Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Birmingham Children's Hospital Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Birmingham Children's Hospital Report

148
views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
148
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Agenda Item 6.2 Trust Board 25 June 2009 Report of Professor Hugo Mascie-Taylor Paper prepared by Fiona Campbell: DMM & Jill Asbury: DNM (Acting) Subject/Title WCHND: Birmingham Hospital Children’s Report Review Background papers N/A Purpose of Paper To provide an overview of the Hospital Review March 2009 Action/Decision required To note any areas of concern that may have parallels/warning signs for LTHT that require action. Link to:  NHS strategies and policy National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children (2004) Maternity Matters: Choice Access and Continuity of Care in a Safe Service (April 2007) Commissioning Framework for Health and Well Being (March 2007) Link to:  Trust’s Strategic Direction  Corporate objectives Clinical Governance Framework Resource impact Work force Consideration of legal issues N/A Acronyms and abbreviations 1
  • 2. Agenda Item 6.2 The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust 25 June Board Meeting Summary of the Intervention at Birmingham Children’s NHS Trust March 2009 1.0 Introduction This paper aims to précis the HCC review which published its findings and recommendations following an investigation into a number of serious concerns that had featured in a report published in the national press and to note any areas of concern that may have parallels and / or warning signs for practices at LTHT. This pertains both to current practice and for consideration when planning the centralisation of services to avoid the experiences that gave rise to the HCC intervention. 2.0 Background Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (BCH) is a specialist children’s hospital providing a wide range of general and specialist health services to children and adolescents within the West Midlands and nationally. The services include liver transplants and specialist paediatric liver diseases, renal transplants, neurosurgery, craniofacial surgery, cardiac surgery, neonatal surgery and small bowel transplants. LTHT has all of the above except small bowel transplants. BCH works with the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UBH) to provide certain specialised services, including interventional radiology, liver transplants, renal transplants, neurosurgery and craniofacial surgery. In order to provide specialised services, BCH required consultants from UBH to undertake surgical work at the children’s hospital. Service level agreements were in place to support this arrangement. 3.0 Concerns The initial enquiries focussed on the concerns expressed by the clinicians at UBH about the tertiary care services. The HCC considered: 3.1 Concerns about poor clinical governance arrangements, including lack of incident reporting and learning. 3.2 Allegations about a lack of capacity affecting treatment for patients, due to insufficient planning of services that included bed capacity, access to theatres and lack of interventional radiology. 3.3 Claims of a lack of clinical leadership at medical & nursing levels. 3.4 Concerns about a lack of action taken by key senior professionals in raising and addressing concerns. 3.5 Allegations about a lack of appropriately trained staff particularly in relation to theatres, arrangements for out of hours cover and the level of support for surgical services by consultants and junior doctors. 3.6 Concerns about a lack of commonly agreed protocols, policies, procedures, pathways of admission and criteria for selecting patients for services between BCH and UBH. 3.7 Allegations about a lack of adequate equipment at BCH, including equipment for carrying out procedures particularly interventional radiology. Φροµ Χοµµισσιονερσ, χονχερνσ ωερε ραισεδ αβουτ: 3.8 The effectiveness of cross-organisational governance and partnership working between BCH and UHB. 3.9 The responsiveness of all relevant organisations and commissioners, once they became aware of the issues. 2
  • 3. Agenda Item 6.2 4.0 Findings 4.11Capacity to Deliver Paediatric Services Increasing demand for surgical services, and continuing challenges, balancing expanding secondary care services and the demands of tertiary services. 4.12 Access to Beds Concerns raised about difficulties in admitting patients needing emergency & urgent care due to the unavailability of beds. 4.13 Access to Theatres Access to Theatres was a particular problem for urgent but not life threatening cases. 4.14 Access to Interventional Radiology Lack of access to interventional radiology leading to delays in treatment and / or transfer out to other hospitals, and to ‘open’ procedures being undertaken where interventional radiology may have been more appropriate. Increasing demand for interventional radiology. 4.15 Theatre Staff Difficulties in theatre staff maintaining competence when small numbers of operations take place per year, a particular problem in neurosurgery and other highly specialised clinical specialities. 4.16 Equipment Poor availability of equipment for specialised cases both in theatres and interventional radiology. Reports of Consultants from UBH bringing equipment with them. 4.17 Staff Rotas and Arrangements for Out of Hours Cover A lack of confidence from some speciality consultants in the introduction of the Hospital at Night programme. 4.18 Leadership Poor clinical leadership at ward level (particularly in relation to Neurosurgery), led to poor communication between medical and nursing staff, strained relationships and poor morale. 4.19 Governance Consultants on honorary contracts unclear about the governance structures they were to follow, leading to concerns being raised verbally and informally rather than using a clear incident reporting process. 4.2 Partnership Working No culture of sharing information between BCH & UBH, miscommunication about the location of Paediatric services distracting from the actual concerns of the UBH consultants. No shared actions following the concerns expressed about the tertiary services. The involvement of the UBH consultants had to be about more than contributing technical services. 5.0 Conclusions There was no evidence of any serious incidents causing harm to patients, although there was evidence of less than optimal care being provided to some patients at BCH. There were many serious concerns expressed by some of UHB’s and BCH’s consultants who were responsible for providing paediatric tertiary services at BCH. The concerns related in large part to difficulties in access to beds and theatres, theatre staff not having the required skills to assist in certain specialist procedures, and the arrangements that were in place between BCH and UHB. 3
  • 4. Agenda Item 6.2 However, the concerns had not always been formally raised through BCH’s established systems, nor had they always been effectively managed in a timely fashion. BCH had struggled to ensure that it had sufficient capacity to meet the increased demand for its services, due to a steady rise in referrals from general hospitals, and this had resulted in delays, less than optimum standards of care, and in patients needing to be redirected to other providers. The Trust had not, in the past, responded to this increased demand with sufficient urgency, nor were there effective systems to monitor what happened to those patients who were unable to receive services from the Trust due to lack of capacity. 6.0 Summary of Recommendations from HCC Report – LTHT Position in Italics under Each. Recommendation 1 BCH, with relevant commissioners, needs to ensure that it actively monitors the demand and capacity for children’s services, including information about those patients it has not been able to admit. LTHT is underway with this work in most areas but needs to strengthen data collected to capturing 100% of refused admissions and reasons why. The DMM & DNM will work with the Paediatric In-patient placement team, the PICU teams and the Neonatal Units to ensure that we effectively capture this information to assist the future planning of services. Recommendation 2 BCH needs to review its strategies and policies to improve its management of admissions and beds, and ensure that staff throughout the Trust keep to these. It also needs to work with its consultants to ensure that patients needing urgent care are admitted in a timely manner. The model used in LTHT is via the Paediatric In-Patient Placement Team which delivers patient flows successfully the majority of the time. There is still work required to address concerns that have been raised about access to Neonatal Surgical Beds. The he introduction of the Neonatal Nurse further work to manage discharge is ongoing. The Divisional Management team will keep this under review. Recommendation 3 BCH and commissioners of paediatric tertiary services must continue to work actively to manage the demand and provision of paediatric services at the Trust. LTHT does this with help of clinicians and the local specialist commissioning (SOAPS) group and the Specialist Commissioning Group (SCG). Future plans are discussed and evidenced within Schedule 2 of the LTHT Business planning processes. LTHT is currently planning services for the next 5 years using projected birth rate information (see appendix 1). Recommendation 4 BCH needs to review the way it organises capacity and prioritises cases within theatres, to ensure that patients requiring urgent and emergency surgery gain access to theatres in a timely manner. This is the area that whilst significant amounts of work have been undertaken, there are still concerns about inadequate provision raised by clinicians. Children’s centralisation (CSR) provides an opportunity to review the current model and increase the provision of acute theatre capacity for Children’s services. The Divisions are working closely together and with clinicians to resolve this. Recommendation 5 BCH needs to urgently agree a clear plan to ensure that it has the capacity and systems in place to provide sufficient and timely access to elective and emergency/out-of-hours interventional radiology. 4
  • 5. Agenda Item 6.2 This is an area that works sufficiently now but requires further planning to ensure that this remains the case post centralisation of Children’s services. This is currently being addressed in the Radiology Primary Planning Group which was established to support the planning of the various centralisation plans on all radiology service, with particular reference to the Liver Transplant Programme. Interventional Radiology and the involvement of anaesthetic staff needs clear plans to ensure a robust service post centralisation. The work is ongoing and may require investment and will be subject to scrutiny as part of the challenge processes with the CSR programme. Recommendation 6 BCH must ensure that it provides, for urgent renal transplants and Neurosurgery, an appropriate and sustainable level of support is available within theatres at all times. This needs to be informed by discussions with the surgeons involved about the standards of support required from theatre staff. For LTHT Paediatric patients this has not been flagged as a problem within the current service. The CSR primary planning group for this area is in the process of detailing the work to ensure capacity remains sufficient for existing LGI specialities and is taking into account increasing birth rates when planning the transfer of services from SJH. Recommendation 7 There should be clarity between BCH, UHB and UHB consultants regarding what the UHB consultants will provide in terms of the specialist paediatric service, and what standard of support and equipment these consultants need in order to enable them to provide that service. There have been no serious concerns raised within current services. For CSR, this is being addressed within the Primary Planning Groups to ensure that the correct equipment is available and in sufficient quantities to ensure safe delivery of planned and acute services post centralisation. Of relevance to this point are the ongoing discussions about the placement of the robot currently in use at SJH and its place post centralisation. When there are equipment delays currently these are escalated through the formal reporting systems and feedback through the governance / audit meetings. Recommendation 8 BCH needs to review urgently the arrangements for Hospital at Night with senior clinical staff, to ensure that any outstanding concerns have been properly addressed. Hospital at Night is being looked at currently to see if it is feasible in some of the clinical areas with no clear plan developed as yet .Medical, and nursing and HR representatives are on the feasibility group which are expected to make recommendations about this in the future. Recommendation 9 BCH must agree, together with relevant consultants and its commissioners, a clear plan setting out actions being taken to ensure that craniofacial patients will be treated at the appropriate age and that any delays will be minimised. There have been concerns in previous years about access to PICU beds for Craniofacial patients, however the PICU team have actively worked with the teams involved in craniofacial work and this has not been identified as a problem in recent years. It is recognised that, when planning centralisation theatre capacity is a crucial element in preventing a return to previous problems with this and other patient cohorts. Clinicians are working with the planning teams and theatre managers to plan and map theatre requirements within the centralisation plan, and will be monitored through the Divisional Challenge process. 5
  • 6. Agenda Item 6.2 Recommendation 10 BCH must develop better, formal, communication with UHB consultants undertaking work at the Trust, to ensure that any concerns are identified and addressed in a timely manner, and that the views of these consultants are formally incorporated into BCH’s arrangements for governance. As a single Trust the emphasis needs to be on all clinicians using the formal mechanisms that are known to all when reporting concerns / incidents, and not to resort to informal discussions with their colleagues in Paediatrics. All staff have a responsibility to use and refer concerned staff to the formally recognised systems, this needs emphasising to all clinicians. This also applies to the outreach clinics in which LTHT staff work or have staff working in LTHT but employed by NHS Leeds for instance in Community Paediatrics. LTHT have been clear that the Governance responsibility lies with the organisation that holds the patient details on their PAS systems, and that the clinicians must familiarise them selves with local reporting structures. Recommendation 11 Job plans that take account of the time spent by UHB consultants at BCH need to be developed by UHB. BCH needs to clarify and agree with UHB the level of input it requires from UHB staff, including time to enable more involvement of consultants in the clinical governance and management structures at BCH. Once the job plans are developed, BCH should be involved in the appraisals and professional development of these consultants. LTHT job planning is about to be re-launched with a focus on transparency, efficiency and productivity. When centralising services the Paediatric planning team need to be mindful of the BCH experience and be clear about the contribution of visiting (adult / paediatric mix) consultants to ensure their role contains more than the delivery of technical skills. The DMM’s and CD’s will need to provide this clarity in the relevant job plans. Recommendation 12 BCH and UHB, with the support of the commissioners, must agree on and implement a model of care delivering high-quality paediatric services, in line with the requirements of Monitor, the independent regulator of foundation Trust’s. Monitor must ensure that both Trust’s play their part in implementing this new model of care. This does not apply currently to LTHT as we do not hold FT status, however in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services the aim should be to deliver our Paediatric Service to Monitors standards. 6.0 Summary of Relevance to LTHT Services The senior management team are requested to note the findings of the HCC Summary of the Intervention at Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Senior Management Team are asked to recognise that whilst LTHT has a similar range of services , the distinct advantage that LTHT has over BCH is that all the services are provided by the one organisation. However, the experiences at BCH are a lesson for LTHT to consider and use as a gauge when planning the centralisation of services at the LGI site. Within existing and future services there are similar issues services where small numbers of highly specialist clinical services are delivered. All the teams involved are planning to ensure competence amongst teams is maintained, this is being addressed through the Primary Planning Groups and will be monitored through the Divisional Challenge process. 6
  • 7. Agenda Item 6.2 7 APPENDIX 1

×