Department of Health: The Paddington Health Campus Scheme

part two2.21 Had the revised OBC been approved in 2004or 2005 for a higher capital value the funds availablewould have increased to approximately £16.6 million.The Department told us it believed the Trusts were in aposition to redirect operational costs to provide funds, ifthey so chose.2.22 The Independent Review Panel concluded thatthere had been a number of significant lapses in basicprogramme management disciplines, only partiallyaccounted for by inadequate resourcing of the scheme.These contributed to the failure of the Campus scheme.They included inadequate management of stakeholders,risks, work briefs and general progress (Appendix 2).When it first became involved, PUK discussed with theCampus partners the need for project resources to beincreased and management processes strengthened.2.23 From approval of the OBC in October 2000, theplanned date of advertising the scheme in the OfficialJournal of the European Union (OJEU) slipped five times,from summer 2001 to July 2003. In the event, no OJEUnotice was ever issued. Such delays would have dentedmarket confidence in the scheme and the project team.2.24 The Project Director’s contract was terminated inOctober 2002, by mutual agreement, reflecting the ProjectBoard’s dissatisfaction with the slow progress in meetingdevelopment planning milestones. An interim ProjectDirector was appointed in October and a permanentreplacement from April 2003.Clinical and public support2.25 Staff and public consultation by St Mary’s NHSTrust showed a high level of support for the vision of thehealth Campus. However, support by both staff and thepublic from the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust’stwo sites was mixed. Royal Brompton-based staff weregenerally more in favour of the proposal than Harefieldbasedstaff (Figure 4).2.26 In September 2002, a first detailed draft of all theclinical output specifications was produced. This showedthat the planned Campus buildings were insufficient inscale to contain the proposed clinical activity. Althoughthe Clinical Reference Group reviewed and acceptedthe proposed clinical content, Westminster Primary CareTrust noted at the Joint Project Board in April 2003 that, infact, no agreement had been reached on service strategiesand affordability, so the clinical content remainedunconfirmed. However in June 2003 the Strategic HealthAuthority, approved the scheme with the support of thethree main Primary Care Trusts.2.27 Discussions on the clinical configuration of servicescontinued to the end of the scheme and were a particularcause of concern to clinicians at the Royal Brompton andHarefield NHS Trust. In December 2004, in response toconcerns expressed by clinicians, the confidential sessionof the Trust Board considering a new OBC was assuredby the acting Chief Executive that the Campus option, asstated, was not the final product. It was advised that therewould be opportunities to make changes, including tothe functional content of the OBC, between approval ofthe OBC and the production of the full business case. TheBrompton Trust has told us that this assurance was givenon the good faith understanding that a PFI procurementpartner would provide value in the development of outputbased specifications into a building solution better thanthat proposed in the OBC. There was no price identified asthe likely cost of this assurance.4Staff willingness to move from Brompton andHarefield sites to the Paddington Health CampusIntending Not intending Unsureto move to move(Per cent) (Per cent) (Per cent)Brompton staff 24 33 44Harefield staff 8 64 28Overall 19 46 35Source: The Quality of Working Life Survey: Royal Brompton andHarefield NHS Trust, Institute of Employment Studies, 2003The Paddington Health Campus scheme19