1. Quality and Safety in South Tyneside NHS CCG Ann Fox Director of Nursing, Quality & Safety

2. Aim of the presentation To provide an overview of the response to the Francis Inquiry and what this means for South Tyneside NHS CCG community.

3. Findings from the first inquiry (published February 2010) Lack of basic care across a number of wards and departments Trust culture was not conducive to providing good care or a supportive environment for staff Too high a priority on targets Consultant body disassociated itself from management Acceptance of poor standards Management and Board thinking dominated by financial targets Absence of effective governance Lack or urgency to Board response to problems Statistics and reports preferred to patient experience Focus on systems and not outcomes Lack of internal and external transparency

4. Learning from 1 st Inquiry resulted in publication of:  Review of Early Warning Systems in the NHS  Assuring the Quality of Senior NHS Managers  The Healthy NHS Board  NQB – Managing Safety and Quality during in the transition

5. Scope of the Francis 2 inquiry To build on the evidence of the first inquiry and examine the operation of: Commissioning Supervisory and regulatory organisations : DoH, SHA, PCT’s, Monitor, CQC, HSE Other agencies Local scrutiny and public engagement bodies, Coroner To identify lessons to be learned for the future NHS and make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Health

6. Findings from 2 nd Inquiry A lack of openness to criticism A lack of consideration for patients Defensiveness Looking inwards and not outwards Secrecy Misplaced assumptions about the judgements and actions of others An acceptance of poor standards A failure to put the patient first in everything that is done

7. Key Recommendations Governance and trust boards Monitor and authorisation of Foundation Trusts New fundamental and enhanced standards of quality Duty of candour, complaints and clinical risk Enhancements to provision of information, inspection and monitoring Workforce issues Commissioning for quality Role for regulators

8. Expectations from Francis 2 How lessons learned might be applied to other parts of the health economy All healthcare organisations should consider the findings and recommendations and decide how to apply them to their own areas of work. Each organisation should announce its progress against planned actions ( no less than once a year). DoH should publish collective progress House of Commons select committee on Health should consider incorporating update on actions from those organisations responsible to parliament. The whole enquiry has been focussed relentlessly on the need to protect patients from unacceptable and unsafe care.

9. “The extent of the failure of the system shown in this report suggests that a fundamental culture change is needed. This does not require a root and branch reorganisation – the system has had many of those – but it requires changes which can largely be implemented within the system that has now been created by the new reforms. I hope that the recommendations in this report can contribute to that end and put patients where they are entitled to be – the first and foremost consideration of the system and everyone who works in it.” Sir Robert Francis QC (February 2013)

10. Initial Government Response to Mid Staffs Inquiry Statement of Common Purpose: Renew and reaffirm NHS Constitution Putting patients first- listening carefully and responding quickly to patients, especially the most vulnerable. Collaborating on behalf of patients – rooting out poor care and promoting excellent care. Outward facing – do the business of the patient, not the system or organisation.

11. Continued Reduced bureaucracy- freeing up time to care and to lead. Rewarding staff for their care as well as for skills. Single set of measures of success – focussing on what matters to patients. Duty of candour- challenge ourselves and each other on behalf of patients. Culture of humility, openness and honesty. Commitment to change – set out plans to make this a reality

12. Five Point Plan – Putting Patients First A. Preventing problems B. Detecting problems quickly C. Taking action promptly D. Ensuring robust accountability E. Ensuring staff are trained and motivated

13. Learning from Mid Staffs Inquiry Francis is an opportunity to reassess what we (commissioners) are doing and why! Quality and the Patient First Getting the basics right An open culture Contracts that work for patients and clinicians

14. Headline considerations for South Tyneside CCG Issues to consider: Performance and standards Information Professional regulation Values and accountability Openness and candour Leadership Care and compassion Organisational culture and staff engagement Learning from Keogh Review

15. Next Steps Key organisations across health and social care will take the action needed to make the document a reality for patients. Government will report on progress annually. Developing NHS ST CCG action plan by September 2013 ( aligned with findings from Keogh Reviews) Build on assurance from Providers

16. Themes from draft action plan…… REC NOTHEME Commissioning for standards 123Responsibility for monitoring delivery of standards and quality 124Duty to require and monitor delivery of fundamental standards 125Responsibility for requiring and monitoring delivery of Enhanced standards 126Preserving corporate memory 127Resources for scrutiny 128Expert support 129Ensuring assessment and enforcement of fundamental standards Through contracts 130Relative position of commissioner and provider 131Development of alternative sources of provision 132Monitoring tools 133Role of Commissioners in complaints 134Role of commissioners in provision of support for complainants 135 & 136 Public accountability Of commissioners and public engagement 137Interventions and sanctions for substandard or unsafe services Local Scrutiny 138Local Scrutiny Performance management and strategic oversight 139The need to put patients first at all times 140Performance Managers working constructively with regulators 141Taking responsibility for quality 142Clear lines of responsibility supported by good information flows 143Clear metrics on quality 144Need of ownership of quality metrics at a strategic level

17. Questions/Comments?