Department of Health: The Paddington Health Campus Scheme

More documents

Recommendations

Info

contentssummary 4This report has been prepared underSection 6 of the National Audit Act 1983for presentation to the House of Commonsin accordance with Section 9 of the Act.John BournComptroller and Auditor GeneralNational Audit Office12 May 2006The National Audit Officestudy team consisted of:Ashley McDougall and Will Palmer,under the direction of Karen TaylorThis report can be found on the NationalAudit Office web site at www.nao.org.ukFor further information about theNational Audit Office please contact:National Audit OfficePress Office157-197 Buckingham Palace RoadVictoriaLondonSW1W 9SPTel: 020 7798 7400Email: enquiries@nao.gsi.gov.uk© National Audit Office 2006Part 1There was a strong case for investment 10in the NHS in west LondonIntroduction 11There were strong clinical drivers supporting the 12proposed Paddington Health CampusThe original vision of the Campus fully addressed 12the main objectives of the Campus partnersThe report will consider why the Campus 13scheme collapsed and was cancelledPart 2The way the Campus partners 14approached the scheme exacerbatedthe risksThere were complex intrinsic project, 15organisational and policy risks for theCampus scheme
Part 3The Campus partners were unable to 22agree a deliverable schemeThe Campus partners were unable to secure 23adequate land for the schemeThe Campus partners, and others, differed over 26whether the scheme was affordableCapacity planning in 2005 indicated that the 27local NHS in north west London needed toreduce capacity by 500 to 600 bedsPart 5The way ahead is challenging for 36all partiesGlossary 38Appendices1 Chronology of the Paddington Health 41Campus scheme2 External reviews of the Campus scheme 44Part 4There was a lack of clarity in key 32accountabilities and rolesAccountability for the scheme was uncertain 33The 2002 NHS reorganisation disrupted 35the scheme3 Methodology 464 The opportunity cost of delay in taking 47forward the Campus scheme5 Relevant recommendations from previous 48Committee of Public Accounts’ reportsPhotographs and images courtesy of St Mary’s NHS Trust, Smoothe and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
Page 1 and 2: department of healthThe Paddington
Page 3: DEPARTMENT of healthThe Paddington
Page 8 and 9: summary8 While the Campus partners
Page 10 and 11: summary21 Ultimately, in addition t
Page 12 and 13: part onePart oneThere was a strong
Page 14 and 15: part oneThere were strong clinical
Page 16 and 17: part twoPart TwoThe way the Campus
Page 18 and 19: part two2.6 Securing planning permi
Page 20 and 21: part twoRisk management2.14 The NHS
Page 22 and 23: part two2.28 Public support for the
Page 24 and 25: part three3.1 The Royal Brompton an
Page 26 and 27: part three3.12 The PDCL negotiator
Page 28 and 29: part three3.24 All Campus partners
Page 30 and 31: part threeThe changing proposals fo
Page 32 and 33: part three6A comparison of capital
Page 34 and 35: part fourAccountability for the sch
Page 36 and 37: part four4.8 Some of the advice and
Page 38 and 39: part five5.1 Both NHS Trusts contin
Page 40 and 41: glossaryLondon Regional OfficeMemor
Page 42 and 43: appendix oneAppendix oneChronology
Page 44 and 45: appendix one2004 (continued)JulyChi
Page 46 and 47: appendix two7 It was the view of th
Page 48 and 49: appendix fourAppendix fourThe oppor
Page 50 and 51: appendix fiveDepartment of Health:

Department of Health: The Paddington Health Campus Scheme

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?