Department of Health: The Paddington Health Campus Scheme

More documents

Recommendations

Info

appendix two7 It was the view of the Independent Review Panelthat failing to address adequately the concerns of theGateway Review in a timely manner had a substantiveimpact on the scheme.The 2004 Joint Review promptedthe production of a smaller, moreaffordable OBC8 The escalation of projected costs since OBCapproval, from £360 million to over £800 million by2003, led to an expression of concern from the Treasury.A Member of Parliament also requested an investigationfrom the National Audit Office. This led to the creationof a Steering Group. The Group, which consisted ofrepresentatives from the Department of Health, Treasuryand the National Audit Office, was tasked with:nnreviewing the change in the scheme’s costs sinceOBC approval; andreviewing the process which led to this situation.9 The Group’s findings, published in September 2004,highlighted concerns in two main areas: project governanceand management and affordability. It concluded that unlessthe identified weaknesses were addressed, it was unlikelythat the required investment in the NHS in west Londonwould achieve its objectives. The review recommended:abcdThe Strategic Health Authority should lead a processidentifying options for investment in the NHS inwest London for heart and lung, paediatrics, tertiaryservices and St Mary’s infrastructure;Primary Care Trusts should lead the development ofappropriate models of care;Responsibilities for projects should be clearly set outand there should be a single client who takes fullresponsibility for the cost and funding implicationsof design changes;Recent Gateway recommendations for the PaddingtonHealth Campus should be implemented for themanagement of any new investment scheme andappropriate project resources should be provided forany project team by Primary Care Trusts in line withnational guidance and the revised scale of investment.The 2005 Independent Review Panelidentified ‘lessons learnt’ from thecollapsed Campus scheme10 Following the decision in May 2005 not to proceedwith the Paddington Health Campus, the North WestLondon Strategic Health Authority commissioned anIndependent Review of the scheme. The aim of the reviewwas to identify the ‘lessons learnt’, which could improve thequality of future similar PFI projects throughout the NHS.11 The Panel concluded, in September 2005, that thescheme was unable to simultaneously and adequatelyfulfil all the basic parameters for success – specifiedclinical activity, land procurement commitments or spacewith Outline Planning Resolution (or later a Masterplan)and robust income streams. The review also noted thatthe project was allowed to continue for as long as it diddue to the absence of reliable processes responsiblefor sponsoring, managing and delivering the projectthroughout the management chain.12 The Independent Review Panel also made43 recommendations, covering:abcdefgGovernment and Department of Health leadershipand policy;Department of Health’s supporting frameworkand tools;Area-based capacity and performance management;Sponsorship of programmes;Programme governance and delivery;Management of land and planning dependencies; andContext for re-use of Paddington HealthCampus assets.the Paddington Health Campus scheme 45
appendix threeAppendix threeMethodology1 The fieldwork for this examination focussed on the project documentationfor the Campus scheme, held at St Mary’s NHS Trust. This comprised minutesof all main committees from 2000 onwards and correspondence with theDepartment of Health, including presentations to the senior responsible officialat the Department.2 We had full access to the external reviews that were carried out on theproject, as listed in Appendix 2.3 We spoke to the following organisations or individuals, to whom we aregrateful for their time and co-operation:nnnnnDepartment of HealthEric SorensenHeart of HarefieldIan Robertson, property adviser to the Campus partnersImperial College of Science, Technology and Medicinen Nigel Vince, Chair of the Independent Review Panel, 2005nnnnnnNorth West London Strategic Health AuthorityPaddington Development Corporation Limited (PDCL)Partnerships UKRoyal Brompton and Harefield NHS TrustSt Mary’s NHS TrustWestminster City Council46the 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 44 and 45: appendix one2004 (continued)JulyChi
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?