have been presented as “solutions” to a continuing “problem” of an under-performing public institution. Does the evidence support these changes? Market-based reforms began in the 1980s, when support services were first contracted out, and continued in the 1990s, with the creation of an internal market for clinical services. In the 2000s, patients were allowed to choose where they received some treatments; prices were attached to units of completed healthcare; the first privately owned centres were established to take on NHS business; some hospitals became independent foundation trusts; and private companies built most new hospitals, recovering their investment by renting them back to the NHS for 30 years or more.
    [Show full text]
  • The British Labour Government and the Private Finance Initiative in the National Health Service: a Case of Pragmatic Policy-Making?
    The British Labour Government and the Private Finance Initiative in the National Health Service: A Case of Pragmatic Policy-Making? Dr Eric Shaw Department of Politics University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA Scotland, UK Email: [email protected] Abstract In Britain no issue is at present more controversial than the Labour Government 's advocacy of 'Public Private Partnerships' or the importation of private capital, managerial techniques and business practices into the public sector. The most important single policy measure here is the Private Finance Initiative, a scheme for the involvement of private sector capital and operating methods in the delivery of the public services. It has been described by the Blair Administration as ‘a cornerstone of the Government's modernisation programme for the public services’. The PFI has been presented as the main policy embodiment of 'New' Labour’s and explained as an example of ‘policy learning’. This paper provides a critical analysis of the operation of the PFI in the UK National Health Service, contends that the explanation of its adoption in terms of a shift from ideology to pragmatism is misleading and suggests an alternative approach. Introduction Countries throughout the western world find their welfare state under pressure and especially so in their healthcare systems. A combination of factors – the pressures of an aging population, the mounting costs of medical technology and drugs, rising expectations and, not least, intensifying budgetary constraints – are propelling governments of all stripes to re-evaluate the bases of their health-delivery systems. The most common response has taken the form of a move towards greater 1 reliance on the private sector and upon market incentives.
    [Show full text]
  • At the University of Edinburgh
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. A fair return for risk? An examination of structure, competition and profitability in the market for private finance in the National Health Service By Mark Hellowell This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Edinburgh Global Public Health Unit Social Policy School of Social and Political Science University of Edinburgh i Title: A fair return for risk? An examination of structure, competition and profitability in the market for private finance in the National Health Service. Abstract Since 1993, the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been the dominant form of large-scale infrastructure procurement used by National Health Service (NHS) organisations in the United Kingdom. As of April 2011, 123 PFI projects for new hospital facilities had been agreed between NHS organisations and private sector consortia, representing privately financed investment of £15.9 billion (in 2010 prices), and a projected long-term cost to the NHS of £70.5 billion.
    [Show full text]