1 RTT Recovery Planning and Trajectory Development: A Cambridge Tale Linda Clarke Head of Operational Performance Addenbrooke s Hospital I Rosie Hospital
2 Apr 2014 May 2014 Jun 2014 Jul 2014 Aug 2014 Sep 2014 Oct 2014 Nov 2014 Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Mar 2015 Apr 2015 May 2015 Jun 2015 Jul 2015 Aug 2015 Sep 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb % 84.0% 84.7% 89.2% 88.9% 88.2% 90.3% 90.5% 90.6% 89.6% 89.3% 89.0% 88.1% 88.5% 89.90% 92.1% 96.2% 97.8% 98.0% 97.9% 97.4% 97.2% 97.5% The need for RTT Recovery at CUHFT The Trust had a background of delivery of the RTT Incomplete Standard, averaging 97% against the 92% standard. The Trust has failed to achieve the RTT performance standard since December Less than half the reportable specialties were achieving the required 92% standard. Referral to Treatment Incomplete Standard (92% < 18 weeks) 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82%
3 Causes of the deterioration in performance We engaged the Elective Care Intensive Support Team to help us with recovery planning in March Below was their assessment of the causes of our position: Data quality Despite significant preparatory work at CUHFT, the introduction of a new clinical information system has led to reductions in data quality as far as waiting times reporting is concerned. Planned activity reductions associated with new EPR implementation CUHFT quite correctly took the decision to reduce activity immediately prior to, during, and after the implementation of Epic. However, this has necessarily contributed to the increase in the number of patients waiting. Continuing pressure on resources as with any health system, if capacity does not match or exceed demand, then waiting times and numbers will increase. CUHFT has clearly encountered issues with both sides of this equation: referral demand has increased beyond expected levels in a number of specialties; capacity has been constrained, particularly in terms of admitted care as a consequence of the emergency demand on bed capacity from the frail elderly population, which has led to higher levels of elective cancellations. In addition to these issues, in order to support the financial challenges facing the Trust, in June 2015 a reduction in premium rate payments to staff was implemented. This reduced the volume of waiting list initiatives undertaken, and impacted on Theatre s ability to staff all elective capacity whilst faced with high vacancy rates.
4 Overview of Session Why are we failing? Action planning Trajectory Setting Financial Consequences Stakeholder Agreement Monitoring the plan
5 Why are we failing? Action planning Trajectory Setting Financial Consequences Stakeholder Agreement Monitoring the plan
6 Why is the Trust not delivering referral to treatment (RTT) in 18 weeks? You cannot begin to outline your recovery plan until you know what the causes of your underperformance are: Which specialties are not consistently delivering the 92% standard? For those that are not: Is capacity and demand in balance in those specialties (sub specialties)? Are the pathways deliverable in 18 weeks? Are the waiting lists a manageable size?
7 Is capacity in balance with demand? Using the NHS IMAS Intensive Support Team Capacity and Demand Models you can identify if there is an imbalance in your services. Models are available for the different stages of the pathway: Outpatients, Inpatients and Diagnostics. In the summary of the outputs from the models below, which service is more sustainable? ENT Outpatient Model Urology Inpatient Model Indicator Per Week Mean Capacity 70 Mean Decisions to Admit 79 Of Which Urgent 34 Of Which Routine 46 Mean Removals without Treatment (ROTT) 9 Mean Net Change on Waiting List 0 65 th Percentile of DTAs - ROTT th Percentile of DTAs - ROTT 91 Indicator Mean referrals Received Of Which Urgent Routine Paper/Fax Routine Choose & Book Mean DNAs (routine referrals) Of Which Reappointed Of Which Discharged Mean Rearranged Slots Mean Core Capacity Mean Ad-hoc Capacity Mean Total Capacity Net Weekly PTL Size Change Per Week
8 Are the pathways deliverable in 18 weeks? For common high volume conditions you should have a clear idea of what a typical pathway should look like. In simple terms this should set out what should happen to the patient and in what order. There should also be clarity as to the required timing of the following events : First outpatient appointment; Diagnostic test; Decision to admit; The capacity and demand models require these parameters to help determine the appropriate waiting list size. For example, in general we recommend to our surgical specialties to work to a 5 week maximum outpatient wait, and to allow a maximum of 8 weeks for treatment following decision to admit.
9 Sustainable Waiting list size More patients waiting means a longer waiting time, and if the number waiting is too large then the standard cannot be achieved even if capacity and demand are in balance. Based on the demand profile and the desired waiting time, the IST Models can advise on maximum waiting list size and therefore what reduction is required. Below is the output from the Urology Inpatient model which had shown the demand and capacity had been in balance. However, the waiting list was too large to deliver a maximum inpatient wait of 8 weeks: Indicator WL consistent with RTT delivery Current waiting list size Required reduction in backlog 337 to to 340
10 Outputs of our Capacity and Demand Modeling The outputs of our work identified: Of the 19 services we modelled, 10 had an underlying imbalance in demand and capacity that if left would lead to ever increasing waiting times. These specialties required recurrent actions to be included within their recovery plans, not just backlog reduction. The extent of this was surprising, and reflects the level to which the Trust had become reliant upon additional adhoc waiting list initiative activity to prop up core scheduled capacity. Across the specialties we identified a need to reduce outpatient waiting lists by 8,000 patients, and inpatients waiting lists by 2,000 in order to achieve maximum waiting time parameters consistent with sustainable delivery of an 18 week wait.
11 Why are we failing? Action planning Trajectory Setting Financial Consequences Stakeholder Agreement Monitoring the plan
12 Drivers for identifying Appropriate Actions Capacity and demand shortfall versus waiting list reduction Specialties with a capacity and demand imbalance require Recurrent actions. Without them, when fixed term actions cease, the waiting list will increase again. If the service only needs to reduce a backlog then actions should be fixed term or you may be left with costs / resources that are not required. Financial Drivers We all have a responsibility for NHS finances and should seek the most cost effective actions to support recovery. Actions to increase productivity to deliver more activity for the same cost are more likely to be supported, and will be in line with Cost Improvement Programmes. The financial cost to the whole local health system should be considered e.g. Significantly increasing activity may be unaffordable for commissioners, there could be commissioned capacity that is underutilised in other parts of the health system; or there could be initiatives to reduce real demand. Premium rate actions such as agency pay rates and outsourcing to the independent sector would be less favourable. If sufficient actions cannot be found from more cost effective solutions, then it can be helpful to present high cost actions as an optional additional scenario, outlining the cost versus the benefit to the recovery trajectory.
13 Principles of Action Planning Detailed Quantitative Needs to contain an appropriate level of detail to explain what the action involves. Useful to highlight which pathway stage the action is targeting: outpatient, diagnostic, admitted. Each action should quantify the effect that it will have i.e. how many additional cases per week will be undertaken. Owner Implementation date Risk Assess The role of the individual responsible for the action should be clear, and the responsible Organisation From what date will the action start to deliver benefit. It is also useful to define if this is a recurrent action or time limited Key potential risks to the actions should be identified and the scale of risk. High risk actions might require mitigation plans from the outset. Supported Actions require the support and ownership by Clinical teams and commissioners to be credible.
14 Themes of Actions Actions to support RTT recovery planning fall into one of the following themes. Demand Management Data Quality Increase Capacity / Improve productivity Recovery Plan
15 Clinical thresholds Decommission services Fit to refer Waiting list validation Adhere to Access Policy Clinic outcome capture Community providers Referral guidelines Pathway Trackers Referral redirection Clock start capture Patient choice hub Advice and Guidance Ring fence elective capacity Outsource Independent sector Reduce DNA rates Theatre efficiency Nurse / AHP led clinics Job Plan reviews Transfer to other NHS providers Telephone follow up Length of Stay Improvement Outpatient template reviews 1 st /FU ratio Waiting list initiatives 7 day services / extended days Recruit medical / nursing One-stop clinics Expand physical capacity
16 Why are we failing? Action planning Trajectory Setting Financial Consequences Stakeholder Agreement Monitoring the plan
17 Recovery Trajectories As Recovery Actions are quantitative, with implementation dates, they can define numerically when the waiting list reductions will have achieved the recommended target waiting list size. The IST capacity and demand models support you to record the quantitative impact of your actions This should be operationally realistic for example don't forget that elective activity is always lower at Christmas, and when bank holidays fall. From the examples on your tables, when would the Urology and ENT plans achieve the target waiting list size? You will notice: Each action has it s own planned implementation / start date ENT has split their actions into 2 scenarios: Scenario 1 with all the actions to address the recurrent shortfall in capacity v demand Scenario 2 with additional actions to reduce the waiting list size.
18 21/9/15 5/10/15 19/10/15 2/11/15 16/11/15 30/11/15 14/12/15 28/12/15 11/1/16 25/1/16 8/2/16 22/2/16 7/3/16 21/3/16 4/4/16 18/4/16 2/5/16 16/5/16 30/5/16 13/6/16 27/6/16 11/7/16 25/7/16 8/8/16 22/8/16 Recovery trajectories cont.. The models also graphically present the trajectory, and allow you to record your actual progress 2500 ENT Outpatient Actual PTL Against Plan Scenario 1 Plan Scenario 2 Plan Lower Target PTL Upper Target PTL Actual PTL
19 Summary of Recovery Trajectories Can achieve recovery by end Quarter 4 with no additional cost Sustainable core capacity but high proportion of overall Trust backlog Significant shortfall in capacity to meet demand and require investment to prevent them from further deteriorating as well as to reduce backlog Diagnostic 6 week wait Service Incomplete > 18 wks Sept 15 Recurrent Shortfall In Capacity Recovery Sustainable RTT 92% Trust Total 3907 Mar-16 Ophthalmology 480 No Feb-16 Feb-16 Dermatology 289 Yes Jun-16 May-16 Rheumatology 115 Yes May-16 Apr-16 General Surgery 140 No Feb-16 Feb-16 Paediatric Urology 52 Yes Feb-16 Jan-16 Gastroenterology 89 No Nov-15 Achieving Orthopaedics 499 No Not achieved Jun-16 Urology 195 No Aug-16 May-16 ENT Incl Paediatric 636 Yes Aug-16 Jul-16 Oral Surgery & Maxillo- 206 Yes May-16 Apr-16 Facial Cardiology 118 Yes Mar-16 Mar-16 Paed Orthopaedics 111 Yes Not achieved Nov-16 Paediatric Surgery 107 Yes Apr-16 Mar-16 Vascular Surgery 89 Yes No recovery* No recovery* Pain Management 78 Yes May-16 Mar-16 HPB Surgery 47 Yes May-16 Apr-16 Gynaecology 103 No Mar-16 Achieving MRI 301 Yes Jan-16 Jan-16 Neurophysiology 250 No Feb-16 Feb-16
20 Why are we failing? Action planning Trajectory Setting Financial Consequences Stakeholder Agreement Monitoring the plan
21 Financial Consequences Work with your finance managers and commissioning team to cost the actions in your plans. Consider: Whose cost will it be? Trust or Commissioner? If activity is going to be undertaken by another provider is that a loss of income your Trust has assumed in their financial planning? If the activity is in the activity plan, and budgets have already been set to deliver that at standard cost, are your plans now suggesting you need exceptional / premium rate funding to deliver? If activity is above the agreed activity plan, will the commissioner pay for it, and will the income cover the Trust costs? If you are on a block contract is it assumed the activity volumes have already been paid for. If so, is the full cost to the Trust? Will the cost be recurrent or fixed term? Will the cost span financial years? What is your process to get Board approval for any recovery costs? What are the contractual financial consequences of not recovering?
22 Summary of Financial Consequences Can achieve recovery by end Quarter 4 with no additional cost Sustainable core capacity but high proportion of overall Trust backlog Significant shortfall in capacity to meet demand and require investment to prevent them from further deteriorating as well as to reduce backlog Diagnostic 6 week wait Service Incomplete > 18 wks Sept 15 Recurrent Shortfall In Capacity Sustainable RTT 92% Recovery Cost Recovery Cost Recurrent Cost Trust Total 3907 Mar-16 2,252,401 2,137, ,356 Ophthalmology 480 No Feb-16 Feb-16 15, Dermatology 289 Yes Jun-16 May-16 Rheumatology 115 Yes May-16 Apr-16 General Surgery 140 No Feb-16 Feb-16 Paediatric Urology 52 Yes Feb-16 Jan-16 Gastroenterology 89 No Nov-15 Achieving Recovery Cost Orthopaedics 499 No Not achieved Jun , ,229 0 Urology 195 No Aug-16 May-16 92,412 30,222 0 ENT Incl Paediatric 636 Yes Aug-16 Jul , ,207 0 Oral Surgery & Maxillo- 206 Yes May-16 Apr , , ,000 Facial Cardiology 118 Yes Mar-16 Mar-16 46, , ,000 Paed Orthopaedics 111 Yes Not achieved Nov-16 91, , ,236 Paediatric Surgery 107 Yes Apr-16 Mar-16 48,803 65,000 65,000 Vascular Surgery 89 Yes No recovery* No recovery* 70, Pain Management 78 Yes May-16 Mar-16 64, HPB Surgery 47 Yes May-16 Apr-16 78,000 Gynaecology 103 No Mar-16 Achieving 6, MRI 301 Yes Jan-16 Jan , , ,120 Neurophysiology 250 No Feb-16 Feb-16 33, * Costing includes the transfer of activity required to recover but alternative provider not yet identified.
23 Why are we failing? Action planning Trajectory Setting Financial Consequences Stakeholder Agreement Monitoring the plan
24 Stakeholder Agreement Key stakeholders include: Clinical Teams Trust Board Commissioners Regulators (Monitor / TDA / Care Quality Commission) Engage stakeholders during the development of the plan, do not just present a fait accompli Prepare an RTT Improvement Plan document that can be shared with all stakeholders for agreement. Ours included the following section headings: - Executive Summary Background Data Quality Current Position Mitigating Patient Harm Approach to Recovery Planning Summary of Specialty Action Plans Financial Implications Contractual Consequences Risks Monitoring and Governance
25 Why are we failing? Action planning Trajectory Setting Financial Consequences Stakeholder Agreement Monitoring the plan
26 Monitoring and Governance Arrangements Weekly PTL Meeting Patient level discussion of longest waiters, Chaired by Head of Operational Performance Frequency: weekly Attendees : Head of Operational Performance, Divisional Operations Managers Operational Taskforce overarching group, Chaired by Chief Operating Officer Frequency: weekly Attendees : COO, Dir. of Operations, Associate Directors of Operations, Head of Operational Performance Divisional / Executive Performance Meetings: Frequency: monthly Attendees : Executive Board Members, Senior Divisional Management teams RTT Recovery meetings: Frequency: bi-weekly Attendees : Lead CCG, COO, Dir. Of Commissioning, Head of Operational Performance, Divisional Teams as required Finance and Performance (Board sub-committee) Frequency: monthly Attendees - Non- Executive Chair, Executive Board Members Monitor Improvement Board Frequency: monthly Attendees: Executive and Non- Executive Board Members, Monitor, NHS England, Commissioners, CQC,
27 03/01/ /01/ /01/ /01/ /01/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /03/ /03/ /03/ /03/ /04/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /11/ /11/ /11/ /11/ /11/ /12/ /12/ /12/ /12/ /01/ /01/ /01/ /01/ /01/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /03/ /03/ /03/ /03/ /04/2016 Total Still Wiaiting Net changes to number of patients over 18 weeks KPIs Using data from the Weekly UNIFY returns RTT Backlog & Still Waiting Volumes - Weekly performance 89.2% (Backlog target <2807, 981 over tolerance to achieve 92%) Trends in Over 18 week waiters , ,000 40,000 38,000 36,000 34,000 32,000 30, Total incomplete Total backlog Adm Backlog movement Non Adm Backlog Movement Total Net change to Backlog (>18 weeks) Total Backlog -100 Week 2000 Breach DOH Group Tolerance for 92% Variance in last week X-Other Trauma & Orthopaedics ENT Ophthalmology Dermatology Rheumatology Urology Gastroenterology Cardiology General Surgery Oral Surgery Gynaecology Plastic Surgery Neurosurgery Neurology Thoracic Medicine General Medicine Geriatric Medicine Grand Total "Other" Top Specialties Pain Management Maxillo-facial Surgery Paediatric Orthopaedics Vascular Surgery HPB Surgery Over 40 Weeks 52 week + Over 40 wk
28 Action Plan Monitoring Quantitative Monitoring Waiting List sizes against trajectory using the IST Models Actual weekly activity compared to plan Actual demand compared to plan Actual removals compared to plan Action Plan Progress Update Narrative action plan to provide assurance and explanation on progress with individual actions. Summary of Specialty Plans Each Individual Specialty Plan Risk and Issues Log Quality Impact Assessment
29 Further Information: Contact details: NHS IMAS Elective Intensive Support Team models & Elective Care User Guide can be found at:
Reducing Elective Waits: Delivering 18 week pathways for patients Programme Director NHS Elect Caroline Dove What I will cover 1. Why 18 Weeks is different 2. Where are we now 3. New models of delivery
18 Weeks Referral to Treatment (RTT) Standard Recovery Planning and Assurance Framework Vicky Scott Head of Delivery & Development (North West London) NHS Trust Development Authority Lyndsay Pendegrass
RTT Assurance Paper 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to provide assurance to Trust Board in relation to the robust management of waiting lists and timely delivery of elective patient care within
NHS Electronic Referrals Service Paper Switch Off an update Digital Health Webinar 4 May 2018 Aims of Session Introductions and refresh of Paper Switch Off Sharon Wilson Implementation manager NHS Digital
Paper 12 Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board Monday 9 October 2017 Planned Care Performance Report Author: Fraser Doris, Performance Information Analyst Sponsoring Director: Liz Moore, Director for Acute Services
- Governing Body DATE OF MEETING: TITLE OF REPORT: Performance Report for period ending 31st December 2012 KEY MESSAGES: We are responsible for securing improvements in the quality of care and health outcomes.
Strategic Improved Quality of Care Transformation - Prevention & Wellbeing Thematic Goals Waiting Times Report 2016-17 Transformation through Integration Improved Access to Services Improved Value This
Information for patients 18-Weeks Maximum Waiting Time from Referral to Treatment (RTT): What does this mean for you? Your rights under the NHS Constitution You have the right to access NHS services within
Due to a change in national hospital data flows (SUS) and also a delay in processing September 2016 Practice-level finance data, the latest information on hospital activity and spend is still up to August
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust @seamlesssurgery Seamless Surgery Team Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust July 2017 PROUD TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE PROUD TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Board of Directors Meeting Date: 30 July 2008 Agenda item: 10.2, Part 1 Title: Prepared by: Presented by: Action required: Elaine Hobson, Director of Operations Elaine Hobson, Director of Operations The
Newham Borough Summary report April 2013 Prepared on 17/04/13 by Commissioning Support team Apr-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Oct-11 Dec-11 Feb-12 Apr-12 Jun-12 Aug-12 Oct-12 Dec-12 Feb-13 GREE N Finance and Activity
EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 2014 SUBJECT: REPORT FROM: PURPOSE: KEY NATIONAL PERFORMANCE TARGETS INTERIM DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS Discussion
Sutton CCG Clinical Commissioning Group Governing Body Date Thursday, 06 September 2018 Document Title Lead Director (Name and Role) Clinical Sponsor (Name and Role) Performance and Quality Report Sean
OP Action Plan 2017 Acute Hospital Outpatient Services Outpatient Services Performance Improvement Programme 5 th May 2017 1. Introduction This action plan sets out the approach to outpatient waiting list
NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde BOARD OFFICIAL NHS Board Meeting Head of Performance 19 December 2017 Paper No: 17/64 NHS GREATER GLASGOW AND CLYDE S INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE REPORT Recommendation Board members
NHS Board Meeting Tuesday 21 April 2015 Chief Officer (Acute Services) Board Paper No.15/17 WAITING TIMES AND ACCESS TARGETS Recommendation: The NHS Board is asked to note progress against the national
To: Trust Board From: Chief Operating Officer Date: March 2017 Healthcare standard Title: Urgent Care Short Term Actions to Improve Performance Author/Responsible Director: Michael Woods / Andrew Prydderch
Standardising Acute and Specialised Care Theme 3 Governance and Approach to Hospital Based Services Strategy Overview 28 th July 2017 Background Theme 3 builds upon previous key strategic commissioning
Mid Essex, Southend and Basildon Hospitals Joint Working Board 05/04/2017, 2pm Integrated Performance Report February 2017 Mid Essex, Southend and Basildon Hospitals Introduction by CEO February 2017 The
TRUST BOARD Date of Meeting: Agenda Item No: 6.2 Enclosure: 4 17/1/02012 Intended Outcome: For noting For information For decision Title of Report: Update on Clinical Strategy Aims: To brief Trust Board
SOUTHAMPTON UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST Trust Key Performance Indicators May 20 Report to: Trust Board July 20 Report from: Sponsoring Executive: Aim of Report/Principle Topic: Review History to date:
SUPPORTING PLANNING 2013/14 FOR CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUPs December 2012 SUPPORTING PLANNING 2013/14 FOR CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUPS First published: 21 December 2012 2 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION...
Newham Borough Summary report March 2013 Prepared on 18/03/13 by Commissioning Support team Finance and Activity Millions Apr-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Oct-11 Dec-11 Newham Headlines March 2013 Feb-12 Apr-12 Jun-12
AGENDA ITEM 4.2 27 th January 2016 Health Board Report INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD Executive Lead: Director of Planning and Performance Author: Assistant Director of Performance and Information Contact
AGENDA ITEM 4.1 Health Board Report INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD Executive Lead: Director of Planning and Performance Author: Assistant Director of Performance and Information Contact Details for further
Statement of Purpose June 2016 Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust The statement of purpose is made in compliance with Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009: Regulation 12 and Schedule
NHS Board Meeting Tuesday 17 February 2015 Chief Officer (Acute Services) Board Paper No.15/08 WAITING TIMES AND ACCESS TARGETS Recommendation: The NHS Board is asked to note progress against the national
Mid Essex, Southend and Basildon Hospitals Joint Working Board - 5 th July 17 Integrated Performance Report May 2017 Mid Essex, Southend and Basildon Hospitals Joint Working Board - 5 th July 17 Contents
12 March 2015 Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru Auditor General for Wales Managing Elective Waiting Times A checklist for NHS health boards Introduction 1 The Auditor General published his report on NHS Waiting
NHS BOLTON CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP Public Board Meeting AGENDA ITEM NO: 10 Date of Meeting:.24 th March 2017. TITLE OF REPORT: CCG Corporate Performance Report AUTHOR: Melissa Laskey Director of Service
Directorate of Strategy & Planning REFERRAL TO TREATMENT ACCESS POLICY Reference: DCP175 Version: 7.0 This version issued: 17/12/15 Result of last review: Major changes Date approved by owner (if applicable):
Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group Governing Body Meeting In-Common Date: Tuesday 7 th November Time: 13.30 Location: Cleve Rugby Club, The Hayfields, Mangotsfield,
Never Event incidence Yes: 01 May 2013-30 Apr 2014 Incidence of Clostridium difficile (C.difficile) Incidence of Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Dr Foster Intelligence: Mortality rates
BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAPER COVER SHEET Meeting Date: 1 st December 2010 Agenda Item: 9 Paper No: E Title: Management of Pressure Ulcers Purpose: For Information Summary: This paper provides a report on the
Paper 12 Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board Monday 26 March 2018 Financial Management Report for the 11 months to 28 February 2018 Author: Bob Brown, Assistant Director of Finance Governance and Shared Services
MERTON CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP GOVERNING BODY Date of Meeting: 23 rd March 2017 Agenda No: 9.3 Attachment: 15 Title of Document: CCG Governing Body Assurance Report & Scorecards: Month 9 Quality &
1. Trust Profile STATEMENT OF PURPOSE August 2015 Provided to the Care Quality Commission to comply with The Health & Social Care Act (2008) 1.1 Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust was formed on 1
NHS Performance Statistics Published: 8 th March 218 Geography: England Official Statistics This monthly release aims to provide users with an overview of NHS performance statistics in key areas. Official
NHS performance statistics Published: 14 th December 217 Geography: England Official Statistics This monthly release aims to provide users with an overview of NHS performance statistics in key areas. Official
Item 9.4 To: Trust Board From: Mark Brassington Date: 18 th May 2018 Healthcare Standard Title: Trauma and Orthopaedic GIRFT Author: Richard James, General Manager Responsible Director/s: Mark Brassington
AGENDA ITEM 4.4 2 nd March 2016 Health Board Report INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD Executive Lead: Director of Planning and Performance Author: Assistant Director of Performance and Information Contact
Access, Booking and Choice Policy and Operational Procedures Date Approved Ratifying Body Related Documents Author Owner (Executive Director) Directorate Superseded Documents Subject Access Improvement
STATISTICAL PRESS NOTICE MONTHLY CRITICAL CARE BEDS AND CANCELLED URGENT OPERATIONS DATA, ENGLAND March 2018 Main Findings March 2018: Critical Care Beds There were 4,064 adult critical care beds available
UCLH 2016/17 Annual Plan Narrative Establishing the strategic context annual plan 2016/17 UCLH remain committed to the overall clinical and operational strategy that we set out in our strategic plan submission
Publication Report Inpatient, Day case and Outpatient Stage of Treatment Waiting Times Monthly and quarterly data to 31 December 2016 Publication date 28 February 2017 A National Statistics Publication
EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DATE: 29 JANUARY 2015 SUBJECT: REPORT FROM: PURPOSE: CQC ACTION PLAN CHAIR OF IMPROVEMENT PLAN DELIVERY BOARD Discussion
NHS performance statistics Published: 8 th February 218 Geography: England Official Statistics This monthly release aims to provide users with an overview of NHS performance statistics in key areas. Official
Highland NHS Board 4 June 2013 Item 5.4 NHS HIGHLAND REVISED LOCAL ACCESS POLICY Report by Margaret Brown, Head of Service Planning & Donna Smith, Divisional General Manager, Patient Services, Raigmore
Newham Borough Summary report Item K1 September 2013 Prepared on 30/09/2013 by Support team GREEN Finance and Activity Millions AMBER RED Headlines M5 Financial position M4 activity data The QIPP net savings
Publication Report Inpatient, Day case and Outpatient Stage of Treatment Waiting Times Monthly and quarterly data to 30 June 2016 Publication date 30 August 2016 A National Statistics Publication for Scotland
NHS DORSET CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP GOVERNING BODY MEETING FINANCIAL POSITION AS AT 30TH NOVEMBER 2013 Date of the meeting 15/01/2014 Author Sponsoring GB member Purpose of report Recommendation Resource
RCCG/GB/14/123 Nottingham University Hospitals Emergency Department Quality Issues Related to Performance Introduction NUH have failed to meet the 95% 4 hour wait standard for a number of consecutive months.
Job Planning Driving Improvement Ensuring success for consultants, the service and for improved patient care Dr Jeremy Cashman Associate Medical Director Delivering successful job planning The 2003 contract
Enclosure I DELIVERING THE LONDON QUALITY STANDARDS AND 7 DAY SERVICES Trust Board Meeting Item: 13 Date: 25 th May 2016 Purpose of the Report: Enclosure: I To update the Board on the Trust s current performance
Redesign of Front Door Transforming Acute and Urgent Care Strategic Background and Context Our Change and Improvement Programme What have we achieved and how? What did we learn? Ian Aitken, General Manager
Trust Policy Title: Access Policy Author: Kelvin Grabham, Associate Director of Performance & Information Document Lead: Kelvin Grabham, Associate Director of Performance & Information Accepted by: RTT
Aligning the Publication of Performance Data: Outcome of Consultation NHS England INFORMATION READER BOX Directorate Medical Commissioning Operations Patients and Information Nursing Trans. & Corp. Ops.
The New Clinical Research Landscape Incentives, Opportunities and Support Offered by the NIHR 1 September 2011 Dr Jonathan Gower Assistant Director CCRN The National Institute of Health Research - A real
Complaints Report Quarter 1, 2014/2015 (1 st April 30 th June 2014) Authors: Tanya Tofts, Patient Support and Complaints Manager Chris Swonnell, Head of Quality (Patient Experience and Clinical Effectiveness)
SPECIAL DELIVERY UNIT/ NATIONAL TREATMENT PURCHASE FUND Issue No.1 08/12 Performance Improvement Bulletin Featured Work underway - Maximum Waiting Time Targets 2 Case Study No. 1 Galway & Roscommon University
Referral to Treatment (RTT) Validation and Assurance Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Classification: Standard Operating Procedure Lead Author: Toni Coyle, Senior Manager, Access, Booking & Choice Additional
PATIENT CARE SERVICES REPORT Submitted to the Joint Conference Committee, December 2013 Terry Dentoni, RN, MSN, CNL, Interim Chief Nursing Officer 1. November 2013-2320 RN VACANCY RATE: Overall 2320 RN
COVENTRY AND RUGBY CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP Report To: Governing Body 11 September 2013 Report From: Title of Report: Purpose of the Report: Jacqueline Barnes, Executive Nurse The Nursing and Quality
Meeting of Lanarkshire Lanarkshire NHS Board NHS Board: Kirklands 25 March 2015 Fallside Road Bothwell G71 8BB Telephone: 01698 855500 www.nhslanarkshire.org.uk 1. PURPOSE This paper is coming to the Board:
Complaints Report Quarter 4, 2013/2014 (1 st January - 31 st March 2014) Authors: Tanya Tofts, Patient Support and Complaints Manager Chris Swonnell, Head of Quality (Patient Experience and Clinical Effectiveness)
Policy for Patient Access DOCUMENT CONTROL Revision Date Old Version 10/12/2014 1.0 01/07/2016 1.1 30/04/17 1.2 Amendment General Management Review General Management Review General Management Review Authored
Publication Report Inpatient, Day case and Outpatient Stage of Treatment Waiting Times Monthly and quarterly data to 30 June 2017 Publication date 29 August 2017 A National Statistics Publication for Scotland
Post holder responsible for Procedural Document Author of Policy Division /Department responsible for Procedural Document Operations Director Principal Access Analyst Operations Support Unit Contact details:
Sutton Homes of Care Vanguard Programme An Innovative End of Life Care model for care homes Kings Fund Conference 6 th December 2016 Corinne Campion, Clinical Nurse Specialist, Supportive Care Home Team
St. George s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Annual Plan 2016/17 1 Excellence in specialist and community healthcare Contents Page 1.0 Executive Summary 3 2.0 The strategic context and the emerging
Children's Hospital Group Scoliosis Co-Design 10 Point Action Plan 018/019 July 018 Introduction Summary of 10 Point Plan In May 017 the Children's Hospital Group established a Paediatric Scoliosis Services
Ambulatory Care Model Hong Kong May 2013 Andrew Stripp Deputy Chief Executive & Chief Operating Officer Outline What is the Alfred Centre? How does it fit into Alfred Health service model Key aspects of
Iain Patterson Associate Workforce Director Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Who we are? Who we are? North East London Sector 3,800 staff spread across Hackney and beyond c. 3,000 acute
Integrated Performance Report JULY 2017 Executive Summary July 2017 4 hour performance We have made a commitment to sustain a >90 for the delivery of the 4 hour transit time target. This has been challenging