Department of Health: The Paddington Health Campus Scheme

More documents

Recommendations

Info

appendix one2004 (continued)JulyChief Secretary to Treasury approved one final attempt tomake the project work, on condition that rigorous actionwas taken to address all of the problems identified bythe Joint Review. Preparation of new OBC authorisedby Department of Health.SeptemberJoint Review report published.Strategic Health Authority installed as chair of thePrincipals’ Group.OctoberWestminster City Council planning committee notifiedCampus it would not approve Campus using both sidesof the Paddington Basin.Campus Principals’ Group decided to exit the scheme,implementing a four-week timetable before a publicannouncement of the decision.Westminster City Council offered the Campus partnerspart of its school site, which along with existing PDCLland, would allow the partners to build both hospitals onnorth side of the Basin.DecemberRevised Outline Business Case was approved by theCampus partners and submitted to the Department by theStrategic Health Authority with caveats requiring fundingsupport for land deal.Affordability gap under Payment by Results of£9.8 million. Surplus of £4.4 million under existingfunding regime.2005JanuaryCampus partners prepared to cancel scheme inface of objections from Department of Health.Department of Health no longer invited toPrincipals’ Group.FebruaryOffer by Westminster City Council, to use the schoolsite and procure land for the Campus from PDCL, wasaccepted as basis for Addendum to OBC.MarchPDCL terminated the Collaboration Agreement betweenthe Campus partners and PDCL on 2 March 2005 becausePDCL did not believe it was commercially sustainable.MayJoint Project Board approved submission of Addendum toOBC to NHS Trust Boards and Imperial College’s Council,subject to conditions yet to be agreed.Surplus of £0.75 million under existing funding regime.Affordability deficit under Payment by Resultsof £2.8 million.Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust Board did notrecommend Addendum to OBC.JuneStrategic Health Authority recommended cancellation ofthe scheme, withdrawal of the OBC and establishment ofan independent review.Scheme formally cancelled by Minister.the Paddington Health Campus scheme 43
appendix twoAppendix twoExternal reviews of the Campus schemeThe London Regional Office ofthe NHS highlighted a number ofconcerns in late 20001 The London Regional Office of the NHS formallyapproved the OBC in October 2000, subject to theoutcome of the public consultation on the future ofspecialist services in west London. The Regional Officehighlighted its concerns about the:nnnncompleteness of the strategy to operate clinicalservices while building new hospitals on the samesite (“decant strategy”);identification and responsibility for management ofproject risks;treatment of the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Motherbuilding; andaffordability of the scheme.2 The summary of other concerns included afurther 17 issues, such as the need to emphasise theproposed increase in nursing staff, and the need fora full risk assessment and a strategy for achievingplanning permission.3 There was no requirement from the Regional Officefor the above issues to be addressed in a reworked OBC.Rather, the Regional Office split the issues into twocategories: those which had to be addressed in the nearfuture prior to placing the OJEU advert for procurement(anticipated for Summer 2001) and those that would beresolved within the Full Business Case when that wasprepared. There is no record of any review by the RegionalOffice of how the Campus partners were addressing theissues when the OJEU tendering was delayed.The 2003 Gateway Report gave theCampus scheme a ‘Red’ rating4 The Campus scheme was the subject of anOffice of Government Commerce Gateway Review inNovember 2003. The purposes of the review were toconfirm the project’s readiness to move to procurement ona robust, affordable and achievable basis.5 The Gateway Review gave the Campus schemeproject a ‘Red’ rating, which is given to projects orprogrammes that should take remedial actionimmediately in order to achieve success. The Reviewmade 14 recommendations that needed to be addressedwithout delay and noted that the project was beingdriven towards failure by a combination of programmemanagement failures, inadequate resources and skills andthe absence of support from the Strategic Health Authority,Department and Treasury.6 The Independent Review Panel (2005) noted fromthe project’s own documentation, drawn up almost a yearafter the Gateway Review, that:nnn‘Five [of the Gateway Review] recommendationswere not addressed in a timely fashion (e.g. the newgovernance arrangements based around the ProjectExecutive Group and affordability of the scheme).Twelve recommendations did not achieve the rightoutcomes (e.g. those relating to Mission Criticalprogramme treatment, Programme Managementdisciplines, project team resourcing with right skillsand top-level Government support for realisingland requirements).Eleven recommendations were not completed(e.g. adding practical construction and PFI expertiseto the pool of Non-executive Director experience,Technical Director, Heavy-weight Project Manager,Change Control procedures, formal AssumptionsControl, Ground Surveys).’ 1212 Independent Review Panel Report (2005), paragraph 1.23.44the Paddington Health Campus scheme
Page 1 and 2: department of healthThe Paddington
Page 3 and 4: DEPARTMENT of healthThe Paddington
Page 5: Part 3The Campus partners were unab
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?