Agenda item

To receive the following reports relating to the announcement of the CQC to inspect 8 aspects of the Trust’s work as part of the CQC’s second phase of inspections.  19 acute trusts will be inspected and will be the first to be given ratings by the CQC.  Representatives of the Trust will be at the meeting to discuss the reports.

The following reports are attached for Members’ information.

A report to the UHL Board meeting.                                              Appendix C

(Page ???)   

CQC Intelligent Monitoring Report – 21 October 2013             Appendix C1

                                                                                                            (Page ??)

Letter to Chief Executive UHL                                                       Appendix C2

                                                                                                            (Page ???)

Statement Issued by the CQC on the proposed visits.              Appendix D

(Page???)

John Adler, Chief Executive University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL) and Mark Wightman, Director of Marketing and Communications, UHL, attended the meeting to update Members on the CQC’s recent announcement to inspect 8 aspects of the Trust’s work as part of the CQC’s second phase inspections.  19 acute trusts were being inspected and would be given a rating of performance. 

The Commission received the following reports for information-

a)    A report to the UHL Board meeting on 31 October on the proposed CQC inspection.   

b)    The CQC’s Intelligent Monitoring Report dated 21 October 20113.

c)    Letter to the UHL Chief Executive from the CQC on the inspection.

d)    A press statement issued by the CQC on the inspection process.

Mr Adler commented that the CQC’s inspections were welcomed as the new process for the inspections was more engaging and involved peer reviews. The inspections were more comprehensive than before and this too was welcomed.  UHL had been identified as Risk 1 category as the Trust had 10 elevated risks out of 150 indicators, as shown in Intelligent Monitoring Report mentioned at b) above.  UHL had already carried out a review of these elevated risks and some of these were know anomalies, such as some outsourcing of services that has skewed staff turnover rates.

In response to Members questions on the inspection Mr Adler and Mr Wightman stated:-

a)    In relation to the deaths in low risk diagnosis groups, the cohort of 81 patients’ notes had been reviewed.  If a patient was initially admitted with a bladder infection, this would be classed as a ‘low risk’.  However on subsequent investigation and treatment, patients may be found to have more serious conditions such as liver failure due to alcoholism, but the initial low risk diagnosis would still be used for monitoring purposes.

b)    The Trust had made improvements in the quality of training and were continuing to do so.

c)    The Trust carried out more high risk operations and this provided a bias against the Trust when compared to other trusts that did not undertake such operations.

d)    It was not felt that the deaths arising from low risk admissions was correlated to excess winter deaths.

The Chair referred to the recent information circulated to Members on the latest proposals for the A&E department and the change of direction of the proposals was noted.  Members asked that consideration be given to designated emergency parking arrangements for relatives who needed to gain access in instances where they were given short notifications of an expected bereavement.  The pressure of trying to park in these circumstances was an added strain.  In response to a question about the level of car parking charges in the new proposed car park, Mr Adler commented that it was too early at this stage to have any details. 

RESOLVED:

1)    That the report and supporting information be received and noted;

2)    That the CQC report on the proposed inspection be submitted to a future meeting of the Commission; and

3)    That the Trust consider using the ‘dashboard monitoring process’ being used by LPT to triangulate various performance indicators to see if there was any correlation between them.