Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Item 18, Annex 1<br />
evidence those recommendations which were believed to apply <strong>and</strong> to<br />
respond appropriately. He confirmed that <strong>Trust</strong>s were co-operating<br />
<strong>and</strong> sharing their individual approaches, which was helpful for all.<br />
Mr Lindsay briefed the Committee on two inquest case studies <strong>and</strong><br />
the key issues arising from these. The Committee discussed these, in<br />
broad terms. In the context of operational <strong>and</strong> staffing pressures, Mr<br />
Wilkins queried the point at which a service may be withdrawn in the<br />
interests of patient safety<br />
D<br />
<strong>and</strong> the legal position of doing so. Mr<br />
Lindsay stated that there was no guidance or definitive answer to this<br />
difficult question <strong>and</strong> it would depend on the circumstances. However,<br />
conscientious monitoring <strong>and</strong> an ability to audit actions <strong>and</strong> evidence<br />
careful decision-making would be crucial. The broader point was the<br />
pressure in the system going forward <strong>and</strong> <strong>Trust</strong> Boards must be<br />
cognizant of this.<br />
R<br />
44/13 Review of CQC Outcome 21: Records<br />
A<br />
In setting the context for this review, Mrs Schwarz stated that health<br />
records had been an issue of longst<strong>and</strong>ing concern to the Audit<br />
Committee <strong>and</strong> to the<br />
F<br />
Safety & Quality Committee, which was<br />
currently overseeing progress with compliance. The review being<br />
undertaken today had been scheduled as a result of known focus by<br />
the Care Quality Commission (CCQ) <strong>and</strong> as part of the Committee’s<br />
rolling programme to review the process to test assurance of<br />
outcomes declaring compliance. The current status of this outcome<br />
was compliance but with<br />
T<br />
moderate concern.<br />
Mrs Schwarz thanked Mr Lindsay for attending <strong>and</strong> he left the<br />
meeting.<br />
Penny Taylor, Head of Clinical Systems Governance, attended for this<br />
item.<br />
Mr Thomas stated that that this st<strong>and</strong>ard was very broad <strong>and</strong> covered<br />
more than health records. An inspection in 2012 by the CQC <strong>and</strong> a<br />
subsequent mock inspection in March 2013 had identified concerns<br />
with the security of case notes on wards, updating notes in a timely<br />
manner <strong>and</strong> with Treatment Escalation Plans (TEP) not being<br />
completed consistently in respect of DNAR. Dr Williams asked Mr<br />
Thomas how confident he was that the actions in place would ensure<br />
compliance. If the CQC inspected today, would they find the <strong>Trust</strong><br />
compliant? Assurance could not be given on this point <strong>and</strong> Mr Budge<br />
stated that the CQC had been asked if they were able to identify other<br />
similar organisations who exhibited best practice. Mrs Raikes asked<br />
when the <strong>Trust</strong> would be compliant. Mr Budge stated that when the<br />
CQC submitted the formal report of their inspection it was likely that<br />
the <strong>Trust</strong> would be given between thirty <strong>and</strong> sixty days to comply.<br />
Some of the issues were not unique to the <strong>Trust</strong> <strong>and</strong> whilst they were<br />
features of working in a busy environment, they also concerned<br />
culture, which took longer to shape. Overall, the actions would take<br />
3