outcome of foundation trust public consultation...foundation trust consultation response...
TRANSCRIPT
Outcome of Foundation Trust Public Consultation
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 2 of 34
Background
1. Name of applicant Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
2. Area served by the Trust East Surrey
North West Sussex
South Croydon
3. Contact details of person responsible for
the public consultation
Gillian Francis-Musanu
Director of Corporate Affairs
Surrey & Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
Canada Avenue
Redhill
RH1 5RH
Tel: 01737 768511 Ext 2862
e-mail: [email protected]
About the public consultation
4. Dates of public consultation Started
21 November 2013
Finished
28 February 2014
5. Which media were used for the public consultation document?
Engagement planning
Public events
To advertise events we placed newspaper adverts, arranged for posters to be displayed locally and
within the hospital on our notice boards and 24 digital information screens, advertised on our website
and alerted our 5000 twitter followers, sent out press releases and offered regular interviews to print
and broadcast. We walked around and gave out flyers to people visiting the hospital, sent posters to
GP surgeries, placed articles in CCG and council newsletters, e-bulletins, intranet sites and websites.
Many local groups, particularly the local business groups also placed articles and adverts in their
newsletters and on their websites. We emailed and wrote to as many local organisations, voluntary
sector, other health groups, and business partners that we could find and on the day we encouraged
passers-by to join the FT discussion.
The events were arranged to offer maximum flexibility for people, with some held in the morning,
some in the afternoon and many in the evening.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 3 of 34
Stakeholders
The consultation booklet was sent to all GP surgeries and other stakeholders identified in the
consultation plan, plus we have taken a very proactive approach to engaging with others – WI,
nursing homes, sports/football clubs, libraries, local shops, schools – requesting they cover FT in
citizenship lessons etc.
In our mail-outs, we asked partner organisations ‘when’ we could attend their meeting and present.
Uptake of this request was slow although Surrey County Council and Reigate and Banstead Council
were very supportive. Reigate and Banstead, Mole Valley and Tandridge councils were also very
supportive by publishing our consultation materials on their websites and staff intranets, helping us
with venues for our events and offering us free editorial in their magazines.
In our mail-outs we asked local groups if they would like us to come and present, and to GPs, we
asked for all GPs and practice managers to send us their feedback and to display our materials in their
waiting rooms.
Staff
Staff engagement activities took place throughout the consultation period with the aim of a member
of the Executive Team to visit every staff team meeting, as well as holding specific FT events and
having information stalls around the hospital, so that every member of staff has had the opportunity
to raise questions or concerns. We have utilised our All Staff, Senior Leaders, All Consultants and
Trade Union Stewards, JNCC Committee meetings to take the opportunity to give the latest FT
updates. At the February All Staff meeting we invited a member of staff from Kingston Hospital who
was previously at the Royal Surrey County Hospital, to talk to our staff about how it feels as a member
of staff going through the FT process, and beyond.
Managerial materials including a toolkit for managers and FAQs for staff were available on request
and via the staff intranet. Regular ‘All staff’ (html) emails keep staff updated and notify them of FT
engagement opportunities. We created a staff guide to becoming an FT leaflet and a schedule of
activities was listed in the Consultation Plan. In their February payslips, every member of staff
received a copy of the leaflet and a membership form so they can sign up a friend or patient.
Our monthly internal staff newsletter carried FT stories throughout the consultation period, and it
was one of the main campaigns running on our intranet.
Full consultation document in hard copy Yes
Summary consultation document in hard copy Yes for staff
Web-based consultation document Yes
Talking Book / audio tape / CD Rom Available on request
Large print versions Available on request
Versions in ethnic languages (specify which) Available on request
Other
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 4 of 34
5.1 Presentation at public meetings (specify where meetings were held and the number attending)
Date Meeting type Venue Attendance
6 November 2013 Hot topic – care of the
elderly and FT
ESH 12
25 November 2013 Public meeting Dorking Halls
Dorking
11
29 November 2013 Public meeting Oxted community
Centre
18
3 December 2013 Public meeting Meridian Hall
East Grinstead
0
9 December 2013 Public meeting ESH 15
13 December 2013 Public meeting Crawley Hospital 3
17 December 2013 Public meeting Reigate Community
Centre
5
2 January 2014 Public meeting Harlequin Theatre
Redhill
22
7 January 2014 Public meeting Drill Hall Horsham 23
10 January 2014 Public meeting Crawley Civic Centre 16
26 February 2014 Public meeting United Reformed
Church Purley
17
27 February 2014 Hot topic – care of the
elderly / dementia and FT
ESH 45
5.2 Presentation at other meetings (specify where meetings were held and the number attending)
Date Meeting Venue Attendance
11 September East Surrey League of
Friends AGM
ESH 75+
21 November West Sussex Health and
Wellbeing Board
County Hall
Chichester
22
28 November Board to Board with East
Surrey CCG
ESH 30
2 December Reigate and Banstead Local
Committee
Reigate Town Hall 20
2 December Patient Experience Forum ESH 14
12 December Surrey Health and
Wellbeing Board
County Hall
Kingston upon Thames
16 December Surrey Traveller Community
Forum Health and
Wellbeing Group
Burpham, Guildford 9
9 January Surrey CC Health Overview
& Scrutiny Committee
County Hall
Kingston upon Thames
16
13 January Horsham League of Friends Horsham Hospital 13
14 January East Surrey College Redhill 33
15 January Surrey Information Summit
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 5 of 34
20 January
West Sussex Health and
Wellbeing Board
County Hall
Chichester
22
20 January East Surrey Empowerment
Board
Tandridge 16
22 January West Sussex CC – Health
and Adult Social Care
Committee
County Hall
Chichester
17
24 January East Surrey Hospital
Volunteers
ESH 25
30 January West Sussex Health and
Wellbeing Board
County Hall
Horsham
20
February East Surrey CCG Patient
Reference Group
Nutfield 30
13 February Reigate and Banstead
Council – member briefing
Reigate Town Hall 25
13 February West Sussex HASC liaison
members (Peter Griffiths, Dr
David Skipp)
County Hall
Chichester
2
6 March Reigate and Banstead
Voluntary Services
Reigate Town Hall 33
Any meetings with MPs
5.3 Presentation at staff meetings (specify where meetings were held and the number attending)
Date Meeting Venue Attendance
15 November All staff meeting ESH 75 - 100
21 November Senior leaders ESH 50 - 75
13 December All staff meeting Crawley Hospital 25 - 50
13 January 2014 Junior doctors ESH 25 - 35
15 January Medicine senior managers /
Clinical Leads
PGEC ESH <25
16 January Medicine and Surgery
Matrons, Surgery Senior
Sisters
ESH <25
16 January All staff meeting ESH 75 - 100
17 January Staff road show at main
entrances
ESH 75 - 100
19 January Surgical Division senior
managers and clinical leads
ESH <25
23 January Anaesthetists ESH 25 - 50
23 January Theatre staff ESH 25 - 50
23 January Staff Road show ESH 50 - 75
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 6 of 34
23 January Senior leaders ESH 50 - 75
23 January Microbiology staff Crawley 25 - 50
23 January All Staff Crawley – Comet Ward <25
24 January Volunteers ESH 25 - 50
29 January All Staff Health & Wellbeing
event
ESH 600 - 700
31 January All Staff Horsham <25
3 February Medical Division ESH <25
20 March WACH Division ESH <25
7 February All consultants ESH 25 - 50
10 February All consultants ESH 25 - 50
12 February Unions - TUSC ESH <25
13 February Surgical Division ESH <25
14 February All Staff inc presentation
from staff member of
another FT
ESH 50 - 75
4 March Clinical Support Services
Division
ESH <25
24 February Lead Clinicians ESH <25
25 – 28th
February Senior Sisters ESH 6
Finance and procurement ESH 10
Porters ESH 25
Housekeeping ESH 25
12 March Transport and post room
staff
ESH <25
21 March PALS and complaints ESH 5
12 February Night shift staff ESH 15
5.4 Consultation information sent / e-mailed to
Local Authorities
West Sussex County Council (Chair, CEO, HASC, Director Adult Services, Director Children’s Services,
Health & Well Being Board)
Surrey County Council (Chair, CEO, HSC, Director Adult Services, Director Children’s Services, Health &
Well Being Board, Local Committee)
Mid Sussex District Council (Leader and CEO)
Horsham District Council (Leader and CEO)
Crawley Borough Council (Leader and CEO)
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (Leader and CEO)
Tandridge Borough Council (Leader and CEO)
Mole Valley Borough Council (Leader and CEO)
East Grinstead Borough Council (Leader and CEO)
Ash Parish Council
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 7 of 34
Capel Parish Council
Charlwood Parish Council
Godstone Parish Council
Tandridge Parish Council
Wotton Parish Council
Abinger Parish Council
Buckland Parish Council
Chaldon Village Council
East Horsley Parish Council
Limpsfield Parish Council
Salford and Sidlow Parish Council
Tatsfield Parish Council
Brockham Parish Council
Betchworth Parish Council
Leigh Parish Council
Ockley Parish Council
Headley Parish Council
Holmwood Parish Council
Mickelham Parish Council
Health Overview & Scrutiny Committees
West Sussex County Council HASC
Surrey County Council Surrey HSC
HealthWatch
Health Watch Surrey
Health Watch Sussex
MPs
Crispin Blunt
Sam Gyimah
Henry Smith
Chris Grayling
Fancis Maude
Nicholas Soames
CCGs
Surrey Downs CCG
East Surrey CCG
Crawley CCG
Horsham and Mid Sussex CCG
Croydon CCG
CCG Patient Reference Groups (via host CCGs)
Surrey Downs CCG Patient Reference Group
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 8 of 34
East Surrey CCG Patient Reference Group
Crawley CCG Patient Reference Group
Mid Sussex CCG Patient Reference Group
NHS organisations
Ashford St Peters NHS Foundation Trust
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
East Sussex NHS Trust
Frimley Park NHS Foundation Trust
Queen Victoria NHS Foundation Trust
Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust
Surrey & Borders NHS Trust
South East Coast Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust
Sussex Partnership Trust
Local Training and Education Board
Kent Surrey Sussex Deanery
Brighton and Sussex University Medical School
Other healthcare providers
Sussex Community Trust
First Community Health and Care
Central Surrey Healthcare
GPs
All GP surgeries in the proposed public constituencies (full lists in Appendix 1)
Libraries
Materials for display throughout libraries in Surrey and Sussex
Hospital League of Friends
East Surrey Hospital League of Friends
Crawley League of Friends
Horsham League of Friends
Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Patients Council
Voluntary organisations
Carers Support
Crawley Community Relations Forum
Crawley Council for Voluntary Services
Oxted Council for Voluntary Services
Horsham Area Council for Voluntary Services
Reigate and Banstead Council for Voluntary Services
Surrey Compact
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 9 of 34
Surrey Empowerment Board
Tandridge Council for Voluntary Services
Tandridge Health and Social Care Forum
Action for Life – the East Surrey Walking for Health Scheme
Horsham Voluntary Action
Mid Sussex Council for Voluntary Services
Family Line
St Peter’s House Project, Redhill
Voluntary action in Elmbridge
Crawley community and Voluntary Services
Carers support (East Surrey)
Community Groups
Men’s Health Forum
Surrey Youth Support Service
Gender Identify Research and Education Society
National Childcare Trust
Schools and Colleges
Royal Alexandra and Albert School, Reigate
East Surrey College, Redhill
Reigate School, Reigate
Reigate 6th
Form College, Reigate
Dunnotar School, Reigate
Oakwood School, Horley
Oriel High School, Crawley
St Bedes Secondary School, Redhill
Reigate Grammer School
Woodfield School, Surrey
Thomas Bennet Community College, Crawley
St Wilfred’s Catholic School, Crawley
Hazelwick School, Crawley
Ifield Community College, Crawley
Holy Trinity C of E Secondary School
Residential Care Homes
Coppice Lea Care Home, Merstham
Chaldon Rise Nursing Home, Merstham
The Reigate Beaumont
The Elms Nursing Home, Redhill
Wray Common Nursing Home, Reigate
Kings Lodge Centre for Complex Needs, Nutfield, Redhill
Acorn Court Care Home, Redhill,
Nuffield Care Centre, Redhill
The Barn House, Merstham
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 10 of 34
Rutland Care Home, Reigate
Wykeham House, Horley
Chaldon Rise Nursing Care Home, Merstham
Oakhurst Court Nursing Home, South Godstone
The Brambles Care Centre, Horley
Old Wall Cottage in Reigate, Betchworth
Rosewood, Horley
The Woodhatch Centre, Reigate
Other
Regent House Community Centre, Horley
Oxfam, Redhill
Oxfam, Reigate
Shopmobility, Redhill
British Heart Foundation, Redhill
British Heart Foundation, Crawley
Redhill Evening Townswomen Guild, Redhill
Marie Curie Cancer Care, Redhill
St Catherine’s Hospice Charity Shop, Redhill
Cancer Research UK, Reigate
Age Concern, Merstham, Redhill and Reigate
Age Concern, Banstead
Age UK, Horley
Age UK, Surrey
The Children’s Trust, Crawley
Donyngs Recreation Centre, Redhill
The Children’s Trust, Tadworth
Young Epilepsy
5.5 Other consultation activity
Hospital wards and departments
Our Membership Officer regularly visited wards and departments around East Surrey, Crawley and
Horsham hospitals. This face to face activity proved to be extremely effective at explaining the FT
proposals and recruiting members.
Posters and leaflets were displayed prominently throughout all facilities from which the Trust
provides services.
Media / Social media
We regularly engaged with our 5000 plus followers on Twitter about FT and had radio coverage from
Heart and Radio Redhill.
Letters to community groups
We met with other local groups as opportunities arise and in particular we have been keen to attend
meetings with groups of people that are often more difficult to reach, such as the Gypsy and Traveller
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 11 of 34
group. With our Chief Nurse a consultation and engagement Afternoon Tea event was held at East
Surrey hospital with some of our patients with learning disabilities.
Website / intranet
Both the website and intranet have dedicated FT pages targeted at patients and members of the
public as well as staff.
Posters and leaflets
Posters and leaflets are located in all main entrances and available on all digital display screens at East
Surrey Hospital and Crawley Hospital.
Communication with staff
In addition to the meetings with staff, [Corporate Governance Officer, and members of the
Communications and Corporate Affairs Team) were available to hand out information and receive
feedback:
• in the main entrance on 17 January between 7am and 9am to catch staff on their way in to
work
• in the main entrance on 22 January between 12 and 1pm
• In the restaurant between 12 and 1pm on 22 January
Display stands
These were set up in key locations in the hospitals:
• East Surrey hospital – main and east entrances; outside the restaurant, X-ray, OPD & ED
restaurant
• Crawley – main entrance
• Horsham – outpatients department
Pop up stall
We have been out and about with a pop-up stalls. The Trust Executive Team accompanied our
Membership Officer talking to shoppers in local shopping centres, and this engagement activity will
continue beyond the consultation period.
• Belfry, Redhill
• Whitgift Shopping Centre, Croydon,
• Mid Sussex shopping centre,
We also took the stall to engage with the students at East Surrey College and will continue to engage
with students at other nearby colleges as and when we are granted permission. We have written to all
local schools asking how best to engage their students in our membership.
6 Number and type of formal responses received
Type of response Number received
Hard copy using proforma provided 23
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 12 of 34
Hard copy – others eg letter 5
On website 5
By e-mail 1
By telephone 0
By fax 0
By text 0
Verbally at public meetings 71
Verbally at community forums etc 38
Other – specify Comments were received at staff meetings,
meetings with stakeholders including Trade
Union Stewards Committee; Traveller Forum,
local college, MPs, HWBBs etc
Reigate Borough Council Members meeting 9 comments / questions
An e-mail reminder was sent to all partner organisations in the middle of January requesting feedback
on the consultation proposals.
7 Was the pattern of responses to the public consultation in line with the demography and
geography of the area? Were there any areas or groups that were not adequately represented
in the responses received? Provide explanations where necessary. And details of Trust action
plan to target under-represented areas
Different approaches were used to engage with different sectors of society and ensure the
consultation engaged with a representative population.
Public engagement
Public meetings were held in each of the proposed public constituencies and all except the meeting in
East Grinstead (Mid Sussex constituency) attracted some attendance from local residents and other
interested people. Although the numbers attending were often relatively low, the level of
engagement and interest was high with the majority of people being very supportive of the Trust and
the aspiration to become a foundation trust. The majority of people attending these meetings were in
older age groups
The pop up stand in shopping centres provided excellent opportunities to meet with younger people
including mothers with children and people of working age.
The meetings at East Surrey College [any other colleges] were well attended by students who were
interested not only in the plans for FT status but also in the work of the Trust and potential future
employment opportunities. More than 30 students also signed up to being members of the Trust.
Meetings were held with several user and other interest groups including Travellers in Surrey and
Reigate voluntary services forum, Surrey Empowerment Forum & Disability group.
Patient and Carer engagement
Throughout the consultation period our Membership Officer regularly visited wards and departments
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 13 of 34
around East Surrey, Crawley and Horsham hospitals. This face to face activity proved to be extremely
effective at explaining the FT proposals and recruiting members.
Presentations were also given to the Trust’s Patient Experience Forum and each of the League of
Friends for East Surrey, Crawley and Horsham hospitals.
Membership information is included in all new appointment letters and is resulting in a number of
new members being recruited each week.
The Trust has entered into a contract for membership support services with Membership Engagement
Services who will provide regular analysis of the demographics of the membership and will also
undertake targeted membership recruitment in any underrepresented public or patient
constituencies. Staff living in underrepresented areas are being asked to identify opportunities for
engagement with local groups.
Staff engagement
A comprehensive programme of presentations and discussions at staff meetings included ward and
departmental meetings, staff group specific discussions (junior doctors, Clinical Leads, Matrons etc) as
well as the monthly All Staff meeting. It is estimated that approximately one third of all staff attended
one or more meetings and some also attended the public meetings with relatives.
A toolkit and communications pack was also provided for managers to support discussion within
teams and all members of staff received a summary leaflet with payslips in February.
Regular updates were also provided to the Trades Union Staff Consultative Committee.
Partner organisations
The Trust FT Project Board includes members from both County Councils and the four Surrey and
Sussex CCGs. Key elements of the FT application, including strategic intent; consultation plan and
consultation document, were discussed by the FT Project Board prior to the start of consultation.
Following the consultation the outcome of the consultation and the draft consultation response
report were considered by the FT Project Board which made consequent recommendations to the
Trust Board for changes to the proposed composition of the Council of Governors.
Engagement with the County Councils was positive throughout the consultation with presentations
given to members of the HOSC / HASC committees and the Health & Wellbeing Boards. The Reigate
and Banstead Council also accepted the offer of a presentation which was provided to members.
Perhaps reflective of the newness of their organisations and the breadth of issues they are managing,
access to and comment back from CCGs was minimal. [No CCGs were willing to receive a presentation
on the proposals, although a joint Board to Board was held with East Surrey CCG during the
consultation period, and only two submitted a formal response to the consultation].
A meeting with the Reigate and Banstead Voluntary services was well attended.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 14 of 34
About the consultation responses / comments received
8 Responses received from major stakeholders (individuals and organisations) and their general
view – including local MPs, local authorities, local NHS organisations, professional and staff
representative bodies, local commercial organisations, national and local voluntary
organisations
Name Broadly in
favour /
neutral
opposed
Main issue raised
Surrey County Council Not stated Keen to work in partnership with the Trust and to
have representation on the Council of Governors
Surrey Health Scrutiny
Committee
In favour Notes improvements in performance by the Trust in
recent years
Recommend emphasising quality of Trust leadership
and encouraging participation of younger people
(14+) for mutual benefit of public services
Family Line (charity)
Not stated Keen to work in partnership with the Trust and would
like to be a member
West Sussex County
Council Health and Adult
Social Care Select
Committee
In favour We have no objections to your proposals as set out in
the consultation document and support your
application to become an FT.
We welcome the fact that your proposed governance
arrangements will give West Sussex County Council a
seat on your Council of Governors through an
appointed governor. This is particularly important,
given the interface and increasing integration
between health and social care. We also welcome
your vision and values.
Crawley CCG
In favour (with
financial
caveats)
Recognise demonstrable improvements in service
delivery and overall performance.
Concerns relate to:
• impact of wider economic environment and
Better Care Fund
• little growth in CCG allocations
• SaSH proposals for increasing range of services
provided at ESH
Horsham and Mid Sussex
CCG
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 15 of 34
Payment by Results not seen as sustainable
and placing financial risk with CCGs
Brighton and Sussex
Medical School
In favour No comments provided other than support for all of
the consultation questions
Reigate Borough Council
(Members meeting)
In favour Based on population size should Reigate have 3
Governors
Is the Trust as passionate about having good
managers as it is about good clinicians?
Will having a membership help the community to be
involved and aware?
Has been a step change , good improvements
demonstrated by number of good consultants
How can the Estates Strategy be improved?
Need to look at how to do more fundraising
Asked about relationships with CCGs and how
commissioning decisions are made.
HealthWatch Surrey
In favour Healthwatch Surrey responded in support of the
application to become an NHS Foundation Trust and
the appointment of a Health Watch representative to
the Council of Governors to represent Surrey and
Sussex
Trade Union Staff
Consultative Committee
(TUSC)
In favour Requested assurance that if it became authorised as
an FT that the Trust would not go ahead without
meaningful consultation with staff and the TUSC of
any plans they may have to change any terms and
conditions (i.e. to Agenda for change).
Asked whether the Trust had received any indication
from any members of staff who were objecting to the
“Auto-enrol” for staff.
Sussex Health & Wellbeing
Board
In favour Responded that responses to the consultation should
really come from the constituent members of the
Board (i.e. the CCGs, NHS England, Healthwatch etc.) –
and that it isn’t really the HWB’s role, as a
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 16 of 34
commissioning body, to respond to such
consultations. The response noted that this shouldn’t
be interpreted as lack of interest in SaSH - but rather
that it’s not within the Board’s remit.
9 Apart from those listed in Q8 above, how many other responses were received in total?
28 formal
109 informal – i.e at meetings – excluding feedback from meetings with staff
9a. Was there a HOSC review process?
Surrey Health Scrutiny Committee
Alan McCarthy, Chairman, and Michael Wilson, CEO, attended the January meeting of the Health
Scrutiny Committee at Surrey County Council and presented the plans for the Trust’s FT application.
Writing to the Trust after the meeting the Chairman of the Health Scrutiny Committee made the
following comments:
The Committee would like to offer its support for the (FT) application based on these plans and the
discussion had with the Chairman and Chief Executive at the meeting.
The Committee would also like to note the improvements made by SASH in recent years which have
allowed it to make quick progress to the application for FT status. As a result of the discussion on 9
January, the Committee recommended that:
a) The Trust should emphasise the quality of its leadership when publicising their FT application;
and
b) Encourage the participation of the younger cohort (14yrs+) for the mutual benefit of public
services.
Additionally, the Committee offers its support while continuing to note the financial situation at SASH,
which though much improved was in technical breach of the statutory breakeven duty of the NHS Act
2006 in 2013.
The Committee hopes to continue its positive working relationship with SASH in the future and will
continue to monitor its progress.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 17 of 34
West Sussex Health and Adult Social Care Select Committee (HASC)
The consultation documentation was sent to HASC along with a request to meet with members to
present the proposals. Although it wasn’t possible for the whole committee to meet with the Trust
two of its members did meet with the Trust CEO to discuss the proposals.
The Chairman of the Committee subsequently wrote to the Trust with the following response to the
consultation:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the consultation document on Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS
Trust’s proposal to become an NHS foundation trust. I am sorry that it was not possible to arrange for
you to attend a meeting of the West Sussex Health and Adult Social Care Select Committee (HASC) to
present your proposal, but we did forward the consultation document to all members of the HASC for
comment. I was pleased to hear that HASC liaison members Peter Griffiths and Dr David Skipp had the
opportunity to discuss this with you on 13 February. Their comments are included in this response.
HASC is aware that Foundation Trusts (FT) have more financial and operational freedom, but remain
within the NHS, and that all NHS acute, mental health, ambulance and community service trusts are
expected to become Foundation Trusts. As such, HASC understands that Surrey and Sussex Healthcare
NHS Trust has no option but to apply for FT status. We have no objections to your proposals as set out
in the consultation document and support your application to become an FT.
We welcome the fact that your proposed governance arrangements will give West Sussex County
Council a seat on your Council of Governors through an appointed governor. This is particularly
important, given the interface and increasing integration between health and social care. We also
welcome your vision and values and hope to be updated on your plans for the future, either through
our liaison members or through briefings for the Committee (as appropriate).
10 Excluding those recorded at Q8 above how many responses were:
Broadly in favour Broadly neutral Broadly opposed
25
2
1
In addition to these formal responses, feedback was received from people attending the public
meetings, meetings with special interest groups, conversations with the public in shopping centres
and staff meetings with the vast majority being in favour.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 18 of 34
Responses received to the specific questions raised
Only one formal response was received from a member of staff. However the tenor of all staff
meetings, which were attended by approx. one third of all staff, and meetings with the Trade Union
Staff Consultative Committee, was that staff were in favour of the proposals.
Q1 Do you agree with the Trust’s objectives and plans for the future?
Staff Public
Yes 1 24
No 2
Not stated 1
Total 1 27
Q2 Do you agree with the proposed geographical areas for our membership?
Staff Public
Yes 1 (but not for Croydon) 20
No 6
Not stated 1
Total 1 27
Q3 Do you think they are representative of the communities we serve?
Staff Public
Yes 1 20
No 6
Not stated 1
Total 1 27
Q4 Do you agree that people aged 14 should be able to become a member?
Staff Public
Yes 1 16
No 10
Not stated 1
Total 1 27
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 19 of 34
Q5 Do you agree with our proposals for the Council of Governors?
Staff Public
Yes 24
No 1 (think there should be an
additional nurse / midwife)
1
Not stated 1
Total 1 27
Q6 Do you agree with the proposed new name: Surrey & Sussex NHS Foundation Trust?
Staff Public
Yes 1 21
No 5
Not stated 1
Total 1 27
Trust response
11 Does the Trust have any comments about the general tone of the responses received? For
example were those opposing the proposals expressing fundamental objections or picking up
minor (possibly technical) issues?
Many of the responses received, and questions posed at meetings, related to issues broader than the
Trust’s FT application, including
• Concerns about the removal of services from Crawley hospital
• How SaSH services relate to services provided at Crawley and Horsham hospitals and why
more services aren’t provided at these locations
• Wanting to see additional primary care / community base services e.g. new GP surgeries in
Crawley and Oxted, audiology (hearing aids) in Surrey, services to support frail older people
• How services are funded e.g. if activity increases through Choice how will the Trust be funded
to ensure quality doesn’t deteriorate
• Concerns about transport system and difficulty for non-drivers to access services
Many respondents, and especially at the public meetings, raised understandable concerns about
maintaining quality as an FT citing the failures at Mid Staffordshire and Morecambe Bay.
Responses relating to the FT proposals included
• Wanting to more / understand better the differences between NHS trusts and NHSFTs; role of
members and governors
• Seeking assurance that the patient voice will be heard and that the emphasis on public
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 20 of 34
governors doesn’t dilute this
• Seeking assurance that the quality of services will be maintained
• Questions about the minimum age for membership, membership constituencies, Council of
Governors and name of the Trust
For the two CCGs that responded, the challenges facing the health economy were prominent in their
joint response:
• Financial – managing demand with limited income; transfer of funding from the NHS to the
Better Care Fund
• Integrated Care – delivering integrated care pathways in the community and patient’s homes
rather than in an acute hospital
Within this context the CCGs recognised the demonstrable improvements in service delivery and
supported the aim of providing excellent DGH services for the catchment population. The response
acknowledged that it is in the interests of all parties for SaSH to achieve FT status with the CCG
wanting to play an active part in ensuring this success.
Responses from local councils noted the step change in quality and performance at the Trust in recent
years. Surrey Health Scrutiny Committee positively encouraged the participation of younger people
for the mutual benefit of public services.
Staff meetings were overwhelmingly in support of the FT proposals which were also supported by the
Trust Trade Union Staff Consultative Committee. There were no objections from staff to the proposal
to auto-enrol eligible staff as members.
Only one response was firmly against the proposal to become an FT. A member of the public felt that
the Trust was not yet ready to become an FT and gave two reasons for this – firstly their experience of
being a member of other FTs and secondly their experience as a patient at ESH.
12 What were the main topics that attracted critical response and what was the trust’s response?
Issue (include in brackets the name of the main
person(s) / bodies raising it)
Trust’s response
Trust objectives and plans for the future
Several people asked to see the IBP or to have
more information about services currently
provided and those planned for the future
(patient, public)
The consultation document, by its nature,
provided summarised information. The
presentation given at meetings [and in
information on the trust website] provided more
detail of range of services currently provided and
the areas for future development.
A short version of the IBP will be published later
in the FT application process - once the Trust
makes its final submission to the Trust
Development Authority for their approval to
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 21 of 34
apply to Monitor for consideration for FT status
In both formal responses and at meetings people
questioned whether to the aspirations of the
Trust can be sustained. In particular they were
concerned that the quality of services has
deteriorated at other trusts after they have
become foundation trusts.
One respondent expressed concerns about the
quality of care they had experienced both as an
inpatient at ESH and also when accompanying a
mental health patient to A&E. These concerns
were given as reasons for not supporting the
Trust’s plans for FT as they didn’t think the Trust
is yet ready.
(patient, public)
All NHS trusts, including Surrey & Sussex
Healthcare NHS Trust are very mindful of the
appalling levels of care exposed in some NHS
hospitals. The provision of high quality of services
is a key objective of SaSH along with
implementing our plans to continue to improve
the experience of patients.
The Care Quality Commission has recently
introduced a rating for all trusts in which the
Trust was placed in Group 6 which is the group
considered least at risk of poor quality of care.
Also, nationally the Care Quality Commission has
introduced a risk rating and inspection by the
Chief Inspector of Hospitals. Without a good or /
excellent] rating from this the Trust will not be
able to apply to Monitor for FT status.
The two GGCs that responded were concerned
about the Trust’s plans for the future which they
considered to be ambitious plans for growth that
are at odds with wider NHS policy / planning
guidance and especially the Better Care Fund
(CCGs)
The Trust is working with all its CCGs to ensure all
our plans and priorities align with each other and
deliver the maximum benefit for the local
community.
The plans to develop the ESH site to provide a
broader range of specialist and tertiary services in
partnership with others have two main aims:
• Firstly to provide services more locally for
patients so that they do not have to travel
out of the area for treatment
• To support CCG plans to repatriate activity
from London teaching hospitals
At a meeting with local councillors the Trust was
asked about the Estates Strategy for ESH
(LA Councillor)
The Trust has an estates strategy and works in
conjunction with the LA both for planning
applications and in developing, for example, its
travel plans.
Membership
Several responses questioned the rationale for
including part of South Croydon in the public
membership constituencies:
• Catchment too large and Croydon should
be excluded
The number of people who live in South Croydon
and choose to receive panned treatment at ESH is
increasing year on year.
The public constituencies comprise those
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 22 of 34
• The catchment population is too large
given the poor quality of public transport
• Croydon is part of Greater London and
there is no benefit in including it
Don’t want Mayday Hospital to be included
(patient, public, staff)
electoral wards from which around 10% or more
of the resident population has received
treatment at the Trust.
The consultation isn’t about Mayday (Croydon
University) Hospital which is a separate NHS trust.
Around a third of responses disagreed with the
proposal for children 14 years and older to be
eligible to be members. The reasons included:
• 14 seen as possibly too young
• Members need to have a broad and
balanced view of the issues involved -
sceptical of the input from people of this
age group other than specifically for
children’s’ services
• Minimum age should be the same as the
legal voting age
• Minimum age should be the same as for
consent to treatment
• 18 considered more appropriate
(patient, public)
Two thirds of respondents supported the
proposed lower age limit of 14 years.
In deciding to retain this age limit the Trust is
keen to engage with younger people many of
who either have been, or may be patients or who
are carers for a relative who is a patient. Their
experiences and insights in to the way services
are provided will therefore be especially valuable
in developing patient and carer awareness and
focus for service developments.
Several responses suggested 9000 members is
low given 3500-7000 are potentially staff and
their partners and so will have a better informed,
or perhaps biased, view of services
(patient, public)
The target public membership at authorisation as
a FT is planned to be c5500 based on 1% of the
population in each catchment area becoming a
member. As noted above, the catchment area is
all those electoral wards from which around 10%
or more of the resident population has received
treatment at the Trust.
A further 546 patient members are also planned
to be recruited. This target was determined on
the basis of it being 10% of the total public
members which is a little above the current 7% of
patients who live outside the Trust’s catchment
area.
These membership targets are the minimum
membership numbers that the Trust hopes to
achieve. Membership recruitment will be on-
going and so over time these numbers will be
expected to increase until such time as the
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 23 of 34
number of new members balances the number of
members who leave.
The public and patient Governors elected to the
Council of Governors will have an important role
to play in representing the views of their
constituencies not just their own personal views.
Suggestion that patients and carers living in a
public constituency should be able to choose
whether to be a patient or public member and
hence to be able to stand for election as a
Governor in either category
(patient, public)
This was considered by the Trust but was
considered administratively complicated in
comparison to the proposed approach.
This will be kept under review by the Council of
Governors with review informed by appropriate
analysis of the membership.
Request for information regarding whether any
members of staff had indicated their objection to
auto-enrolment of staff.
(TUSC)
No concerns or objections have been raised by
staff during the consultation process.
Council of Governors
The composition of the Council of Governors
attracted a broad range of comments regarding
appointed Governors:
• There should be additional representation
from ‘special interest’ / user groups e.g.
third sector, long term mentally ill,
disabled, elderly, carers
• It will be difficult to have just one
umbrella organisation for voluntary sector
covering two counties and similarly for
Healthwatch
• Reigate and Banstead should have an
additional governor
• Not having an appointed Governor for
Croydon could make the Croydon public
governor feel quite isolated
(public, patient, staff, voluntary sector, LA
Councillor)
To be effective the Council of Governors has to
be of a manageable size and the proposed
representation for partner organisations provides
a broad spectrum of interest and relevance to the
work of the Trust.
The number of governors for each of the public
constituencies is proportional to the resident
population for the constituency. This mirrors the
statutory requirement for the membership to be
representative of the population served.
In considering the overall size of the Council of
Governors the Trust has decided to reduce the
number of CCG Governors and so not all public
Governors will have a CCG counterpart. The Trust
will provide development support for elected
governors and a key role for the Chair of the
Council of Governors is to ensure that all
Governors have equal opportunity to participate
in discussion and to influence the decisions of the
Council.
There were also several comments and
suggestions regarding elected Governors:
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 24 of 34
• A 5th
staff Governor to represent patient
interests was suggested, as was
• An additional nurse / midwife governor
• Elected Governors need to be
representative of the socio-economic,
ethnic, religious and age profile of the
patient population (which itself will be
different from the population as a whole)
• Concern that if patient membership is
restricted to only those patients / carers
living outside the public constituencies
then having 4 Patient Governors for a
potentially small membership
constituency would seem to be too many
(patient, public, staff)
The constitution of the FT has clear guidelines
and procedures for managing conflicts of interest.
Several responses related to the overall size of
the Council of Governors:
• Will it be too large to be an effective
decision making body?
• The number of appointed governors may
be too high and also some may have
conflicts of interest
(patient, public, voluntary sector forum )
One respondent suggested that Governors should
not be employed by / or be beneficiaries of
private healthcare providers
(patient, public)
The constitution of the FT has clear guidelines
and procedures for managing conflicts of interest.
However, a blanket exclusion of anyone
employed by or a beneficial of private healthcare
providers would not be beneficial as a key benefit
of the Council of Governors is to consider new
and different ways of providing services to better
meet the needs of the local population.
Elections should be every 5 years
(patient, public)
The requirement of the DH Model Election Rules
is for elections to be held every three years
Name of Trust
20% of respondents disagreed with the proposed
name of the Trust:
• The name doesn’t describe what the Trust
does just where it is
The majority of respondents supported the
proposed name.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 25 of 34
• The name isn’t geographically correct as
doesn’t cover all of Surrey and Sussex
• The name should include the word
hospital
• The name implies the intention to take
over other NHS Trusts in Surrey & Sussex
• The name should better describe the
services provided
Several alternative suggestions were offered:
• ESNEWS – East Surrey and North East
West Sussex
• REACH – Royal Earlswood and Community
Health
• East Surrey
• East Surrey and Mid Sussex
(patient, public)
Other
Several respondents asked about the cost of the
FT application process and being an FT:
• of the reorganisation (FT application) and
the time it will take;
• of recruiting and maintaining a
membership
• CRB checks for governors
(patient, public, voluntary sector forum)
There some additional costs associated with the
FT application and of being a FT.
Wherever possible additional activity, and hence
cost, is being managed through existing teams
and budgets. Where additional resource is
required this is / will be procured in accordance
with Standing Financial Instructions to ensure
value for money.
Several respondents said they would have liked
to have had more information on the non-FT
options – merger, acquisition, franchising
– and why they were discounted
(member of the public who works for a CCG)
Achieving FT status the NHS policy preferred
approach. The Trust Development Authority only
considers other options where FT status is not
considered achievable.
Request for assurance that if the Trust becomes
authorised as an FT that it would not go ahead
without meaningful consultation with staff and
the TUSC of any plans they may have to change
any terms and conditions (i.e. to Agenda for
change).
(TUSC)
The Trust does not have any plans to make
changes to staff terms and conditions. If this
changes in the future then the normal
consultation processes would be followed.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 26 of 34
13 What were the main topics that attracted support locally? (indicate in brackets the main sources
of support e.g. patients, staff, general public)
Topic Comments received
Trust objectives and plans for the future
Stakeholder responses noted the improvement in
quality of the Trust’s leadership and the services
provided.
(County Council)
Membership
Almost two thirds of those who responded
agreed with children aged 14 yrs and above being
eligible to be members:
• Definitely need insights from teenagers’
who are often uncluttered with adult style
expectations
• They are the adults of the future
• They should have a say in children’s’
services
(patient, public)
Participation of younger people (14yrs +) will be
for the mutual benefit of public services
(County Council)
Council of Governors
The majority of those responding agreed with the
proposals for the Council of Governors and did
not provide any further comment
Name of Trust
The majority of those responding agreed with the
proposed name of the Trust and did not provide
any further comment
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 27 of 34
14. Specifically, what was the general tenor of the responses with regard to:
Membership At public meetings there was general interest in becoming a
member with the majority of those attending also completing a
membership application form.
One respondent specifically raised a concern about the balance
between the number of members who are either staff or related
to staff and everyone else and felt this might introduce bias
No objections were received from staff regarding the auto-
enrolment / opt out approach being proposed.
Council of Governors The proposals were generally supported.
Comments related to the size of the Council, and the number and
type of Governors
Several comments asked about the level of help and support that
will be provided to people wishing to stand for election as a
governor.
Board of Directors No comments were received
Elections Although not a specific consultation question one respondent
suggested that Governor elections should be held every 5 years
Constituencies Seven respondents thought the overall catchment area was too
large. Of these four respondents specifically questioned the
rationale for including a public constituency for the five Croydon
electoral wards.
Respondents were against the proposal for two reasons:
• The larger the geographic area covered the more people
to be treated which would impact negatively on those
living in areas closer to the Trust
• Transport links are not good enough to enable people to
travel from south Croydon to the Trust
Boundaries The only comments received related to the proposal for a public
constituency for Croydon (described above)
Constitution No comments were received
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 28 of 34
Age limits Approx 2/3 of respondents were in favour of children aged 14yrs+
being able to be members with 1/3 against
There were no comments on the proposed minimum age for
Governors
Youth representation Those in favour of membership from 14years described benefits
in terms of the general perspective that younger people would
bring as well as the ability to comment on children’s services
Staff representation Staff were in favour of the proposals to become a Foundation
Trust and were also in favour of the representation of staff on the
Council of Governors.
The Trade Union Staff Consultative Committee was in favour of
the FT proposals
Vision The public and key stakeholders, other than the two CCGs that
responded, liked the proposals to develop the ESH site to provide
a wider range of specialist and tertiary services.
The two CCGs that responded were concerned that the proposals
were expansionist and would put the CCGs at risk financially.
Transitional arrangements Not part of the consultation
HR Strategy Not part of the consultation
Communications Comments emphasised the need for effective communication
Any novel suggestions received
as a result of the consultation?
One respondent suggested that Governors should not be
employed by / or be beneficiaries of private healthcare providers
Name of Trust The majority of respondents were in favour of the proposed name
for the Trust.
A few respondents felt that the name could be improved and
made suggestions for how this could be achieved e.g.:
• Including the word hospital in the name
• Having a name that describes what the Trust does rather
than where it is
• Being more accurate geographically
Other issues - specify No other material issues were raised
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 29 of 34
15. Is there anything else about the public consultation exercise and outcome that the Trust
would like the Secretary of State or regulator know?
The overwhelming majority of the formal responses and comments received at public staff and other
meetings were supportive of the Trust’s aspiration to become a FT, its strategic plans and most of the
proposed governance arrangements.
However, the consultation process did raise two pertinent concerns about the proposed governance
arrangements, especially
• That 28 Governors was too large for the Council of Governors to be effective
• That the proposed number of patient governors was too high given the number of patient
members
Following consideration by both the FT Project Board (which has Council, CCG and patient
representation) and the Trust Board the following changes will be made to the composition of the
Council of Governors:
• To reduce the overall number of governors to 23 (from 28), and to achieve this by
o Reducing the number of patient governors to 1 (from 4)
o Reducing the number of CCG governors to 2 (from 4) with each CCG governor
representing two CCGs – i.e. one for Crawley CCG and Horsham & Mid Sussex CCG; and
one for East Surrey CCG and Surrey Downs CCG
These changes address both issues identified in the consultation whilst also ensuring the Council
remains legally constituted with a majority of patient / public governors. By reducing the number of
CCG governors it was also felt that the time commitment for CCG nominated governors would be
reduced without losing valuable CCG input to the Council.
16. Contact details for the person who will
be available to answer detailed question
on the public consultation and provide
copies of any responses required for
scrutiny?
Gillian Francis- Musanu
Director of Corporate Affairs
Surrey & Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
Canada Drive
Redhill
RH1 5RH
Tel: 01737 768511 Ext 2862
e-mail: [email protected]
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 30 of 34
Staff engagement, involvement and wider cultural change
17. How have staff been given ample opportunity to play an active part in the dialogue and
deliberations around the NHS Foundation Trust application? Where have staff dialogue and
views influenced the broad HR strategy, which in turn supports the service development
plans and organisational goals of the Trust?
As an organisation we have used a number of ways of engaging staff in our vision and values, and on
ways to improve performance for the benefit of our patients.
At the heart of our Workforce Strategy is staff engagement which we see as more than just good
communication. We have therefore concentrated on developing leadership at all levels of the
organisation which has enabled the views of staff to be taken into account in our development and
performance improvement plans. Our new partnership agreement negotiated with union
representatives has further strengthened our work with staff representatives.
18. How did (and for the future, ‘how will’) the organisation ensure effective staff involvement
and participation in shaping cultural change and service development and delivery, and
embracing social partnership in its broadest sense?
Our strategy has been to ensure our workforce is representative of the communities we serve; we
have and will continue to recruit locally recognising the positive impact that employment has on
individuals. As a major employer in the area we are well placed to further engage with our
communities. We have and will continue to develop our links with local schools and colleges and
offer a wide range of work experience opportunities.
19. How has the organisation engaged with (and how will it continue to engage with) clinicians
in determining the future direction of service provision, and how have the outcomes of such
discussions been analysed from a cost / benefit perspective and integrated in to the service
development plans outlines in the business plan (IBP)?
SaSH prides itself on being clinically led and managerially enabled and is pro active in the engagement
and participation of clinicians in agreeing the vision and future direction of future service provision.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 31 of 34
This has been done at trust wide, divisional and specialty levels in the development of the Clinical
Strategy.
At a trust wide level the clinical strategic objectives were proposed and developed by the medical
director and chief nurse. These were then shared with the divisional chiefs and lead clinicians who
developed clinical priorities for their service developments which have been included in the clinical
strategy. Each of the individual developments at specialty level were then linked backed to the
clinical strategic objectives and the trust strategic objectives so that there was line of sight with how
local developments enabled the Trust to meet its overarching strategy.
As the strategy was being developed the updated versions were shared with all of the lead clinicians,
chief of services and chief nurses so that everyone could see the priorities of others and how
everything fitted together across a five year timescale. The priorities were then aligned to other core
strategies i.e. estates, workforce which in turn link to the long term financial model.
The clinical strategy will be reviewed on an annual basis as part of the annual business planning
process. This will ensure that there is on-going engagement with clinicians and that clinically led
service developments are reflected in the forward plans for the organisation.
20. How is the Trust developing / managing new (and existing) relationships with local health
organisations and other local networks, social care, good citizenship and social
responsibility, and playing a role in the wider community?
SaSH plays an active part in the local health economy working with CCGs, County and local
authorities. This is evidenced in the part played in the Local Transformation Board, Urgent Care Board,
Kent, Surrey & Sussex AHSN, along with a wide range of partnership and clinical and network events
and meetings in both Surrey and Sussex along with other Provider and Commissioning organisations.
The Trust will continue to engage and with our key stakeholders and with the wider community
through the voluntary and community networks.
21. What is the degree of ‘integration’ of first rate HR practice in all the main functions of the
organisation (operational, strategic and clinical) – with a view to demonstrating that good
HR practice and thinking is present in the wider organisation and not only in the specialist
HR function itself
The Trust recognises the importance of good people management skills in the delivery of excellent
healthcare care to our patients and the key role that line managers play in supporting, developing and
motivating their teams.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 32 of 34
A small team of professionally qualified corporate HR staff led by the Director of HR support the
Board develop a culture of staff engagement through our Workforce Strategy and ensure that the HR
policy framework to support managers and staff is effective. Our Partnership Agreement recognises
the importance we place on engaging with our trade union colleagues as we develop our
organisation.
At the heart of our strategy is the organisational development aspects of staff engagement which we
describe in our ‘staff engagement star’. This provides a vehicle for delivering actions within the five
themes of:-
• Every role counts
• Management and leadership
• Promoting a health and safe working environment
• Supporting personal development
• Involvement in decision making
Operationally managers are supported by professionally qualified Divisional HR Business Partners
who, as part of the management team provide leadership and professional expertise to support their
Divisions deliver excellent services to patients through good people management. The Business
Partners have developed ‘management guides’ and training which ensures that managers are
equipped with the technical skills to interpret and apply the Trusts people management policies and
procedures. More importantly they ensure that managers understand fully their key role in
motivating, developing and managing their staff. Development of people management skills is also
provided as part of our Essentials of Management training for new and aspiring managers in the Trust.
Transactional HR advice and support is provided to Managers by our HR Advisory Service through
Capsticks HR via telephone and attendance at formal employee relations ‘cases’.
22. How has the organisation demonstrated its commitment to unlocking the potential of all
staff and enabling all staff to progress their skills and careers through lifelong learning and
development?
The process of learning and development begins before an employee commences with us with
development into the role through induction and provision of job related training. Throughout their
employment learning and development needs are identified through our performance management
and appraisal process. We have developed new roles for assistant practitioners and physicians
assistants and will continue to work with staff and managers to develop our workforce to deliver our
service development plans.
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 33 of 34
Appendix 1: GP practices to which the Consultation document was sent
NW Sussex
Bewbush Medical Centre, Crawley
Bridge Medical Centre, Crawley
Coachmans Medical Practice, Crawley
Crawley Health Centre
Furnace Green Surgery Crawley
Gossops Green Medical Centre, Crawley
Ifield Medical Practice, Crawley
Langley Corner Surgery, Crawley
Leacroft Medical Practice, Crawley
Pound Hill Medical Group, Crawley
Saxonbrook Medical Centre, Crawley
Southgate Medical Group, Crawley
Woodlands and Clerklands, Crawley
Courtyard Surgery, Horsham
Holbrook Surgery, Horsham
Orchard Surgery, Horsham
Park Surgery, Horsham
Riverside Surgery, Horsham
Rudgwick Medical Centre, Rudgwick
The Village Surgery, Southwater
The Brow Medical Centre, Burgess Hill
The Surgery, Cowfold, Partridge Green
Crawley Down Health Centre
Cuckfield Medical Practice,
Dolphins Practice, Haywards Heath
Judges Close Surgery, East Grinstead
Lindfield Medical Centre
The Meadows Surgery, Burgess Hill
Mid Sussex Health Centre, Hurstpierpoint
Moatfield Surgery, East Grinstead
Newtons Practice, Haywards Heath
Northlands Wood Practice, Haywards Heath
Ouse Valley Practice, Handcross
Parkview Health Partnership, Burgess Hill
Ship Street Surgery, East Grinstead
Silverdale Practice, Burgess Hill
Foundation Trust Consultation Response Author: Interim Programme Manager, FT Application Version: Draft v 0.4. 17.04.14 Page 34 of 34
Surrey
Whyteleaf Surgery, Whyteleaf
Warlingham Green Surgery, Warlingham
Caterham Valley Medical Practice, Caterham
Pond Tail Surgery, Godstone
Oxted Health Centre
Wayside Surgery, Horley
Greystone House Medical Practice, Redhill
Elizabeth House Medical Practice, Warlingham
Chaldon Road Surgery, Caterham
Townhill Medical Practice, Caterham
Lingfield Surgery
Smallfield Surgery
Birchwood Medical Practice Health Centre, Horley
Moat House Surgery, Merstham
South Park Surgery, Reigate
Woodlands Road Surgery, Redhill
Wall House Surgery, Reigate
Rusper Road Surgery, Newdigate
Leith Hill Practice, Dorking
Hawthorns Surgery, Redhill
Holmhurst Medical Centre, Redhill
Brockham Surgery
North Holmwood Surgery Dorking
South Holmwood Surgery Dorking
Westcott Street Surgery, Dorking
Croydon (public constituency electoral wards)
The Moorings Medical Practice, Kenley
Mitchley Avenue Surgery, Sanderstead
Purley Medical Centre, Purley
Keston House Medical Centre, Purley
Woodcote Medical Centre, Purley
Bramley Avenue Surgery, Coulsdon
Downlands Surgery, Old Coulsdon
Chipstead Valley Road Surgery, Coulsdon
Old Coulsdon Medical Practice
The Coulsdon Medical Practice
Dr Irfan, Old Coulsdon