12.07.2015 Views

Department of Health: The Paddington Health Campus Scheme

Department of Health: The Paddington Health Campus Scheme

Department of Health: The Paddington Health Campus Scheme

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

part fourAccountability for the schemewas uncertain<strong>The</strong> Accountable Officer4.1 <strong>The</strong> Chief Executive <strong>of</strong> an NHS Trust sponsoring ascheme is the Accountable Officer for all capital schemes(Figure 8 overleaf). However in the case <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Campus</strong>partners there was no clarity over whether there was, orshould have been, a single Accountable Officer.4.2 <strong>The</strong> Chief Executive <strong>of</strong> St Mary’s NHS Trustbelieved in late 2003 that, ultimately, he was thesingle Accountable Officer for the scheme, given thatall expenditure was initially made through his Trust’saccounts and then recharged to other <strong>Campus</strong> partnerson an agreed basis. Imperial College never accepted thattheir Rector was an Accountable Officer for this scheme,nor even that he was appropriately a Senior ResponsibleOwner for what was an NHS-led and driven scheme.<strong>The</strong> Chief Executive <strong>of</strong> the NHS confirmed in writingto the <strong>Campus</strong> partners in February 2004 that the ChiefExecutives <strong>of</strong> St Mary’s NHS Trust and the Royal Bromptonand Harefield NHS Trust and the Rector <strong>of</strong> ImperialCollege were equally accountable for determiningthe appropriateness <strong>of</strong> any expenditure by their ownorganisations on the <strong>Campus</strong> scheme.4.3 <strong>The</strong> Chief Executive <strong>of</strong> St Mary’s has subsequentlycome to learn that in April 2004 his external auditors hadstated that, since there was more than one participatingorganisation in the scheme it was not, by definition,possible for there to be one Accountable Officer for thescheme. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Department</strong> told us that it considered this tobe simply a governance issue <strong>of</strong> how the <strong>Campus</strong> partnerssatisfied themselves as to the propriety <strong>of</strong> expenditurecharged to their organisations, rather than an AccountableOfficer issue.<strong>The</strong> Strategic <strong>Health</strong> Authority4.4 In the first year following its establishment(2002-03), the North West London Strategic <strong>Health</strong>Authority kept a distance from the scheme, although it hada Non-Executive Director on the Joint Project Board. Italso set deadlines for the scheme, highlighted the interests<strong>of</strong> Primary Care Trusts with those <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Campus</strong> partnersand gave strong direction as to how the scheme shouldproceed. It did not have any influence over ImperialCollege. In the latter stages <strong>of</strong> the scheme, the role <strong>of</strong> theStrategic <strong>Health</strong> Authority blurred into that <strong>of</strong> a projectpartner, whose principal distinct role was to act as aconduit between the scheme and the <strong>Department</strong>.From September 2004 the Chair or Chief Executive <strong>of</strong> theStrategic <strong>Health</strong> Authority chaired the Principals’ Group.the <strong>Paddington</strong> <strong>Health</strong> <strong>Campus</strong> scheme33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!