Eileen Walsh (Chief Assurance Officer, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) has been invited to present a report with an update on the John Radcliffe Hospital’s CQC Improvement Journey.
The Committee is invited to consider the report, raise any questions and AGREE any recommendations arising it may wish to make.
Minutes:
Eileen Walsh (Chief Assurance Officer, Oxford University Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust); Andrew Grant (Chief Medical Officer, Oxford University Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust); and Lisa Glynn (Director of Clinical Services, Oxford University Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust) had been invited to present a report with an update on
the John Radcliffe Hospital CQC Improvement Journey.
The Chief Assurance Officer informed the Committee that the
report provided an insight into how the organisation addressed the specific
areas of improvements listed in the CQC report and placed them in the context
of the wider strategic and operational developments that had been made.
The Committee enquired as to the level of staff and patient
involvement in the development of the Trust strategy. The Chief Medical Officer
informed the Committee that the strategy was developed with extensive staff and
patient engagement. Staff engagement continued beyond the point of publication
and adoption of the strategy in the form of regular staff listening events that
included members of the leadership team, and were an
opportunity to hear staff concerns.
Patient engagement had contributed to service development
work in the form of patient partners and experts by experience, and individual
work streams had involved patient recommendations where possible.
The Chief Assurance Officer added that the patient’s voice
was kept at the heart of the strategy, and that Listening Events were held
involving patients and stakeholders that had influenced the development of the
strategy, as co-creation was the key platform for developing future strategies.
The Chair queried what opportunities there were for the
strategic ambition of the Trust to integrate with the wider prevention agenda.
The Director of Clinical Services explained that one of the Trust’s key
priorities was the part that key acute providers could play in prevention. The
Trust was heavily involved with early detection of cancer through the Targeted
Lung Health Check Programme, that would be initiating in April 2024. The Trust
worked closely with the community and partners in relation to Wantage Community
hospital, and were looking to expand additional
services that would meet the needs of local populations and support the demand
seen in local hospitals for acute services. In order to
address the demand on urgent care services, the Trust had been involved with
the Integrated Neighbourhood Teams as well as the Primary Care Strategy. The
Trust had also been looking at admission and attendance avoidance, and the
development of same day emergency care services.
The BOB ICB Place Director for Oxfordshire explained that
the Trust was trying to strike a balance between treatment and prevention.
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (OUH) was involved in many
prevention projects, such as co-location of maternity services within ‘Flos in
the Park’, the Early Lives Project, and the Hospital at Home service to support
acutely sick people at home. The BOB ICB Place Director emphasised that the
greatest long-term impact on prevention was to focus on children and young
people, and the Community Paediatrics service was fundamental to this.
The Chief Medical Officer also highlighted the Oxfordshire
Rapid Intervention for Palliative and End of Life Care (RIPEL) service for
palliative care at home, and that the service had made a fundamental difference
to the patients it had served.
The Committee queried whether resources would be increased
for the Hospital at Home Service to ensure coverage in rural areas, and whether
RIPEL would include Primary Care Networks (PCNs). The Director of Clinical
Services informed the Committee that OUH were looking at what services were
having the most effect to reduce attendance to acute hospitals, including the
Hospital at Home service, which was a key programme to manage demand and to
support patients to be at home. RIPEL was a service that the Trust was
committed to and wanted to evolve further and would build into PCNs and
integrated neighbourhood teams. The challenge would lie in the reorganisation
of resources and the allocation of funding, and the Trust was assessing this
for next year to determine how resources could be used to the best effect.
The Committee enquired about how technology was being used
to improve patient safety. The Chief Medical Officer informed the Committee
that a lot had happened in the last five years to develop the Trust digitally.
The Trust invested in the electronic incident reporting service Ulysses that
provided a digital architecture for a greatly strengthened patient safety
response framework. Electronic patient records provided electronic observations
so that teams could view vital signs on patients remotely. Another important
change was the introduction of daily Patient Safety Response meetings where
senior leaders from across the organisation reviewed every incident from the
last 24 hours with moderate harm or above, which allowed close oversight of
patient safety in the organisation, and ensured the Trust was responsive to
incidents and had the right learning response. The new national framework for
responses (PSIRF) focused on changing the culture from one of blame to one of
learning and improvement, and offered a range of different incident learning
responses such as After-Action Review, Multi-Disciplinary Team Learning
Reponses and Patient Safety Incident Responses (PSIIs).The framework introduced
thematic responses, so that when incidents occurred, they fed into the broader
longer term improvement plan rather than being taken independently. The work
was supported by patient safety partners, service users who were part of the
safety response framework and contributed to reviews of cases, and some
committees that oversee these workstreams. Alongside this, there had been
significant safety retraining for all staff, from basic training for all staff
to more detailed levels for patient safety experts.
The Committee enquired as to who monitored the databases
created by the collection of data. The Chief Medical Officer explained that
there was a Governance team that overlooked the databases and provided monthly
reports with breakdowns of all incidents by harm level and type of incident.
For example, there had been an increase in incidents of violence and aggression
against staff over the last year that had been tracked, and which the Trust had
provided staff support for. The database allowed the Trust to track specific
incidents such as hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and this had been the focus
of integrated quality improvement work, the result of which there had been a
third reduction in these incidents. The data was important in helping the Trust
to understand what the incident risk profile was, and to target learning and
improvement responses accordingly.
The Committee queried whether the Trust had programmes for
staff wellbeing, such as self-harm diversions built into search engines. The
Chief Medical Officer informed the Committee that there were numerous internal
and external supports for staff clearly signposted on their intranet, and a
staff support service had been created, although he was not aware of wellbeing
programmes built into the Trust’s search engines. The Chief Assurance Officer
added that there was an employee assistance programme available 24/7 to provide
counselling to staff for both personal and professional issues.
The Chair queried whether significant learning was
communicated to patients and families affected, and whether they were involved
in the learning journey. The Chief Medical Officer informed the Committee that
communication with families was essential and would always occur after these
incidents under the Trust’s duty of candour. Patients were always invited to
share their questions after serious incidents, and outcome reports were shared
with them. The Trust had sought to triangulate the learning from complaints, so
if a complaint had been received it would be examined to see whether an
incident needed to be created to learn from it, and a weekly meeting aimed to
derive learning from this.
The Chief Assurance Officer highlighted that the Trust board
and non-executive members took a strong interest in patient safety, and the
Chief Executive implemented a direct feedback mechanism with clinical teams who
were involved with serious incidents to present their reflections to the
executive team. Several key committees had been introduced; including the Risk
Committee to discuss proactive risks and thematic risks; the Productivity
Committee to focus how to progress performance in the organisation; and the
Delivery Committee to ensure large programmes of work had been implemented. The
Trust had ensured that patients had been involved in the aftermath of incidents, and had been provided with both clear
explanations to understand what went wrong as well as a swift apology when the
Trust was at fault.
The Committee queried how the values of kindness and caring
were taught in the organisation and how this was evaluated. The Chief Medical
Officer responded that the organisation prioritised kindness, and kindness
interaction training was provided to all senior leaders. The success of this
was measured by examining metrics produced from staff surveys and by looking at
sickness and turnover rates.
The Committee asked if data could be provided to show how
improvements had been made. The Chief Assurance Officer informed the Committee
that the Trust could provide metrics that demonstrated the improvement
trajectory over the last few years. This data could be supplemented by staff
and patient surveys that provided anecdotal and human experiences. The Chief
Medical Officer added that the board adopted a nationally recommended approach
of presenting data, using Statistical Process Control (SPC) charts that helped
focused discussions and identified improvement areas.
The Committee enquired as to how strong the internal audit
function was and how the sharing of patient stories was imbedded in the
organisation. The Chief Medical Officer explained that not all incidents
generated patient stories that go to the board, but the patient experience team
supported stories that generated different learning to help the board gain
insight into the range of issues faced by the organisation.
The Chief Assurance Officer added that although patient
stories were not heard at every committee, stories were sometimes made into
videos that could be shown before conferences. The Trust had a very strong
internal audit function that developed a comprehensive audit plan every year,
which was formed with cooperation from all the executive directors and the
areas of examination were stress-tested. The audit committee, chaired by
non-executives, received this plan, and examined it with auditors to determine key
risk and concerns.
The Committee AGREED
to submit further questions to OUH around the specific service areas of
gynaecology, Surgery, Maternity, and urgent & emergency care, and to
request written responses to these questions subsequent to
the meeting.
The Committee AGREED to issue the following
recommendations to OUH:
Supporting documents: