pre-consultation business case for the redevelopment of ... · 9.4 impact on financial...

188
1 Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of the St Pancras Hospital site and Mental Health Community Hubs Version 9.1 26 th June 2018

Upload: others

Post on 06-Oct-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

1

Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of the St Pancras Hospital site and Mental Health Community Hubs

Version 9.1 26th June 2018

Page 2: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

2

2

Glossary of Terms

5YFV Five Year Forward View

A&E Accidents & Emergency

ALoS Average Length of Stay

CAMHS Child and Adolescents Mental Health Services

Capex Capital Expenditure

CBT Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

CCCG Camden Clinical Commissioning Group

CCG Clinical Commissioning Group

C&IFT Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust

CIM Capital Investment Manual

CIP Cost Improvement Plan

CMH Community Mental Health

CNWL Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust

COIL Certificate Of Immunity from Listing

COO Chief Operating Officer

CQC Care Quality Commission

CSF Critical Success Factors

DHSC Department of Health and Social Care

DMBC Decision-Making Business Case

DQI Design Quality Indicator

EAV Equivalent Annual Value

EBITDA Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation

EA10 Equalities Act 2010

EIA Equality Impact Assessment

FBC Full Business Case

FSRR Financial Sustainability Risk Rating

GB Green Book

GEM General Economic Model

GPs General Practitioner

HMHC Highgate Mental Health Centre

HMT HM Treasury

HOSC Health Oversight and Scrutiny Committee

HR & OD Human Resources & Organisational Development

I&E Income and Expenditure

IAPT Improved Access to Psychological Services

ICCG Islington Clinical Commissioning Group

ICT Information & Communication Technology

Term /

Abbreviation Definition

Page 3: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

3

3

IoMH Institute of Mental Health

IT Information Technology

ITFF Independent Trust Financing Facility

JHOSC Joint Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee

JHWS Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies

JSNA Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

LCS London Clinical Senate

LoS Length of Stay

LTFM Long Term Financial Model

Moorfields Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

NCL North Central London

NHS FT NHS Foundation Trust

NHSE NHS England

NHSI NHS Improvement

NPC Net Present Cost

NLP North London Partnership

OBC Outline Business Case

OSC Overview Scrutiny Committee

PBMH Practice Based Mental Health

PCBC Pre-Consultation Business Case

PDC Public Dividend Capital

PIA Privacy Impact Assessment

PICU Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit

PID Patient Identifiable Data

PLACE Patient Led Assessment of the Care Environment

PPE Property Plant and Equipment

QIA Quality Impact Assessment

R&R Rehabilitation and Recovery

SAMH Services for Ageing and Mental Health

SMS Substance Misuse Service

SOC Strategic Outline Case

SoS Secretary of State

SPH St Pancras Hospital

STF Sustainability and Transformation Fund

STP Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships

the Trust Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust

the Trust Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust; the “Trust”

Two boroughs

The London Boroughs of Camden and Islington

UCL University College London

UCLH University College London Hospital

UCLP University College London Partners

VAT Value Added Tax

Page 4: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

4

4

Contents

Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of the St Pancras Hospital site and Mental Health Community Hubs 1

Foreword 7

Executive summary 9

1.1 Introduction 9

1.2 Case for change and care model 9

1.3 Governance 12

1.4 Stakeholder engagement 13

1.5 Finance case 14

1.6 Implementation 15

1.7 The Secretary of State’s four tests and NHSE’s bed test 15

1.8 Decision making and next steps 16

2 Introduction 17

2.1 Overview 17

2.2 PCBC objectives 17

2.3 Background 18

2.4 PCBC scope 18

2.5 Parties involved in the production of this PCBC 19

2.6 Proposal Development 19

2.7 PCBC structure 21

3 Context 23

3.1 The Population and Healthcare challenges 23

3.2 Background to the Trust and CCGs 24

4 Case for Change 27

4.1 Local Policy Framework 27

4.2 National Policy Framework 32

4.3 Regional Policy Framework 35

Page 5: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

5

5

4.4 Quality of Existing Estate 40

4.5 Limitations of Current Service Provision 41

5 Care model and expected benefit 43

5.1 Care Model 43

5.2 Expected benefit 56

5.3 Impact on service users and benefits 56

5.4 Changes to travelling times and distances 59

5.5 Public Sector Equality Duty 59

6 Governance 61

6.1 Governance structure for the consultation process 61

6.2 Roles and Responsibilities 62

6.3 Information Governance Issues 63

7 Stakeholder engagement 64

7.1 Legal Context 64

7.2 Pre-consultation engagement on the case for change 65

7.3 Options appraisal engagement 67

7.4 Applying pre-consultation engagement findings to options appraisal 70

7.5 Other pre-consultation engagement activity 71

7.6 Consultation Plan 71

8 Options development, analysis and evaluation process 76

8.1 Option development 76

8.2 Appraisal 1: Feasibility Study 77

8.3 Appraisal 2: Hurdle CSF 77

8.4 Appraisal 3: Qualitative CSF 79

8.5 Appraisal 4: Value for Money evaluation of options 81

8.6 Combined appraisal 83

8.7 Impact of the preferred option 84

9 Finance case 86

9.1 Introduction 86

9.2 Basis of preparation 87

9.3 Financial projections 87

Page 6: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

6

6

9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101

9.5 Sensitivities 101

9.6 Conclusions 102

10 Implementation 104

10.1 Post consultation process 104

10.2 Programme management arrangements 104

10.3 Project implementation plan 108

10.4 Post project evaluation 110

10.5 Approvals process for investment by the Trust 110

11 The Secretary of State’s Four Tests 112

11.1 Test 1: Strong public and patient engagement 112

11.2 Test 2: Consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice 116

11.3 Test 3: A clear clinical evidence base 116

11.4 Test 4: Support for proposals from clinical commissioners. 117

11.5 NHSE’s Bed Closures Test 118

12 Decision making and next steps 119

Appendix Contents 120

Page 7: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

7

7

Foreword

North London Partners in Care share a vision for our community to be happier, healthier and

to live longer in good health. We have a collective agenda and a commitment to transform

the health and care services of North London. Our community has told us they want a more

joined up and integrated health and care system, they want care closer to where they live

and work, delivered by professional and compassionate health and care workforce.

We are united in our commitment to transforming care to deliver the best possible health

outcomes for our local population. This will be done by shifting our model of care so that

more people are cared for in ‘out of hospital’ settings, and through prevention, more

proactive care, and new models of care delivery, we can reduce the reliance on secondary

care and improve the way people access and receive care.

We want to improve overall mental health outcomes across North London and reduce

inequalities for those with mental ill health; enable more people to live well and receive

services closer to home and ensure that we are treating both physical and mental ill health

equally.

Our ambition is that unless someone requires highly specialised care, they will be able to

receive the care they need within North London, and not require an out of area placement.

By investing in community based care, we aim to reduce demand on the acute sector and

mitigate the need for additional mental health inpatient beds.

To deliver our vision, we have designed a programme of transformation for mental health

services based around these fundamental elements:

Supporting people with mental ill health to live well, enabling them to receive care in the least restrictive setting for their needs;

Raise mental health awareness to reduce stigma, ensuring that mental health is considered equally with physical health;

Reduce reliance on inpatient care and expand community provision to support more people to spend more time at home, rather than in hospital;

Ensuring more accessible and extensive mental health support is delivered locally within primary care services.

We are developing our services in the community to make sure that health and care will be

available closer to home for all, ensuring that people receive care in the best possible setting

at a local level and with local accountability. At the heart of the care closer to home model is

a ‘place-based’ population health system of care delivery which draws together social,

community, primary and specialist services underpinned by a systematic focus on prevention

and supported self-care, with the aim of reducing unplanned hospital admissions.

We believe that the changes proposed in this document provide an exciting opportunity to

deliver on our ambition to improve the mental health and reduce the health inequalities of

our communities. By delivering more care in community settings and working in a more

joined up and integrated way with our health, social care and voluntary sector partners, we

believe that we will be able to deliver better outcomes for our patients. By supporting people

closer to their homes and embedding services in the community, our teams can help prevent

people becoming unwell, or help them earlier so that they require fewer hospital referrals

and less crisis care.

Page 8: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

8

8

We know that services provided in the community for people who experience mental ill

health bring many benefits and better health outcomes. Community service are less

stigmatising and easier to access. People receiving their health care close to their homes

can continue to receive the support of their families, friends and local community, which we

know is vital to recovery. In order to realise our vision, we need to be able to provide more

specialist mental health services for all forms of mental health in the community, supporting

the work of our GPs and community teams, so that we can support earlier discharge and

reduce admissions and re-admissions.

Sometimes people will need specialist support provided in a hospital environment and it is

our aim that this is provided in environments that are safe, therapeutic and maintain

individual privacy. Where care is underpinned by strong, integrated community services,

people will be referred to hospital less often and will be discharged earlier following periods

of illness. By providing treatment in the least restrictive environment possible, fewer people

will be detained under the Mental Health Act and those that do can step down from a

hospital environment as soon as possible.

The community estate is key to delivering our vision. It can be brought together to help

achieve these synergies between services and sectors, supporting joint and multi-agency

working. The exact details of how all services may work together in the future is still to be

developed through co-production with service users and carers and creating the space in

Community Hubs is an enabler for this.

The care that we provide to patients must be underpinned by the best practice and we want

to be at the forefront of research developments to ensure that people who experience mental

ill-health are receiving the best care possible. By working with our academic partners, we

can ensure that every intervention is evidence based.

Helen Pettersen Angela McNab Accountable Officer Chief Executive Officer NCL CCGs Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust

Page 9: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

9

9

Executive summary

1.1 Introduction

The local health organisations are united in the commitment to transforming care to deliver

the best possible health outcomes for the population of Camden and Islington. The local

communities have voiced a need for a more joined up and integrated health and care

systems. This will be done by shifting the model of care so that more people are cared for in

‘out of hospital’ settings, and through prevention, more proactive care, and new models of

care delivery, reliance on secondary care can be reduced and improve the way people

access and receive care.

This Pre-Consultation Business Case (“PCBC”) assesses the opportunity to deliver better

outcomes for users of mental health services across Camden and Islington through the

development of a high quality and accessible estate. It sets out a way forward for formal

consultation on a preferred option which is demonstrably the best solution in terms of

benefits and value for money. The objectives of the PCBC are to:

Make the case for change for transformation and modernisation of the mental health services, delivered by Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) across its community estates, and specifically at the St Pancras Hospital (“SPH”) site, to set out proposals for the redevelopment of the estates required to enable the transformation;

Describe the clinically developed model of care and specification for:

The movement of community services into community hubs; and

The movements of in-patient services from SPH to another site.

Detail the process undertaken to engage the public, staff and other stakeholders in the pre-consultation phase and demonstrate how their feedback has shaped the development of the options as well as the proposed option to take forward;

Set out how the development of the preferred options is compliant with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care’s (“SoS” or “Secretary of State”) four tests of service reconfiguration and NHS England’s “bed” test;

Make the case to Camden NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (“CCG”) (“Camden CCG”), Islington NHS CCG (“Islington CCG”) to commence public consultation on the preferred option.

The proposal set out in this document is to move the following:

Services being provided from SPH that are moving into the community hubs

Inpatient services being provided from SPH that are moving to another site that is 2.5 miles away from the current location; and

A limited range of other NHS services that are currently delivered from a variety of Trust sites which will move as part of proposals.

1.2 Case for change and care model

1.2.1 Context

The current Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (“JSNAs”) for Camden and Islington

produced by the respective Health and Wellbeing Boards outline a clear requirement for

sustainable and high quality mental health services in the area. Both Camden and Islington

Page 10: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

10

10

have significantly higher rates of mental health diagnosis than other London Boroughs.

Islington has the highest proportion of its population diagnosed with a psychotic disorder,

with Camden third highest nationally. The proposed reconfigurations reflect Health and Well

Being Board Strategies, which aim to:

Bring together partners to provide a holistic service to people with multiple complex

needs which include mental health problems;

Make sure the physical health needs of those with mental health conditions are

addressed effectively.

The Trust provides mental health services for people in the area. Almost 98% of services are

commissioned by Islington CCG in their role as lead commissioner with Camden CCG as an

associate commissioner.

The SPH redevelopment programme and development of mental health Community Hubs

enables an overarching transformation of the estate to enable effective delivery of the Trust’s

Clinical Strategy along with national and local health strategies through the development of a

range of health services and research facilities. It puts service users at the centre,

recognising there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform services across the London

Boroughs of Camden and Islington, building more visible, more accessible and more

integrated services for people locally alongside world class research driving the very best

practice.The vision for the community hubs is that service users and carers’ will have a

familiar, non-stigmatising, easily accessible place where they can access a variety of

services that promote holistic care.

Community services are being developed to make sure that health and care will be available

closer to home for all, ensuring that people receive care in the best possible setting at a local

level and with local accountability. At the heart of the care closer to home model is a ‘place-

based’ population health system of care delivery which draws together social, community,

primary and specialist services underpinned by a systematic focus on prevention and

supported self-care, with the aim of reducing unplanned hospital admissions.

Parity of esteem for mental health through modern estate and integration of care with

physical health is widely supported through national initiatives and within the local health

system. This is a rare opportunity to make a step change in converting that concept into

reality for service users in North Central London and is aligned to the wider Model of Care

and goals in the local Sustainability and Transformation Plan (“STP”).

To deliver the STP vision and the aims of the Five Year Forward View, a programme of

transformation has been designed with four aspects: Prevention, Service transformation,

Productivity and Enablers. The STP identifies the need to redevelop the estate at SPH, in

conjunction with other redevelopments, in order to enable a range of initiatives across North

Central London. Progress has been made against the STP plans through improving

community resilience, increasing access to primary care mental health services, developing

a women’s psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (“PICU”), investing in a community perinatal

service, investing mental health services delivered in A&E and increasing access to

psychological therapies.

The Trust’s sites vary widely in terms of their distribution, age, condition and suitability and

these “extensive differences” were noted in the 2016 Care Quality Commission (“CQC”)

inspection and whilst the 2018 inspection noted mitigations in place to address the concerns

raised previously the overall rating for Safety remained as “Required Improvement”. Part of

this is due to the inherent challenges of the estate such as visibility within the buildings.

Page 11: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

11

11

There is a potential time constraint on the ability to deliver the SPH transformation insofar as

August 2015 the Trust were successful in their application for a Certificate of Immunity from

Listing (“COIL”) that prevents the SPH site from becoming a listed building for five years.

1.2.2 Current and future care model

The Trust’s Care Model forms part of the broader NCL STP ‘stepped’ model of care for

mental health with goals around improved access to mental health services, improving the

acute mental health pathway and improving patient pathways through practice based mental

health teams and specialist care pathways. Following changes to the current care model, the

workforce requirement will change in line with the NCL STP under this proposal to achieve

portability, staff experience and career planning/development. Several initiatives have been

developed that are specific to mental health, in conjunction with other NCL STP

programmes, which include recruitment initiatives, rental initiatives development, and use of

new roles and up-skilling current staff.

The commercial structure around the payments to the Trust from the CCGs is such that

there would be no negative financial impact on the CCGs as a direct result of the proposed

service changes. The Trust currently has 235 beds (84 on the SPH site) used for acute

admissions, treatment of adults and older people. Over the last couple of years, the Trust

has experienced consistent pressure on its remaining beds and an increase in numbers of

people admitted and those treated by the Crisis system. The STP mental health work stream

is to a large extent based on reducing the demand for in-patient beds and meeting people’s

needs in the community. The Trust has undertaken a range of bed management initiatives

that has reduced admissions and bed utilisation, which in turn has reduced private sector

admissions and length of stay. Consequently, the CCGs and the Trust are confident that

maintaining the current bed base at 235, will be sufficient to meet demand in 2025.

1.2.3 Expected benefit

The service user benefits depend on the service they access:

Community based care: The relocation of some services to the Camden hub offers the opportunity to access services at a welcoming community based, non-acute setting.

Improved therapeutic environment: For inpatients at SPH, moving to a new facility ensures they receive care in a high quality, specialised building with modern facilities.

Parity of esteem for mental and physical health: Relocating to a newly built site that meets modern accessibility requirements, this will increase equality of access for users, staff and visitors. There will be a focus on supporting disabled service users with accessibility to the new site as identified in the Equality Impact Assessment.

Improved integration between acute and mental health services: It is expected that users transferring between mental health inpatient and acute facilities on the same site will receive a quicker and more streamlined transition.

Better working initiatives for staff: By developing new facilities and implementing the workforce plan as per the STP, the local health organisations are more likely to attract a higher quality staff by providing a high level of staff support.

Improved research opportunities: Leading to long term improvements in mental health care and outcomes.

Page 12: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

12

12

1.3 Governance

As the main commissioners’ of services, the changes to the clinical model and the

redevelopment of St Pancras Hospital, represent a substantial service change to Camden and

Islington CCGs.

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are under a statutory duty to have regard to the NHS England guidance (“Planning, assuring and delivering service change for patients” – April 2018), which sets out how new proposals for change are tested through independent review and assurance by NHS England, taking into account the framework of Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition Regulations. The guidance sets out some of the key considerations for commissioners and their partners in designing service change including reconfiguration. The main tests that the proposals need to address are:

the government and NHS England’s key tests that should underpin service change proposals;

the strength of pre consultation business cases, clinical evidence and public involvement;

proposals having regard to relevant national guidance and complying with legislation;

the programme management that underpins the planning and delivery of schemes; and

deliverability on the ground and affordability in capital and revenue terms.

Programme Management

The consultation phase of the redevelopment of the St Pancras site is being overseen by the St

Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group and led by the Chief Operating Officer of

Islington CCG. This group reports to both of the CCGs and provides assurance to NHS

England. The Oversight group is supported by three sub-groups; the Clinical Senate Liaison

Group, the Public Consultation Working Group and the Financial Modelling Group. This group

has overseen the development of the pre-consultation business case and the consultation

documents.

Pre-consultation business case, clinical evidence and public involvement

The CCGs and the Trust have taken the following steps to ensure that the documents produced

are fit for purpose and enable the CCGs to meet their statutory responsibilities.

1. NHS England (London Region) Head of Reconfiguration, providing direct advice to the St

Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight group;

2. Islington CCG has taken legal advice on the adequacy of the Pre-consultation business

case and consultation documents;

3. Islington CCG has commissioned the Consultation Institute to assure the consultation

documents and methodology;

4. Camden Council and Islington Council’s respective Health and Care Overview and

Scrutiny Committees (“HOSC”) have been asked to review and comment on the

consultation methodology and documents prior to the commencement of consultation.

This is not part of their usual role, but both HOSCs have agreed to meet together to

review and comment on the documents to help us be confident that the documents and

process are the best that they can be;

5. The NHS England London Clinical Senate has been asked to provide advice on whether

the proposals for changes to inpatient and community mental health services:

Page 13: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

13

13

a) will enable improvements in clinical care and quality benefits for patients; b) are informed by best practice; c) align with national policy and are supported by STP plans and

commissioning intentions; d) Whether the proposals for developing community services will enable

delivery of more care in the least restrictive setting; e) Whether the approach of meeting the need for future inpatient demand by

further development of community mental health services is robust.

6. NHSI will need to provide assurance that the proposals for change will not unduly compromise the Trust’s financial position before going to consultation.

As a part of the proposed relocation, the Trust is not proposing to change the use, storage or accessibility of any Patient Identifiable Data it holds.

1.4 Stakeholder engagement

Under section 242 of the NHS Act 2006 and section 142Z of the Health and Social Care Act

2012, NHS Trusts and CCGs have a legal duty to make arrangements for individuals to

whom the services are being or may be provided, to be involved throughout the process. All

public consultations should adhere to the Gunning Principles.

1.4.1 Pre-consultation engagement on the case for change

The local health organisations have engaged with inpatient service users, community service

users, carers, staff and other stakeholders as part of pre-consultation engagement work for

the development of the plans. Pre-consultation engagement included service users and

carers, employees, GPs, the Camden and Islington HOSCs and other local stakeholders.

1.4.2 Options appraisal engagement

As part of the options development a series of meetings were held to get input and

understand the needs of stakeholders and patients. The following options appraisal

engagement was incorporated into the options appraisal process up to the point of selecting

the preferred option. Shortlisted options for inpatients included:

A1 – Do minimum - The Trust would carry out the minimum works necessary to improve the quality of their existing estate to enable the Trust to deliver a higher quality of care.

A2 – Re-provide inpatients at SPH - A new mental health inpatient facility would be built on the existing SPH site.

A3 – Re-provide inpatients at Whittington Hospital - The Whittington Hospital is located in Islington but on the border road between Camden and Islington to the North of both Borough’s. It is an acute hospital with land available for the Trust to build a new inpatient facility.

A4 – Re-provide inpatients at St Ann’s Hospital - St Ann’s Hospital was identified during the Strategic Outline Case (“SOC”) stage as having the potential to host a new inpatient facility for the Trust.

Each option had the same proposal for community services and other services which is why they are not explicitly mentioned under each option above. A summary of the areas considered following this engagement included:

The need for adequate consultation with service users, which would include the formal consultation process itself;

Page 14: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

14

14

Preference for inpatient beds to remain within or close to Camden;

Preference for inpatient beds not to shift to the St Ann’s site due to travel and accessibility issues;

Noting the proposed land disposal of the SPH site; and

Preference for the provision of appropriate services from the community hubs.

Following this the preferred option was agreed to be to move inpatient beds from SPH to a site in Camden and Islington, invest in community services through the two community hubs and bring researchers and academics together on a single site at SPH. The Whittington site was selected as the preferred option for inpatients and there has since been further engagement undertaken in the form of regular meetings with service users, carers, Trust staff and Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC) updates.

1.4.3 Consultation Plan

In light of the service changes under this proposal, Camden and Islington CCGs are

proposing to run a public consultation for 12 weeks starting in July 2018 to September 2018.

As part of the formal consultation process, the group of stakeholders who will be engaged

will be widened. Accordingly, the range of methodologies will also be expanded to cover

targeted and ongoing engagement, across a range of channels. The concerns raised

through the pre-consultation engagements will be incorporated in the consultation as follows:

Consulting with current and ex-service users;

Keeping the provision of services within Islington or Camden;

Undertaking further travel time analysis;

Be clear about strategy of sale of NHS Resources; and

Opportunity to input on which services are provided in the Community Hubs.

The channels used to share the consultation and gather as many views as possible will

include website/online media, paper copies, public meetings, focus groups, staff

engagement, NHS provider roadshows, targeted interventions and local networks.

The CCGs have appointed an independent partner to evaluate the consultation responses

and analyse the results of the consultation. This will inform proposals in a Decision-Making

Business Case (“DMBC”) based on the consultation outcomes and will be the basis for the

CCGs final decision.

Following the closure of the consultation on 30th September 2018, the evaluation team will

have a period to analyse the results and present these to both of the CCG Governing Bodies

(“CCG GBs”). Camden and Islington CCGs will then make a decision on the redevelopment

proposals.

1.5 Finance case

As previously detailed, the amount of spending planned by both CCGs with the Trust will not

negatively change as a direct result of these proposals due to the contract arrangements in

place. The Trust receives a negotiated fixed amount per period from the CCGs to provide

services to the local population and this is not directly linked to the volume of service users,

unlike Payment by Results approaches used for many physical care services. Camden and

Islington CCGs have corroborated the financial information presented below with the Trust

Page 15: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

15

15

and have reached an agreed position, whereby the Trust takes the financial risk associated

with these proposals.

The capital receipt from the redevelopment of the SPH site is expected to be greater than the total capital cost of the transformation, due to the high value of estate at St Pancras. In the Trust’s Outline Business Case (“OBC”), a red book valuation has been undertaken as per NHSI and HM Treasury guidance which presents a prudent value. Therefore, the risk of not achieving a level of capital receipt to cover the costs of the redevelopment is low.

As above, there is no request for funding associated with this programme of work. There will,

however, be a requirement for interim financing arrangements for the Trust to manage the

timing of cash flows.

1.6 Implementation

Following the close of the consultation and decision-making process on the findings the

Trust will implement the proposal, factoring in considerations stipulated by the CCGs from

the consultation process.

The Trust has developed a robust programme management and governance structure which

ensures accountability through clear allocation of responsibilities, and provides assurance

through regular reporting, enabling quick identification and addressing any issues as they

arise. The Trust implementation team will comprise approximately 4-6 people on a whole

time equivalent (“WTE”) basis to be engaged at various points during the implementation.

The function requirements during the implementation include: Programme Director; Project

Director; Project Managers: Finance Support; HR and Workforce Support; Clinical Support;

and Administration.

An outline project plan is being worked up, that will set out the key milestones and which will

be updated on a regular basis as more information becomes available and the project

develops. There is also an existing risk management process in place for the Programme,

and this process will continue throughout the implementation and delivery phase of the

programme to ensure that risks are identified, monitored and where possible, mitigated.

NHSI also require Trusts to submit a Strategic Outline Case (SOC), Outline Business Case

(OBC) and Final Business Case (“FBC”) for approval for capital investment proposals of this

value.

1.7 The Secretary of State’s four tests and NHS England’s bed test

The 2014/15 mandate from the Secretary of State to NHS England, outlines that proposed

service changes should be able to demonstrate evidence to meet four tests before they can

proceed:

1) Strong public and patient engagement: There has been extensive stakeholder engagement to date as described in Section 7 of this document including presentations, discussions, surveys, meetings and emails. This will continue during the Consultation.

2) Patient choice: There will no change in the number of providers serving the local area,

whilst choice will be improved through the offer of fit for purpose mental health facilities for local service users.

3) Clinical evidence base: There is a clear case for change insofar as the existing estate

is ageing and inflexible with multiple ligature points and blind spots where staff cannot easily observe service users. A wide range of clinicians have been engaged and

Page 16: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

16

16

consulted throughout to ensure patient outcomes are central to plans with feedback showing a strong level of support. There is a clear clinical evidence base for the model of community services. For example, the community model for the practice based mental health teams in Islington has shown a 6% reduction in referrals to secondary care teams across Islington so far with further reductions expected. Service user experience and satisfaction has increased with 83% of people who completed a survey were likely to recommend the service to family or friends and 75% of people satisfied with the service that they had received. Similarly, the community model for the Integrated Practice Unit for Psychosis has made significant inroads into addressing physical health issues and won an award for Innovation in Mental Health.

As described in section 1.3, the Clinical Senate will also provide advice and feedback

prior to formal consultation commencing.

4) Support from clinical commissioners: Both CCGs support and have helped to

develop the proposals in this document. CCG Governing Body leads have been involved

in the process throughout alongside member GPs.

It is also noted that NHS England have also introduced an additional test but as it only

relates to circumstances where there are proposals to reduce bed numbers it is not

applicable here. For details of the analysis and modelling for bed numbers, please see

section 5.1.9

1.8 Decision making and next steps

Following consultation, the St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group will review

consultation responses received from members of the public and organisations. The St

Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group is led by the Chief Operating Officer of

Islington CCG and the membership of the group includes commissioners from both CCGs,

communications specialist, the Director of Integrated Commissioning, London Borough of

Camden, as well as the Project Director from C&IFT. The St Pancras Hospital

Redevelopment Oversight Group will then consider the views of the participants and the

effect these may have on the decision-making process.

However, to give an indicative timeline, the programme expects the following milestones for

this process. These may be subject to change, as described above:

Formal public consultation – 5th July 2018 to 10th October 2018 (14 weeks).

External analysis of consultation responses – October 2018.

Final Decision-Making business case preparation – November 2018

Each CCG GB to consider the final Decision-Making business case document – November 2018

Each CCG GB make a decision on the final Decision-Making business case – November 2018

Page 17: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

17

17

2 Introduction

This section provides an overview of the purpose and development of the Pre-Consultation

Business Case (”PCBC”), as well as a description of the contents of the PCBC.

2.1 Overview

The local health organisations are united in the commitment to transforming care to deliver

the best possible health outcomes for the population of Camden and Islington. The local

communities have voiced a need for a more joined up and integrated health and care

systems. This will be done by shifting the model of care so that more people are cared for in

‘out of hospital’ settings, and through prevention, more proactive care, and new models of

care delivery, reliance on secondary care can be reduced and improve the way people

access and receive care.

This PCBC sets out the proposal to develop a fit for purpose and cost-effective service

transformation that delivers a high quality and accessible estate for patients with mental

health needs across the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington. The new estate,

combined with the service transformation, will enable Camden and Islington NHS

Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) to deliver high quality integrated health and social care

services, whilst supporting the Trust’s research objectives.

As set out in the Trust’s Estates Strategy, it is necessary to release value from the St

Pancras Hospital (“SPH”) site to enable the delivery of the broader transformation of mental

health facilities in the area.

This PCBC sets out a way forward for full public consultation on a preferred option which is

demonstrably the best solution in terms of benefits and value for money.

2.2 PCBC objectives

The objectives of this PCBC are to:

Make the case for change for transformation and modernisation of the current services delivered at the SPH site and the community sites of Greenland Road and Lowther Road and detail the proposal for redevelopment that enable these changes to happen;

Describe the clinically developed model of care and specification for the re-provision of:

Inpatient services from SPH to a new site at the Whittington Hospital;

The re-provision and alignment of some community services into newly developed community settings; and

Detail the services that are remaining on SPH, albeit in new facilities.

Detail the process undertaken with stakeholders to inform, develop and evaluate viable options for the redevelopment of the SPH site and re-provision of services elsewhere;

Detail the process undertaken to engage the public, staff and other stakeholders in the pre-consultation phase and demonstrate how their feedback has shaped the development and selection of the preferred option;

Set out how the development of the preferred options is compliant with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care’s (“SoS” or “Secretary of State”) four tests of service reconfiguration and NHS England’s bed test;

Page 18: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

18

18

Make the case to Camden NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (“CCG”) (“Camden CCG”) and Islington NHS CCG (“Islington CCG”), to commence public consultation on the preferred option.

2.3 Background

The existing mental healthcare estate at SPH is not fit for purpose – it is in part converted

from Victorian workhouses and was simply not designed to meet modern health and safety

requirements or provide an optimal environment for delivering healthcare. The latest Care

Quality Commission (“CQC”) inspection published in March 2018 noted that the Trust had

sufficient mitigations in place to address the concerns raised previously. However, the

overall rating for Safety remained as “Required Improvement”. The previous The CQC report

(June 2016) highlighted that the Trust’s acute wards (for adults of working age) and

psychiatric intensive care units require significant improvement. This judgement was based

in part on the breach of guidance on single sex accommodation, the physical ward layout

which prevented staff observation of all areas and the presence of a number of ligature risks

that were insufficiently managed; with the risk either not consistently recognised or mitigated

or the unavailability of ligature cutters.

As well as failing to meet modern standards, the location itself is no longer fit for purpose as

it does not provide therapeutic value for people who may be resident for many weeks or

months. For example, the estate lacks space for physical activity, monitoring of service user

wellbeing is impeded by the layouts, and there are significant commercial developments in

the area surrounding St Pancras that infringe on the privacy and therapeutic environment of

service users.

Significant investment would be required to maintain and upgrade the current premises to

meet modern standards, and it would require significant disruption to services during a

transition period with several stages of decanting services from one site to another. Even

then, in some cases, the Trust would still be unable to satisfy the standards prescribed by

Department of Health best practice guidance (Health Building Notes).

The Trust has, however, identified an opportunity to transform the estate to provide a fit for

purpose, cost-effective, integrated, accessible estate to enable the delivery of high quality

health and social care services. This is set out in subsequent sections of this document.

2.4 PCBC scope

Islington CCG, Camden CCG and the Trust have carefully considered what needs to be

consulted on. It has been decided that the following services will be publicly consulted on:

Inpatient services being provided from SPH that are moving to another site that is 2.5 miles away from the current location;

Services being provided from SPH that are moving into the community hubs; and

A limited range of other mental health services that are currently delivered from a variety of sites which will move as part of proposals.

A complete list of the Trust’s services that are moving can be found in Appendix [1].

Services that are not moving will not form part of this consultation, but for completeness this document does set out the NHS services that will be staying on the SPH site.

The following NHS organisations who are currently providing services on SPH will continue

to do so in new buildings on the existing site:

Page 19: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

19

19

Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust; and

King’s Cross Surgery

London Central and West Unscheduled Care Collaborative.

Central North West London NHS Foundation Trust and University College London Hospital, who are currently providing services out of the South Wing building at SPH, will continue to do so from existing facilities:

All of these organisations have been consulted with as part of the production of PCBC and

will have the opportunity to feed into the consultation.

Trust services that are not provided on SPH site and are not moving, as well as back office support services will not form part of the consultation.

A complete list of other provider services that are staying at SPH can be found in Appendix [2].

2.5 Parties involved in the production of this PCBC

The PCBC has been produced following engagement throughout the process with the

following parties:

The local CCGs, specifically Camden CCG and Islington CCG;

The local Health Trusts, specifically Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”);

London Health and Care Devolution;

Other primary care providers; including those on site (King’s Cross Surgery and London Central and West Unscheduled Care Collaborative); and

Local Authorities, specifically Islington London Borough Council and Camden London Borough Council including through the North Central London Joint Health Oversight and Scrutiny Committee (“JHOSC”), as set out in Section [7].

NHS England (“NHSE”);

2.6 Proposal Development

The Trust proposal set out in this document is to invest in new facilities for community

services provided on the SPH site, plus one site in Islington and one in Camden, whilst re-

providing the adult acute and rehabilitation inpatient facilities at SPH to a site adjacent to

Highgate Mental Health Centre (HMHC). These new facilities in Camden and Islington are

described as community hubs. The new facilities provided at the SPH site will also

accommodate a new Institute for Mental Health (“IoMH”) on behalf of Universities College

London (“UCL”).

Development of the proposed changes has been ongoing since early 2016 by the local

health organisations. This includes work on the pre-consultation activities, stakeholder

engagement and options development. Further detail of the options development is set out

in Section [8].

The SPH redevelopment programme and development of mental health Community Hubs

enables an overarching transformation of the estate to enable effective delivery of the Trust’s

Clinical Strategy along with national and local health strategies through the development of a

range of health services and research facilities. It puts service users at the centre,

recognising there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform services across the London

Page 20: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

20

20

Boroughs of Camden and Islington, building more visible, more accessible and more

integrated services for people locally alongside world class research driving the very best

practice. The opportunity is time limited because of the Certificate of Immunity from Listing

(“COIL”) that is set out in more detail in Section [4.1.3].

The SPH redevelopment programme is an opportunity to reshape the services themselves

delivering high class local, integrated care, meet leading 21st century standards in facilities

and develop a world class research institute.

As part of this transformation, the Trust will:

Build the community hubs, as part of the wider SPH transformation programme, where people can access local integrated health and social care;

Deliver innovative wellbeing and recovery services, with improved visibility with the local population, colleges, universities, and employers; and

Create an attractive setting that combines physical and mental health provision alongside a vibrant new development of residential, restaurant and leisure uses.

The SPH and Community Hubs programme will deliver:

1) Community hubs that support integrated care

The vision for the community hubs is that service users and carers’ will have a familiar, non-

stigmatising, easily accessible place where they can access a variety of services that

promote holistic care. There is a programme of transformation for mental health services

based around these fundamental elements:

Supporting people with mental ill health to live well, enabling them to receive care in the least restrictive setting for their needs;

Raise mental health awareness to reduce stigma, ensuring that mental health is considered equally with physical health;

Reduce reliance on inpatient care and expand community provision to support more people to spend more time at home, rather than in hospital;

Ensuring more accessible and extensive mental health support is delivered locally within primary care and other community services;

Community services are being developed to make sure that health and care will be available

closer to home for all, ensuring that people receive care in the best possible setting at a local

level and with local accountability. At the heart of the care closer to home model is a ‘place-

based’ population health system of care delivery which draws together social, community,

primary and specialist services underpinned by a systematic focus on prevention and

supported self-care, with the aim of reducing unplanned hospital admissions.

The plan is to develop community hubs as follows:

A 4 storey community hub at the Trust’s existing site in Greenland Road, in the London Borough of Camden; and

A 4 storey community hub at the Trust’s existing site at Lowther Road in the London Borough of Islington, replacing the existing building.

What this means for residents is that some services will move from their current locations and the final details for some of these services are yet to be fully determined. However, the local health organisations are confident that by co-locating clinical teams, giving access to joined-up care will have significant benefits for residents.

Page 21: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

21

21

The community initiative development is already underway in line with our STP plans

and will not wait for the opening of the new community buildings. The proposed

sequencing is as follows:

The Community Hubs will come into operation by June 2022

The In-patient block will come into operation December 2022

This will be followed by the development of the new health buildings on the St

Pancras site to open 2023

2) The SPH Site

The St Pancras Hospital site will be redeveloped to provide a total of 2,187m2 of

accommodation for the Trust including, out of a total current Trust occupied area of

12,117m2:

New community facilities that will include consulting rooms, meeting rooms, training facilities and the Recovery College. The Recovery College includes space for both clinical delivery and support facilities for the clinical teams;

In addition, a new Institute of Mental Health (“IoMH”) in partnership with University College London will provide an opportunity to improve mental health outcomes over the long term; and

New facilities for the other NHS services. 3) High quality inpatient facilities

A new build inpatient facility – located at Whittington Hospital (“the Whittington”). The inpatient facility will be a three storey new build surrounded by landscaped gardens with car parking available at our neighbouring Highgate Mental Health Centre (“HMHC”);

The new facility will have 84 single bed rooms, supported by 606 m2

of support space, an external courtyard or garden space and consulting rooms for each ward;

The new facility will be fully accessible, and present an attractive, therapeutic and welcoming environment for staff and service users; and

The facility will be designed to be future proof allowing reconfiguration in use as requirements change over the next decades.

2.7 PCBC structure

This PCBC was developed in line with the NHSE guidance “Planning, assuring and

delivering service change for patients” published on 1 November 2015 and the update in

March 2018, and HM Treasury Green Book guidance in relation to the capital investment

decisions involved to support that service change. It includes the following sections:

Executive summary: Summarises the key findings from the PCBC.

Introduction (this section): Provides an overview of the project’s objectives, background, scope, parties involved in the production and the proposal.

Context: This section sets the background of the parties involved, the current healthcare challenges faced by the commissioners and providers, and the commissioning arrangements between the CCGs and Trust.

Case for change: This section details the rationale and key drivers for changing the way services are delivered including from a national and local strategic context.

Page 22: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

22

22

Care model: This section sets out the model of care and details how the model of care is changing and the proposal facilitates delivery of this. It highlights the expected benefits and also how the model meets the needs identified in the Case for Change section.

Governance: This section documents the governance structure that has been put in place to ensure the consultation process is robust, accommodates relevant stakeholder views and who is responsible for making decisions and who is responsible for approvals.

Stakeholder engagement: This section sets out the engagement undertaken to date, how this has informed the consultation proposed and how the consultation will be run.

Options for consultation: This section documents the process for options generation and evaluation.

Finance case: This section sets out the financial impact of the selected option on the CCGs, Trust and any other relevant parties.

Implementation: This section sets out the practice steps needed to deliver the option identified in the Options for consultation, including project team, governance, risk management and timelines.

The SoS’s Four Tests: This section sets out how the consultation process has met the Secretary of State’s four tests and NHS England’s bed test.

Decision making and next steps: This section identifies next steps for the consultation process and wider development programme.

Page 23: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

23

23

3 Context

3.1 The Population and Healthcare challenges

The healthcare challenges set out below are in line with those presented in each of the

borough’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs) and latest published Annual Report

and Accounts.

3.1.1 Health and well-being challenges in the borough of Islington

Islington borough is London’s fifth most deprived borough and the fourteenth most deprived in England, which contributes to poor health and wellbeing outcomes.

The borough is one of London’s most mobile populations with approximately 20% of residents entering and leaving the borough each year. This results with challenges in identifying health issues and monitoring improvement in health outcomes.

At least 44,000 people registered with a GP Practice in Islington have at least one long term condition such as diabetes. It is also assumed that many longer term conditions may be undiagnosed.

Islington has the highest prevalence of psychotic disorders in England, nearly double the national average. In addition, 10% of registered service users has a diagnosis of depression which is amongst the highest in London.

It is estimated that about 31,000 people in Islington suffer with depression or anxiety. The suicide rate has been reducing since 2001 and in 2011-2013 it was below the national average and slightly above the London average. The relatively younger population explains a lower prevalence of dementia.

Islington is the 14th most deprived Local Authority in England. The borough has a few small pockets of higher financial capability, with the rest of the population having low financial capability.

3.1.2 Health and well-being challenges in the borough of Camden

Camden is ranked the 15th most deprived borough in London (out of 33). Within Camden there are areas that are within the 10% most deprived areas in England. Poverty is a key determinant of poor outcomes in health and wellbeing and higher levels of deprivation are linked to numerous health problems such as chronic illness.

Camden has the third highest diagnosed prevalence of serious mental illness in the country and the 8th highest diagnosed prevalence of depression in London. One in seven GP registered adults in Camden have been diagnosed with one or more mental health conditions.

Camden experience a higher rate of alcohol specific hospital admissions than England and London. Three quarters of the adult population in Camden drink alcohol and of those who drink an estimated 34% drink at levels that cause risk of harm to physical and mental health.

Life expectancy in the borough of Camden is higher than the average life expectancy in London and England. While the life expectancy is higher, on average the last 20 years of their life is spent in poor health. There is also a stark difference in the life expectancy between the most and least deprived boroughs.

The JSNA’s published in October 2016 estimate that the population is due to rise by 9% over 10 years. Although older people make up a relatively small proportion of Camden’s

Page 24: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

24

24

population (approximately 11.5% are aged 65 and over), the highest percentage growth (41%) in the 10 years commencing 2016 will be seen in those aged 75 years and older, resulting with exacerbation of health challenges1.

3.2 Background to the Trust and CCGs

The services provided by the Trust are primarily commissioned by Islington CCG in their role

as lead commissioner for mental health services, with Camden CCG as a significant

Associate commissioner to the Islington CCG contract. This accounts for 98% of services

commissioned. As such, the Governing Bodies for both organisations will make the decision

about this proposal;

3.2.1 Islington NHS CCG

Islington CCG is the lead commissioner for mental health services provided by the Trust,

accounting for 98% of services commissioned.

Islington CCG has 33 member GP practices, serving a population of nearly 250,000. The

CCG spent a total of £329.6 million in 2016/17 and achieved an in year surplus of £9.7

million2.

The majority of the CCG’s services are provided by local NHS organisations such as

Whittington Health, Moorfields NHS Foundation Trust, Camden and Islington NHS

Foundation Trust, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Royal Free

London NHS Foundation Trust. Services are also commissioned from not-for-profit

organisations based in the local community and other providers.

As part of taking forward the Haringey and Islington Wellbeing Partnership, the executive

management team of the CCG operates jointly with neighbouring Haringey CCG. The two

CCGs are led by a single Chief Operating Officer. Islington CCG received a “Good” rating at

the 2016/17 annual assessment.

3.2.2 Camden NHS CCG

Camden CCG is a significant Associate to the Islington CCG contract.

Camden CCG has 35 member GP practices and serves a slightly smaller population than

Islington of 280,000 residents. The CCG spent £371.7 million in 2016/17 and achieved an in-

year surplus of £476k3.

Similarly, for Camden CCG, the majority of services commissioned are provided by local

NHS organisations, including Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, University

College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Royal Free London NHS Foundation

Trust, Whittington Health and Moorfields NHS Foundation Trust. Camden CCG also

commissions services from not-for-profit organisations based in the local community and

other providers.

1 Camden JSNA 2015/16 (October 2016)

2 Islington CCG Annual Report and Accounts 2016/17

3 Camden CCG Annual Report and Accounts 2016/17

Page 25: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

25

25

3.2.3 Background to the Trust

The Trust provides mental health services for people with psychoses, complex psychological

conditions such as personality disorders, substance misuse, acute and crisis care, common

mental health disorders and dementia care. In addition, the Trust has a number of specialist

programmes such as mental health care for veterans living in London which is

commissioned by NHSE, this will not form part of this consultation as these services are not

moving, as set out in Section [2.4]. The Trust is the main provider of mental health services

for people living in Camden and Islington and also provides statutory social work and social

care services on behalf of the London Boroughs of Islington and Camden.

Services are provided for adults of working age, adults with learning difficulties and older

people in the London area, either in a community or inpatient setting. The Trust has

approximately 1,700 staff and provides services to approximately 30,000 people per year.

This includes a significant minority of people who are not local residents, but are temporarily

based here, such as students, asylum seekers and visitors to the capital.

Services at the Trust are managed in the following five operational divisions:

Acute and Crisis Care (Urgent care);

Recovery and Rehabilitation (Psychosis);

Services for Ageing and Mental Health (Older people and Dementia);

Substance Misuse Services (Alcohol and drugs);

Community Mental Health (Complex psychological and common mental health conditions).

The Trust does not provide child and adolescent mental health services (which is provided

by the Tavistock and Portman in Camden and Whittington Health in Islington) and has

relatively few specialist services.

The Trust is a member of University College London Partners (“UCLP”), one of the world’s

leading academic health science partnerships, and has a strong reputation for supporting

world-class quality research in to mental health.

The Trust has around 30 sites across Camden and Islington, as follows:

Inpatient beds are accommodated at two significant hospital sites in Camden (SPH and HMHC) providing 235 beds;

Community beds (residential) are provided across several sites, accommodating 78 beds;

Community clinical services are delivered from a number of buildings, spread across Camden and Islington.

The Trust’s Head Office is located at SPH, located within Camden. This occupies the former

St Pancras Workhouse and Infirmary and comprises 17 separate buildings and structures.

The site is located north of Kings Cross and St Pancras Station and west of the mainline

railway tracks. The Grand Union Canal is located just to the north and east of the site. St

Pancras Gardens forms the southern boundary to the site. In addition, the South Wing of the

hospital is located just to the south fronting onto St Pancras Way.

Adjacent developments around Kings Cross and St Pancras have transformed the area and

attracted significant inward investment. A number of large-scale housing developments, a

Page 26: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

26

26

feature of the regeneration of the area, overlook the site which is not seen as conductive to

mental health recovery.

The proposal is in line with the Trust’s 2016-2021 clinical strategy, which highlights some

particular demands on the estates of the Trust.

The focus of the Trust’s Clinical Strategy is to promote recovery, resilience and

independence via easy to access community-based services and specialist care-pathways.

This is based on:

Expanding capacity by integrating more staff into primary care and community settings;

Integrating physical and mental health;

Reducing the physical and psychological barriers to entry (through more local provision, better access for those with disabilities and more generally through greater awareness in the community);

Improving lives and wellbeing through wider integration of social and mental health support.

The Clinical Strategy is consistent with national policy and the North Central London (“NCL”)

Sustainability and Transformation Plan (“STP”), which aims to increase early intervention

and support through primary care, join up social care and health services and ensure mental

health has parity with physical health. This is outlined in further detail in the regional policy

case for change in Section [4] below.

Page 27: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

27

27

4 Case for Change

There are five categories of drivers for change to the current service delivery:

The local policy framework drivers for change – delivering on the objectives set out in the Trust’s clinical and estates strategies by providing more care in the community, developing research capabilities and leading on equality and diversity;

The national policy framework drivers for change – focusing on prevention, achieving parity for mental health and physical health care provision and integration of physical and mental care;

The regional policy drivers for changes – implementing the NCL STP plan;

The poor quality of existing estate at SPH; and

The limitations on the current service provision at SPH;

4.1 Local Policy Framework

4.1.1 The Trust’s Clinical Strategy

This proposal is in line with the Trust’s 2016-2021 clinical strategy, which highlights some

particular demands on the estates of the Trust.

The Trust’s Clinical Strategy represents a vision for the transformation of mental health and

substance misuse services. It is aimed at addressing the challenges for mental health

services of:

Increasing demand;

Historic underfunding in comparison with physical health services;

Difficulties with accessing timely interventions due to stigma; and

Poor awareness and services often not being joined up or accessible particularly for vulnerable communities.

The strategic priorities of the Trust are:

Early and effective intervention;

Helping people to live well; and

Research and innovation.

It focuses on increasing services based in primary care and the community, improving

access to services and integrating physical and mental health. The Clinical Strategy

recognises that health and wellbeing are shaped by individual characteristics, lifestyle

choices and environmental influences. So instead of attempting to ‘fix’ people and their

problems, or do things to them rather than with them, recovery-orientated services look at

individual needs and help people reach their potential. The Trust aims to provide services

that are accessible, person-centred and responsive to the often complex needs of

individuals. It is also recognised that the main determinants of health are socio-economic. In

order to promote good health, prevent ill health and reduce inequalities in health, the Clinical

Strategy promotes ongoing joint working with our partner organisations to act on the social

determinants that are likely to impair people’s health.

Page 28: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

28

28

A key component of the Clinical Strategy is the development of Practice Based Mental

Health. Practice-based teams work locally with GPs and other services in primary care.

Offering rapid assessments near to where people live, by senior clinicians who can make

decisions about treatments, access services in the community or, if needed, refer to our

specialist care-pathways. They will link people into the local community resources and

services as they are better placed to see people who won’t engage with secondary care

mental health services. They will support GPs in managing people with chronic mental

illnesses who are stable. Along with acute services, the practice-based teams are the entry

point into our specialist care-pathways.

Development of specialist care-pathways that deliver treatment and support to people with

similar needs due to mental illness is another priority. The focus of these services is to help

people achieve their recovery goals and link into their local social networks and community

resources. Access to these pathways is based on risk, intensity and the need for specialist

treatment.

The Trust has won awards for the development of an Integrated Practice Unit for people with

psychosis, which brings together partner organisations to improve the physical health of

those with psychosis. This is done with an aim to close the health inequality and lost years of

life for people with this condition experience. Bringing together all the providers who deliver

care to people with psychosis and coordinate their treatment and support will deliver a better

quality service and better outcomes, especially physical health outcomes.

Through community teams and work with partners, the Clinical Strategy sets out the vision to

offer high quality and comprehensive care and treatment. This is to ensure that service users

have access to high quality supported housing and are helped where necessary into

education and employment and to develop social networks. Community services and

support help people to continue their recovery and maintain their independence locally and

help reduce the length of time people need to spend in hospital, when they are very unwell,

to a minimum. The Trust is committed to offering world class, safe inpatient services in

therapeutic environments.

The focus of the Trust’s Clinical Strategy is to promote recovery, resilience and

independence via easy to access community-based services and specialist care-pathways.

It is clear that in order to meet this clinical vision, the Trust needs an estate that enables

Practice Based Mental Health to work locally and effectively with GPs and other services in

primary care. It also needs an estate that allows the early successes of Integrated Practice

Units to expand and bring physical health and mental health services together to meet health

in-equalities. The development of Community Hubs, rather than multiple sites for small

teams, allows a bringing together of services and providers to enable the coordination of

treatment to deliver care closer to people’s homes, a better quality service and better

outcomes. Finally, the Trust needs an estate that can provide a safe and therapeutic

environment to those requiring inpatient care.

The Clinical Strategy was approved and adopted by the Trust Board in November 2015. The

Clinical Strategy Programme Board was set up to oversee and monitor the delivery of the

Clinical Strategy.

Page 29: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

29

29

The Clinical Strategy is in line with the NCL STP, which aims to increase early intervention

and support through primary care, joined up social care and health services and ensure

mental health has parity with physical health.

4.1.2 The Trust’s Estate Strategy

The overarching aims of the Estate Strategy are to:

Provide modern, therapeutic mental health facilities across Camden and Islington;

Move more of our services into the community;

Build high quality, up-to-date, warm and welcoming inpatient facilities; and

Create world-class research facilities to help us deliver the very best care.

The Estates Strategy sets out the Trust’s vision for an overarching transformation of the

estate to enable effective delivery of national and local health strategies. It covers the period

2017 to 2022 and it is based on the Trust’s assessment of the present estate to establish the

scale of investment required to achieve the desired transformation. It has been developed in

consultation with Trust Clinicians and the Estates Team and was approved by the Board in

April 2017.

In summary, the Estates strategy:

Highlights the significant shortcomings of the present Trust estate and the need for wholesale estate change to meet service transformation;

Sets out an estate transformation strategy for the next five years that enables the intentions of the Trust’s Clinical Strategy to be delivered;

Illustrates the opportunity that exists through a comprehensive approach to the St Pancras site and wider estate to enable the creation of community hubs (buildings that bring together a range of services for mental and physical health and social care) in local settings across both boroughs, supporting the local CCGs’ and Local Authorities’ strategies for locally based services in defined geographical patches;

Creating centralised high quality clinical, education and research, facilities, integrated primary care and the development of key worker and social housing for staff and local communities;

Improving access for all to services both through the location of services and by addressing EA10 compliance – both of which are currently difficult to achieve within the existing estate; and

Improving the efficiency and environmental impact of buildings alongside critically ensuring we create environments that are therapeutic – supporting people’s wellbeing and recovery.

The Trust’s vision is:

“Our vision is to provide a fit for purpose, therapeutic, cost-effective, integrated and accessible estate which enables the delivery of high quality health and social care

services for our local population”

Page 30: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

30

30

4.1.3 Equality and Diversity Policy

The Trust’s Equality and Diversity Policy sets out how the Trust will demonstrate that it is

planning and delivering services in a fair and equitable manner to all sections of the

community, free from discrimination, and with dignity and respect.

Tackling health inequalities and social exclusion is an important priority for the Trust and it is

committed to taking positive steps to ensure fair and equitable access to services for all. As

a major provider of services, the Trust recognises the need to be pro-active so that it can

meet the changing needs of diverse communities, and provide fair access for all in an

environment where dignity, equality, diversity and human rights are respected and promoted.

In this respect, the proposed redevelopment will provide fit for purpose, accessible facilities

and support improved access to services for all users.

To support our commitment to equality and diversity, the Trust will:

a. Set and publish equality objectives;

b. Publish information annually on how we are meeting the public sector equality duties

(PSED) and our progress in this area;

c. Ensure that equality issues are considered as part of our everyday business, through

completion of equality analysis impact assessments for all business and policy reviews

and changes;

d. Seek opportunities to promote equality and diversity for our staff and service users;

e. Ensure that our services are as accessible and inclusive as possible, for all of our

service users;

f. Ensure that our service users know how to make a complaint or raise a concern if they

feel they have been discriminated against;

g. Ensure that our premises are accessible for staff and visitors.

Commitment to ensuring equality and diversity

The Trust recognises and celebrates the fact that each of the service users it supports and

every member of staff who works at the organisation, is a unique and valued individual with

different needs and aspirations.

In the 12-month period, the Trust embarked on an exciting new journey in relation to

integrating and embedding equality, diversity and inclusion into all areas of Trust business,

to ensure equality, diversity and inclusion becomes a ‘golden thread’ through all aspects of

the Trust’s business.

The Trust is now part of the Disability Confident Scheme, has become a Mindful Employer,

has trained staff to be mediators and is in the process of training staff at all levels to be anti-

bullying and harassment advisers. The newly established Disability Staff Network and

LGBT+ Staff Network are progressing, with commitment secured for the Trust to be present

at London Pride 2018.

Network for Change – our BME staff network - continues to grow. In the last year, the Trust’s

first Diversity Week at end of October 2017, showcased the rich abundance of cultures the

Trust has, culminating in an event which saw 70 plus staff members from the Trust

Page 31: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

31

31

attending, with guest speakers from NHS England, the Royal College of Nursing and C&I’s

Human Resources and Organisational Development Director giving the closing speech. In

addition, the Trust now has BME staff members trained to sit on interview panels in the

Trust.

The Women’s Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (WPICU) has been officially launched – the

only such unit to offer this service across North Central London. The Recovery College is

delivering courses “Men and Masculinity (Trans inclusive)” and “Understanding Black and

Minority Ethnic (BME) Cultures and Mental Health”. The Trust has also launched rainbow

coloured NHS lanyards for staff, to reinforce the Trust’s cultural pillars and promote an

environment of openness in all the Trust's services.

With the launch of ‘Our Staff first’ strategy, the Trust has implemented career clinics, flexible

working Policy, themed HR and organisational development road shows, initiatives to

support internal career progression and has introduced a New Starters Buddying

Programme.

Priority actions for the 2018/19 will follow an equality delivery review that will involve

stakeholders and local communities.

Equality Impact Assessment

As part of the planning for the redevelopment of St Pancras Hospital, an Equality Impact

Assessment was undertaken, to ensure that all sections of our community would benefit

positively by the changes. The EIA has been completed in two parts, with the initial phase

completed prior to consultation and a second stage to be completed following the

consultation outcomes. The majority of vulnerable or protected groups identified as part of

the EIA have been judged as achieving greater equality, improved outcomes or increased

accessibility through the proposal. For example, both inpatient and community developments

will provide improved disabled access for service users, staff and visitors. For many other

groups, the purpose built facilities offer an improvement in therapeutic environment, access

to outdoor space and care delivered closer to home.

At this stage, the EIA has identified the potential increased travel time for some disabled

service users as the only vulnerable group that may experience a reduction in accessibility.

In order to minimise this risk, route planning to the new site will be provided and shared with

local community groups for individuals with disabilities.

4.1.4 Global Leader in research

The SPH site has a strategic importance due to its proximity to Kings Cross Station, Euston

Station and St Pancras Station representing a major national and international transport hub.

There is also a Health and Life Sciences Cluster around Euston and Kings Cross that

already includes The Trust, UCL, University College London Hospital NHS FT, the Francis

Crick Institute, the Wellcome Trust and the London BioScience Innovation Centre.

The Trust already has one of the strongest records and reputations in UK mental health

research. That is why the vision for the SPH site includes the establishment of an IoMH – in

partnership with UCL who have the highest number of mental health academic citations in

the UK – so that the Trust can build on this strength and be a world leader. For every £1

Page 32: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

32

32

invested in mental health research, economic benefits are estimated to be 37p4 per year in

perpetuity, so this is an initiative that supports not only better care for service users but also

the Mental Health Taskforce 5YFW (2016) objectives and broader economic sustainability.

4.2 National Policy Framework

Figure [4.1] summarises a number of relevant national policies and guidelines for mental

health and also for healthcare more broadly. These policies and guidelines have guided and

informed the proposal in a number of ways;

Services should be delivered to a local population footprint, rather than an organisational footprint;

Access to mental health must be improved to meet the rising demand for services;

Mental health must have parity of esteem to physical health to improve outcomes;

The barriers between primary and secondary care must be reduced to improve outcomes and reduce costs;

Services should be delivered as close to user’s homes as possible and supporting primary care;

The NHS Estate Policy highlights the importance of ‘the estate’ as an enabler to these changes.

Figure [4.1]: Key National Policy Frameworks

5 Year

Forward View

and New

Models of

Care

Improving mental health provision is a central theme in NHS England’s

2014 Five Year Forward View (“5YFV”) alongside mental health specific

policies, such as the Mental Health Growth Strategy and the NHS

Mental Health Policy, which sets out the need for change in how the

NHS delivers services in the future. The strategy includes a focus on

prevention, allowing people more control over their care, better use of

technology and so-called triple integration: between primary and

secondary care, between mental health and physical health and

between health and social care. The 5YFV suggests that mental health

outcomes can improve by better prevention, increasing early access to

effective treatments and crisis care and integrating care to reduce

mortality. It challenges the NHS to develop new models of care to better

provide for the needs of people and the increasing demand on health

services.

North London Partners in Health and Care (NLP) has produced a five-

year Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) which drives the

implementation of the 5YFV. This focuses on planning by place for local

populations rather than individual organisation’s.

Incorporating the STP plans, the Trust has developed an ambitious,

innovative and robust Clinical Strategy in line with the 5YFV, evidencing

4 Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, RAND Europe. Medical Research: What’s it worth?

Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. London: UK Evaluation Forum; 2008

Page 33: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

33

33

the Trust’s willingness to adopt new models of care to transform

outcomes. This includes using Practice-Based Mental Health Teams to

provide mental health services from local GP Surgeries; allowing

service users to be seen directly in Primary Care and facilitating early

diagnosis and intervention. Having Multidisciplinary Teams removes

organisational and specialty barriers between primary and secondary

care and also any perceived divisions between mental and physical

health.

The Trust have developed an ambitious, innovative and robust Clinical

Strategy in line with these principles from the 5YFV, evidencing the

Trust’s willingness to adopt new models of care to transform outcomes.

This not only aligns local planning to national policy, but supports

mental health specific guidance around increasing access to services

by reducing stigma, putting mental health within reach of local

communities and allowing access through primary care. This is often

referred to as getting ‘parity’ for mental health services and is important

to this case for change, as that is precisely what the SPH

redevelopment facilitates.

5YFV for

Mental Health

In January 2016 the UK Prime Minister announced proposals to

increase spending on mental health by £1bn. This was followed by the

publication of the ‘Five Year Forward View for Mental Health’ in

February 2016 from an independent national taskforce. Relevant areas

of growth for the Trust include:

Access – New access targets to reduce waiting lists and address the pressures between demand and current capacity. This has been announced in Early Intervention in psychosis and will extend into other areas.

Integration of physical health and mental health – Services which support integration with physical health care and acute Trust efficiencies such as comprehensive liaison services, specifically in A&E, but also including areas such as support to people with dementia to reduce Average Length of Stay (ALoS).

The Trust already provides services in these areas, and has evaluated

pilot projects to expand them in new models of delivery. It is therefore

expected that the Trust will be successful in extending its services in

this area in the next few years and this has formed part of the service

reconfiguration plans.

NHS Mental

Health Policy

The government plans to continue to prioritise improvements to mental

health services, building on the policy priorities of the last coalition

government. This was further reinforced by the Prime Minister’s

statement on 9 January 2017.

The government wants public services to reflect the importance of

mental health in their planning, putting it on a par with physical health.

This is often referred to as getting ‘parity’ for mental health services and

is important to this case for change as that is precisely what the SPH

Page 34: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

34

34

redevelopment will allow, particularly in enabling better access to

mental health services. The key priorities that are relevant to this PCBC

are:

Enabling better access to mental health services and shorter waiting times a priority for NHS England;

Making reducing mental health problems a priority for Public Health England, the new national public health service;

Making mental health part of the new national measure of wellbeing, so it is more likely to be taken into account when government creates policy;

Providing £400m between 2011 and 2015 to give more people access to psychological therapies - including adults with depression, and children and young people; and

Providing up to £16m of funding over four years for Time to Change, the campaign against mental health stigma and discrimination.

Other policies and frameworks that would affect the strategic decision

making of the Trust are:

The current national strategy for mental health in England: No Health without Mental Health.

A new national strategy up to 2020 for mental health in England is currently being developed by the Crisis Care Concordat, which the Trust signed up to in 2014 together with many of its partners in the two boroughs (Camden and Islington).

The CQC 2015 Report – Right Here Right Now.

Recent reports such as Transforming Care (2012) and the Confidential Inquiry into the Premature Deaths of People with Learning Disabilities (2013).

The Care Act 2014.

Guidance from The Department of Health states “the environment provided by acute mental health services is a crucial element in the delivery of positive therapeutic outcomes for service users, their safety and the safety of staff and the wider community.” The environment in which care is delivered is a dynamic of the care itself and plays a crucial role in supporting the delivery of higher-quality and more cost-effective care.

In particular, for mental health facilities, a superior and sympathetically designed therapeutic environment has the power to alleviate stress and provide comfort to peoples at times of acute distress and vulnerability. By continuing to deliver services in sub-par facilities, the Trust is failing to deliver an optimal service and the projected improvements to quality as laid out in the STP are unlikely to be achieved.

By moving a number of services currently provided at the SPH site to facilities in the community, the Trust will be able to increase access and provision to the local population. The associated reduction in cost of delivering services in the community also supports this strategy, allowing the CCGs to deliver better value services.

Page 35: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

35

35

NHS Estates

Policy

The Trust is required to reach an agreement on an outcome that works

in the interests of all interested providers, commissioners (local CCGs

and NHSE) and regulators (NHS Improvement). As above, the Trust

has already started this process through its bilateral agreements as

described in Section [4.5].

4.3 Regional Policy Framework

4.3.1 NCL STP (January 2017) background

The Camden and Islington CCGs are part of the grouping of commissioners and providers in

the North Central London region, which incorporates Barnet, Enfield, Haringey, Camden and

Islington health, social care and public health commissioners, as well as all NHS Providers in

the sub-region. This group is now referred to as North London Partners in Health and Care

(NLP).

North London Partners in Health and Care has worked together to develop a North Central

London (NCL) wide STP which sets out how local health and care services will transform

and over the next five years, build and strengthen local relationships and ultimately deliver

the Five Year Forward View vision. The STP Vision is as follows:

“Our vision is for North Central London to be a place with the best possible health and wellbeing, where no-one gets left behind”

A set of core principles to support delivery of the vision has been developed, along four

themes.

1. Prevention: increased efforts on prevention and early intervention to improve health and

wellbeing outcomes for the whole population, to reduce health inequalities, and help

prevent demand for more expensive health and care services in the longer term.

2. Service transformation: service transformation to meet the changing needs of the

population and bring care into the community, closer to home. This includes taking a

“population health” approach by strengthening the offering in the community by closely

integrating with primary care.

3. Productivity: identifying areas to drive down unit costs, remove unnecessary costs and

achieve efficiencies to ensure sustainability. For providers, this includes implementing

recommendations from the Carter Review and working together across organisations to

identify opportunities to deliver better productivity at scale.

4. Enablers: a focus on delivering capacity in key areas that will support the delivery of

transformed care across NLP. This includes digital, workforce, estates, and new

commissioning and delivery models.

4.3.2 NCL STP: Plan for Mental Health

The STP proposes a ‘stepped’ model of care supporting people with mental ill health to live

well, enabling them to receive care in the least restrictive setting for their needs. The aim is

Page 36: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

36

36

to reduce demand on the acute sector and mitigate the need for additional mental health

inpatient beds.

Figure [4.2]: Stepped Model of Care for Mental Health, NCL STP

Initiatives include:

Improving community resilience through specific initiatives supported by NHSE, such as helping service users get back into work, which have been shown to reduce cost and activity;

Increasing access to primary care mental health services: ensuring more accessible mental health support is delivered locally within primary care services;

Improving the acute mental health pathway: developing alternatives to admission by strengthening crisis and home treatment teams;

Developing a Woman’s Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (“PICU”): ensure local provision of inpatient services to female service users requiring psychiatric intensive care, where currently there is none;

Investing in mental health liaison services: scaling up 24/7 all-age comprehensive liaison to more wards and Emergency Departments;

Investing in a dementia friendly NCL: looking at prevention and early intervention, supporting people to remain at home longer and supporting carers to ensure that we meet national standards around dementia.

In addition to the alignment with the STP plan indicated in Section [4.1], the reconfiguration of services directly addresses the building of community resilience, improving access to primary care mental health services and the development of a women’s PICU.

Page 37: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

37

37

The subsequent section set out the current model of care at the Trust and its relation to the

STP model of care in more detail.

4.3.3 Progress on STP mental health initiatives in Camden and Islington

There has been significant progress made in Camden and Islington since the STP was

written with the boroughs on track to deliver the STP mental health vision. The mental health

STP was driven by care models to improve patient outcomes, care and treat people in the

least restrictive environment, thus mitigating the need to expand the in-patient facilities.

4.3.3.1 Improving community resilience

Camden and Islington have implemented new employment schemes based on Integrated

Personal Support which is an evidence based type of employment support to help those with

mental health conditions back into work. These initiatives are specifically supported by NHS

England and have been shown to reduce activity, and also cost to, health services as people

gain employment.

Mental Health First aid is also widely rolled out to Camden and Islington Council and

voluntary sector services. This initiative is aimed at non-specialist front line services helping

them identify mental health concerns and support people to access mental health services.

Similarly, suicide prevention training is also being commissioned to support early

identification and intervention with people who may be at risk of suicide but not in contact

with mental health services.

4.3.3.2 Increasing access to primary care mental health services

The rollout and increased access to Practice Based Mental Health (“PBMH”) is a key part of

the CCGs vision and transformation strategy – specifically “ensuring more accessible and

extensive mental health support is delivered locally within primary care services”. This will

help the population get local, accountable care that is integrated with social, community and

specialist services. This will be underpinned by a systematic focus on prevention and

supported self-care, with the aim of reducing unplanned hospital admissions. In addition,

Camden and Islington CCGs are on target to increase access to IAPT services to 25% by

2021. Islington CCG has also invested in ‘integrated IAPT’ which specifically targets people

with long-term physical health conditions who may otherwise not recognise and come

forward for help with depression and anxiety associated with their conditions, but which

nevertheless make their condition more difficult to live with. Initially this will be targeted at

those with diabetes and chronic pulmonary respiratory disorder.

4.3.3.2.1 Improving the acute mental health pathway

Camden and Islington both have Crisis Home Recovery Teams that can respond to

individuals in the community who feel in crisis and without immediate support would need to

attend an Emergency Department. All acute admissions for mental health are agreed by the

Crisis Team to ensure that no one who could be supported at home or in a Crisis House is

admitted. There is also a 24-hour crisis line that the public and professionals can call to get

advice and support over the phone. Camden and Islington residents can also access Crisis

Houses across the boroughs to help avoid inpatient admissions where possible. These

teams will be reviewed in 18/19 to ensure that they are being efficiently used and working to

ensure that they are working to fully support people in the community, able to respond in a

Page 38: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

38

38

timely way, working closely with voluntary sector and social care; in order to support

people’s needs in the least restrictive setting.

Islington and Camden CCGs are early implementers of the Serenity Integrated Mentoring

(“SIM”) programme, which brings together police and care co-ordinators around a specific

cohort of patients who are repeatedly admitted to Health Based Paces of Safety under S136

of the Mental Health Act. In pilots elsewhere, this has resulted in a 50% decline in

attendance at Health Based Places of Safety and impacted on subsequent admissions.

4.3.3.3 Developing a Woman’s Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (“PICU”)

In November 2017 the Trust launched an 11 bed Women’s PICU, which is a shared

resource for North London Partners; however, the majority of admissions will be from

Camden and Islington due to the higher acuity of need in these boroughs. The service is

already demonstrating significant improvement to patient care, not only are patients now

able to be provided with services in the NHS and within their local area enabling visits from

relatives and better joined up care, but length of stay has also reduced to an average of 27

days from previous average in the private sector of 45 days. It is too early to say but it is

hoped that this locally provided more joined up care, as well as reduced length of stay on the

PICU, will impact on the overall length of stay in in-patient care for these women.

4.3.3.4 Investing in mental health liaison services

The Trust provides mental health liaison services in UCLH, Royal Free London and

Whittington Hospitals which are the main Emergency Departments attended by Camden and

Islington residents. The services there operate 24/7 and provide in-reach to the wards to

support training of staff, early discharge and reduced re-admission. The services provided at

these hospitals can be described at meeting many of the Core 24 requirements. In addition,

a new mental health suite is being implemented in Whittington Hospital, which will provide a

safe and therapeutic environment for patients who have attended Emergency Departments

to be assessed and cared for prior to admission or discharge. It is expected that the mental

health suite will provide a calming environment which will support more people to be able to

access services at Crisis Houses, or in the community with support from community teams

and thereby reduce admissions to acute inpatient mental health settings.

4.3.3.5 New model of care for Child and Adolescents Mental Health Services (“CAMHS”) and perinatal services

The Trust does not provide CAMHS services and therefore this proposal will not impact on

CAMHS services. However, in 2016 the Trust launched a new Community Specialist

Perinatal Service. This service is a North London Partnership (NLP) resource and builds

upon the small services that were already operating in Islington, Camden and Haringey. The

new service works across maternity units and peripatetically in the community to support the

needs of pregnant women and those with babies under one-year-old. This multi-disciplinary

specialist service ensures that the top 3-5% of women with severe mental health needs are

provided with specialist care and support, to better anticipate potential decompensation of

mental health and to support better treatment in the community.

4.3.3.6 Investing in a dementia friendly NCL Islington and Camden achieve high rates of dementia diagnosis for their estimated dementia

population; the NHSE target is for two-thirds of those estimated to have dementia to have

Page 39: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

39

39

received a diagnosis. As of March 2017, Camden’s diagnosis rate was 75.4% and Islington’s

96.8%. This means that people in Camden and Islington can access support and services

early in their diagnosis thus reducing crisis and inpatient care and supporting more people in

their homes. The mental health for older people pathway will also be reviewed in 18/19 to

ensure that services are best supporting people’s needs.

4.3.4 The Health Estate as an Enabler

The STP states that:

“An important enabler of a number the initiatives are the redevelopment of both the Barnet,

Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust St Ann’s site and the Camden and Islington

Foundation Trust St Pancras site.”

Furthermore, the STP confirms that the proposed developments at the St Ann’s and St

Pancras sites would:

Transform the current inadequate acute mental health inpatient environments on both sites;

Provide more therapeutic and recovery-focused surroundings for service users and staff;

Improve clinical efficiency and greater integration of physical and mental health care;

Release estate across the Trusts, to enable development of community-based integrated physical and mental health facilities;

Develop world class research facilities for mental health and ophthalmology enabling practice to reflect the best evidence; and

Provide land for both private and affordable housing, as well as supported housing for service users and housing for key workers.

At a local level there is also alignment towards the health estate as an enabler for

broader transformation. Both Islington CCG and Camden CCG, have overarching visions to

improve access to appropriate and effective mental health services and to ensure services

are integrated to enable a much more seamless experience for service users. This vision will

be enabled through the provision of fit for purpose, cost-effective, integrated, accessible

estate which enables the delivery of high quality services. This is covered in more detail in

Section [4.5].

4.3.5 Links to Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (“JSNA”)

The current JSNAs for Camden and Islington produced by the respective Health and

Wellbeing Boards with input from the local authorities, CCGs and other public sector parties

further outline the requirements for a sustainable and high quality mental health service in

the area. Both Camden and Islington have significantly higher rates of mental health

diagnosis than other London Boroughs, with Islington holding the highest percentage of

psychotic disorder diagnoses and Camden 3rd on that list. This has significant impacts for

the overall health and wellbeing of residents across the boroughs; the Camden JSNA (2016)

reveals that of those receiving incapacity benefits in Camden, mental ill health and

behavioural disorders accounts for the largest proportion of claims. Consequently, the

proposals to dramatically improve the quality of services to promote recovery and outcomes

alongside improved access for users in the community are essential to meeting local needs.

“…a service model that systematically promotes integration of physical and mental health

across primary and secondary care services and including self-management is required.”

Page 40: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

40

40

Additionally, as articulated in the extract above from the Camden JSNA (2016) and, as

stated in the most recent Islington JSNA (2016) the strong link between mental and physical

health warrants a more joined up model of care that addresses mental and physical health

together; providing further support for a model that aligns these services.

4.3.6 Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies (“JHWS”)

Both the Camden JHWS (2016) and the Islington JHWS (2017) identify mental health as one

of their key priorities to improve health and wellbeing in their Borough over the next few

years. There are similar strategies proposed in these documents to deliver this goal, such as

improving access to community based interventions and improving attitudes towards mental

health by developing understanding and reducing stigma. The proposed reconfigurations

reflect these broader strategies.

4.4 Quality of Existing Estate

4.4.1 CQC reports

The Trust delivers the majority of its care to residents in the London Boroughs of Camden

and Islington, including from its two acute sites at St Pancras Hospital (SPH) and the HMHC.

The sites vary widely in terms of their distribution, age, condition and suitability and these

“extensive differences” were noted in the June 2016 CQC report.

The report highlighted that the SPH acute wards and psychiatric intensive care units

required significant improvement. Therefore, it is a priority for the Trust to update the

facilities within which these services are delivered to enable better outcomes for service

users.

The latest CQC inspection published in March 2018 it was noted that the Trust had sufficient

mitigations in place to address the concerns raised previously. However, the overall rating

for Safety remained as “Required Improvement”. Furthermore, this most recent report

highlights the staffing difficulties facing the St Pancras site, with the vacancy rate of over

20% on all wards. This not only increases workload for staff but also increases the reliance

on agency and bank staff, which increases the likelihood of protocol not being followed and

staff training shortfalls.

4.4.2 Backlog maintenance

As may be expected, there is a considerable amount of backlog maintenance, particularly at

SPH, to the value of £10 million. Many of the buildings are inefficient, do not provide a

therapeutic inpatient environment, lack modern safety features and make it difficult to bring

together a full range of services (physical and mental health, and social care).

Beyond the £10 million of backlog maintenance, an estimate of approximately £175 million

has been quoted to re-provide services at the St Pancras site that meet modern standards.

A significant proportion (c.73%) of the Trust’s backlog maintenance requirement relates to

the SPH site.

4.4.3 Time bound opportunity

Critically, the opportunity to transform the mental health services in the area through the St

Pancras redevelopment is potentially time bound insofar as the Trust were successful in

their application for a Certificate of Immunity from Listing (COIL) and this is valid for a 5-year

period running to 2020. The importance of this to the scheme is that it means that no further

Page 41: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

41

41

buildings on the site can become listed in this period, enabling the Trust to consider

alternative uses for the current site.

4.4.4 Accessibility

In addition, whilst SPH does meet the Disability access requirements under Equalities Act

2010 (“EA10)”) compliance, the issues highlighted above, due to the age and consequent

design of the estate, leave room for improvement as they do not inherently meet the

requirements for all service users. Specifically, wheelchair users and people with sight loss

have relatively poor access, as the building is not designed to meet their needs. Similarly,

due to building design, lines of sight are compromised and additional systems have been put

in place to ensure patient safety.

4.4.5 Patient assessment

The 2016 Patient Led Assessment of the Care Environment (PLACE) scores, shown in

Figure [4.3], demonstrates the challenges the Trust has on the SPH site. This clearly

evidences that SPH needs improvements within the ‘Condition, Appearance and

Maintenance’ section and is a significant outlier on both the ‘Dementia Friendly’ and

Disability Access’ sections.

Figure [4.3]: 2016 PLACE assessment scores for SPH

Site Assessed

Cleanliness

2016

Food & Hydration

(Ward) 2016

Privacy, Dignity & Wellbeing 2016

Condition, Appearance & Maintenance 2016

Dementia Friendly

2016

Disability Access

2016

St Pancras Hospital

99.51% 86.26% 87.28% 91.4% 68.28% 65.57%

Average score C&I

99.51% 93.54% 89.43% 96.35% 82.07% 83.87%

National average

98.1% 89% 84.2% 93.4% 75.3% 78.8%

Comparative MH Trusts

99.6% 84.83% 96.24% 97.84%* 94.96% 93.32%

*SLAM spent a considerable sum in environmental works prior to the PLACE inspections

4.5 Limitations of Current Service Provision

4.5.1 Parity of esteem for mental health

Parity of esteem for mental health is widely supported as a concept across the health and

social care system, reflecting the fact that mental health can be more debilitating than most

physical conditions as well as the enormous social and economic costs of untreated

conditions (only 25% of those with depression are diagnosed).

Similarly, for inpatients that are admitted to the service at SPH, there is an associated

stigmatism with the facility which could be addressed through moving to a new, modern site

rather than staying at SPH. By exploring options to deliver inpatient facilities at a site that

also has physical health acute wards, there is an opportunity to develop closer collaboration

in meeting mental and physical health needs. This supports the wider new Model of Care as

Page 42: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

42

42

set out in Section [5] and STP goals for mental health provision that is integrated and viewed

as equal to physical health provisions.

4.5.2 Integration of care

This is a rare opportunity to make a step change in converting that concept into reality for

service users in North Central London. The proposal for the development of community hubs

brings the potential for significant strategic benefit for the broader health and social care

system as this hub will allow service users to have their physical and mental health

conditions considered on a single site through cross organisational working. The local health

organisations know that those living with psychosis on average die 20 years earlier than

average, but often this is due to poor management of preventable physical health and

wellbeing such as weight, diabetes and substance abuse. Further integrating care will

enhance the delivery of whole health and social care system transformation that is already

underway.

As this way of working is embedded across the community, there may also be opportunities

for workforce diversification, allowing staff to work more holistically than ever before with

service users. By bringing facilities and workforce together, collaborative working and

smoother transitions between services can achieved, which could not be achieved at SPH.

For example, an inpatient on a mental health ward could be visited on-site by a cardiologist

or diabetic nurse without significant travel or time delays. Similarly, an individual receiving

treatment on an acute ward may be recommended for swift assessment by a member of the

mental health team to best meet their needs.

Page 43: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

43

43

5 Care model and expected benefit

5.1 Care Model

The Trust’s Clinical Strategy 2016-2021 sets out the clinical model for services provided at

the Trust, both currently and in the future. This model has been designed to keep community

teams at the heart of service delivery; ensuring care is provided as close to patients’ homes

as possible. This model and its constituent parts are unchanged by the proposed

relocations, however its delivery will be greatly enhanced by the improved quality and

location of services, as evidenced below.

As described in the previous section, the Trust’s Care Model forms part of the broader NCL

STP ‘stepped’ model of care for mental health. This overarching model supports the focus of

services wrapped around individuals within their communities, with increasing levels of more

intensive, specialist care provided according to increasing need.

The development of a new inpatient facility 2.5 miles away from the existing site, alongside

new community facilities on the existing site and development of two new community hubs,

supports the improved delivery of the North Central London STP in a number of ways:

5.1.1 Improving facilities

Due to current inadequacy of the facilities at the St Pancras site, and the location of some

community services at this site, the Trust is unable to sufficiently deliver on a number of

aspects of the STP Model. This includes the delivery of high quality specialist services close

to home (Step 3) and elements of the more intensive levels that stipulate services should

support recovery at home and in the community (Step 4).

Furthermore, one of the enablers of the STP is the estates strategy, which lists the

redevelopment as key to delivering more therapeutic and recovery focussed surroundings.

5.1.2 Increasing access to mental health services

The STP’s focus on delivering more accessible and extensive mental health support within

primary care services is aligned to the planned roll out of the practice-based mental health

(PBMH) to all practices and increased access to Improved Access to Psychological Services

(IAPT) to 25% of the indicated population by 2021.

All Islington CCG registered patients are now able to access PBMH service. However, some

patients need to be seen at an alternative venue to their GP practice due to the limitations of

this estate. Camden CCG will expand their residents’ access to PBMH by building on their

current Team around the Practice model from 18/19, which too will add pressure on the

primary care estate.

Currently there are a high number of secondary care community teams located across

multiple sites, which includes some teams based on the St Pancras site. The development of

Community Hubs will allow the re-location of some of these services to more accessible

local sites for residents, away from hospital and closer to home. It also brings teams from the

same Division onto a single site, which improves closer working between professionals.

Community delivered services are expected to increase in levels of contact time with

patients as care is re-directed away from inpatient services, this requires a larger community

estate to accommodate additional activity.

Page 44: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

44

44

Service users will continue to have access the community services at new developed St

Pancras facilities, as well as services at the community hubs, giving services users greater

choice of where they wish to access services.

Community Hubs may also be able to bring opportunities for a wider range of in-reach work

for physical health services to patients with mental health to help improve accessibility to

physical health services.

5.1.2.1 Improvements to access within Camden

South Camden iCope (IAPT) and Assessment and Advice Team moving from St Pancras to Greenland Road;

South Camden Recovery Team to move into Greenland Road;

Community Recovery Service for Older People to Lowther Road in Islington (most patients are seen at home).

5.1.2.2 Improvements to access within Islington

Islington Practice Mental Health Team (where there is no capacity for patients to be seen at their GP practice) to move to Lowther Road;

Islington Assertive Outreach Team to move to Lowther Road;

Islington North iCope Team to move to Lowther Road;

Community Recovery Service for Older People to Lowther Road (most patients are seen at home).

5.1.2.3 Moves from St Pancras to sites other than the community hubs

Rivers Crisis House is likely to be moved off the St Pancras site, however plans for where this will be located are not finalised;

Pharmacy services to move to HMHC to support inpatients at both inpatient sites.

5.1.3 Improving the acute mental health pathway

The proposed relocation and development of Community Hubs does not involve the

provision of any extra inpatient beds, which aligns with the STP vision to develop

alternatives to hospital admission by strengthening crisis and home treatment teams. As part

of the acute pathway improvements, the STP also identifies the investment needed in

supported living arrangements, providing users with a supported, and longer term

arrangement for effective discharge.

5.1.4 Patient pathways

5.1.4.1 Practice Based Mental Health Teams PBMH based in primary care is a key component of the NCL STP, the Trust’s Clinical

Strategy and the CCG commissioning intentions. PBMH was piloted in Barnet and found to

reduce the need for referral to specialist care pathways by 60-65%. Subsequently it has

been operating across nine of the 33 practices in Islington for two years and has been rolled

out to all practices in 17/18, and across Camden from 18/19.

Service users are able to access locality based services, which include consultant

psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and nurses. These services aim to:

Increase access to high quality assessment and early intervention;

Page 45: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

45

45

Provide a supporting role to GPs and primary care staff to help manage patients at the primary care level, avoiding deterioration of health and the need to refer to secondary services; and

Reduce demands on a range of secondary services including Crisis Teams, secondary care teams, and acute inpatient admissions.

Healthy London Partnership has commissioned an economic evaluation of PBMH models

used across London. Islington PBMH service will be one of the sites which is expected to

deliver its findings in summer of 2018. The economic evaluation will look at a range of

factors including the impact of the service on secondary care and acute bed utilisation.

PBMH also helps to reduce the stigma of accessing services specifically for mental health

and they have been found to be effective in managing mental health in Primary Care

settings. By continuing to invest in PBMH, more individuals requiring mental health services

can be identified and supported early on, thereby reducing the impact of undiagnosed and

untreated conditions on long term health and wellbeing. For the majority of service users,

PBMH will be the entry point to more specialist support, however other entry points include

the Urgent Care/Acute pathway and A&E.

PBMH complements IAPT services where people with common mental health services can

access care and support without the need to meet secondary care thresholds of care.

5.1.4.2 Specialist Care Pathways Service user access to specialist care pathways depends on a number of factors, including;

risk level, intensity of interventions required and the need for a specialist treatment only

available via these pathways. There are four divisions currently in place focused on

particular user cohorts and providing specialised, tailored support depending on user need

and these continue to be developed by the Trust.

Community Mental Health (CMH) Division;

Rehabilitation and Recovery (R&R) Division;

Services for Ageing and Mental Health (SAMH) Division;

Substance Misuse Service (SMS) Division.

In addition to these four divisions, the Trust also provides an Urgent Care/Acute Pathway

(Figure [5.1]) that service users may enter if they are experiencing a crisis in their mental

health. For some service users this may be their initial entry pathway to services. However,

service users on this pathway are moved as soon as possible onto less intensive and more

tailored pathways.

A service user will often move among or between pathways and specialist sub-divisions as

part of their therapeutic journey and teams work collaboratively across pathways to ensure

users are supported throughout by a team that knows and understands their needs.

Page 46: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

46

46

Figure [5.1] The Trust’s Clinical Model

5.1.5 Workforce

As the current care model moves to a focus on community provision of services, workforce

requirements will need to change in line with this. The NCL STP Mental Health Workforce

programme recognises that all NCL mental health providers will face the following key

issues:

Portability to enable staff to work across traditional boundaries (organisational and health and care settings);

Improving staff experience of providing care; and

Career planning/development to support a lifetime career in NCL.

To address these issues, there is a dependency on two other NCL, STP programmes:

Care closer to Home: to provide more care from integrated primary and community settings; and

Workforce: to ensure the workforce can meet the above expectations.

The aims of the programmes are:

To provide analytical support in designing the workforce elements across work streams to address the key issues above, including providing an understanding of the impacts and benefits of introducing new roles and ways of working;

Page 47: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

47

47

To provide a common approach to recruitment across the 10 NHS Trusts in North London Partners (NLP) which will cover common recruitment policy and processes that will support collaborative recruitment and retention initiatives for provider trusts; and

Enable ‘portability’ of staff between providers and into primary and community care settings.

To deliver these aims and address the issues, the NCL STP proposes a range of measures which will impact the workforce considered as a part of this proposal:

Recruitment initiatives

General STP workforce recruitment initiatives are:

The “CapitalNurse” (CN) programme is trialling a joint approach across NCL and NEL by giving an employment guarantee to all locally educated student nurses in September 2018. This will provide a core offer to all students including access to a CN branded preceptor ship programme. The NLP are keen to understand whether this approach would be of value to other staff groups.

There will be a joint approach and a common policy to facilitate collaboration in NCL to training Nursing Associates and using apprenticeships to grow the workforce.

NCL has led the way in identifying overseas educated nurses who do not have a UK registration but are working in support roles in the NHS and social care in NCL. Whilst the new funding arrangements at HEE mean that the funding approach will change this is a great route to identifying more new nurses.

The development of a shared staff bank in NCL.

Some mental health specific initiatives that are directly applicable to the Trust are:

International nurse recruitment from the Philippines.

Participating in local, London-wide and national careers fairs as well as engaging with local schools.

Streamlined recruitment process has improved time to hire and had a positive impact on our vacancy rate.

Retention initiatives:

A Retention Study is being conducted across the STP by IPSOS Mori, with the results available in May 2018. Once the retention issues have been identified initiatives can be designed and delivered to tackle those problems.

Reviewing flexible working and flexible retirement options and introducing new package of non-pay benefits for staff.

Buddy scheme for new starters.

Current action planning to address issues identified in staff survey.

Over 30 Quality Improvement projects focussing on staff wellbeing, reducing violence and aggression in wards, improving patient experience.

Identifying training needs across NCL in order to inform a programme of joint training that can be utilised across the STP. This has recently been done with Dialectical Behaviour Training running across NCL.

Training to be provided for adult MH colleagues in CAMHS and vice versa in order to enhance skills and enable a more joined up workforce across the sectors.

Page 48: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

48

48

Development and use of new roles:

Piloted nursing associates in 2017/18 and seeking to expand cohort in 18/19.

Working with Skills for Health to identify new roles/existing roles suitable to be adapted to our workforce and activities (e.g. advanced practitioner)

Working in partnership with Inclusion Barnet to identify roles, which benefit from being held by people with lived experience of mental health issues. This follows a two-year experience of employing community engagement workers who all have lived experience.

The development of Children and Young People crisis services that will work across NCL – a children and young people’s Out of Hours crisis team and bid to develop a new Health Based Place of Safety at Highgate Mental Health Centre (HMHC) – will create new roles and posts.

The potential devolution of Tier 4 CAMHS and the development of the acute care pathway across NCL will result in further enhancement of the workforce and create new roles by 2020/21.

Expansion of IAPT services is seeing a growing workforce that requires better career development and support.

Up-skilling current staff:

Recruited Physical Health Leads to improve skills of our mental health workforce.

Apprenticeship programme to enhance technical and management skills of staff.

Nursing associate and nurse degree apprenticeships commencing autumn 2018.

Dialectical behaviour therapy (“DBT”) training is being undertaken by 23 staff across NCL to further enhance the acute care pathway.

The development of a CAMHs out of Hours crisis team will create opportunities for staff to work in different settings and developing their skill set.

Opportunities are being explored to develop joint training across adult mental health and CAMHS in order to upskill staff in both sectors.

Mental Health First Aid Training for 200 non-mental health staff and current Peer Support Workers to be delivered by June 2018.

200 Primary Care and Social Care Staff to receive Suicide Prevention Training

A further 250 primary care and community staff will receive training through integrated IAPT programme.

In accordance with the care model, many staff at the Trust are already more community

based than they have been previously, and the preferred option does not call for any staff to

transfer out of the Boroughs of Camden and Islington.

These proposals are not expected to have negative impacts on the workforce. Any workforce

changes will be consulted on in-line with the Trust’s agreed Change Management Policy and

sufficient time will be allowed to ensure appropriate notice is given of any changes.

Furthermore, the Trust’s devolved structure encourages clinically led divisional autonomy,

within the Trust’s overarching policies, procedures and values. Each division will be

responsible for managing their workforce changes, supported by the Human Resources &

Organisational Development Team. The Trust Strategic Development Committee will have

oversight of workforce plans, with ultimate accountability being held by the Trust Board.

Page 49: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

49

49

Staff engagement sessions have been on-going since April 2017, to gather workforce views and listen to feedback. This has included engagement with clinical leads, senior managers, community staff, and ward staff, as well as open sessions that all staff members have been encouraged to attend. Whilst some members of staff would prefer to remain in their current working locations, there is wide acceptance that facilities are not as good as they should be and that the redevelopment programme is an opportunity to improve both service user experience and the working environment for staff.

5.1.6 Commercial principles

There is no activity shift expected between the different providers of the services being

consulted on.

In fact, the commercial structure around the payments to the Trust from the CCGs is such

that there would be no negative financial impact on the CCGs as a result of the proposed

service changes. This is because of the block grant payment mechanism which is set out in

more detail in Section [9].

5.1.7 Activity, Volume and Capacity Modelling

The table below sets out the overarching activity figures for the Trust over the period April

2014 to March 2017.

Figure [5.2]: Trust Total Activity and Admissions April 2012 to March 2017

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Admissions 1,216 1,316 1,315 1,397 1,363

Inpatient and Community Episode Caseload

(Total distinct patients)

20,020 21,567 22,584 23,274 23,823

The Trust currently has 235 beds (84 on the St Pancras Hospital site) used for acute

admissions, treatment of adults and older people.

Over the past decade or more, changes in the way mental health services are delivered

have consistently reduced the use of inpatient beds. The Trust has closed approximately

130 beds (acute and continuing care) in the past 10 years, through the development of

increased alternatives to hospital care and improvements to the arrangements and working

practices in inpatient care.

Over the last couple of years, the Trust has experienced consistent pressure on its

remaining beds and an increase in numbers of people admitted and those treated by the

Crisis system. This reflects both demographic growth and the nature of the local

demographic, which is highly transient and includes many people accessing mental health

services for the first time (and who therefore often require greater support). There has been

an increasing number of Overseas Visitors to the UK who require urgent and emergency

care, often resulting in an inpatient admission, before they can be re-patriated to their home

country.

In 2016, commercial advisors were commissioned by NCL STP to undertake bed modelling

for the area. The advisors predicted an increase in the overall requirement of inpatient beds

to increase from 236 to 268 in the Trust by 2021, an increase of 32 beds based on an 8%

Page 50: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

50

50

demographic growth if services remained as they were with no operational efficiencies or

clinical improvements. The advisors also suggested that if the STP mental health work

stream was delivered, it would remove the need for many of the additional inpatient beds

required estimating that the Trust bed base would need to increase to 246, a much smaller

growth of 10 beds.

The STP mental health work stream and progress on it in Camden and Islington is detailed

in section [4.4.2], these are to a large extent based on reducing the demand for inpatient

beds and meeting people’s needs in the community. In addition to this there have been a

range of changes to the Trust bed utilisation since the commercial advisors’ modelling as the

STP initiatives and Trust initiatives have advanced.

5.1.8 Trust initiatives on inpatient beds usage

In 2017, the bed situation specifically length of stay had worsened for Male PICU and acute

wards. Due to this and the already high length of stay for older people and rehabilitation

wards, the Trust embarked on an ambitious plan to reduce the length of stay of all of its

wards which is showing real progress and has enabled some significant changes.

The commercial advisors’ review detailed that the average length of stay in 2015 for acute

wards was around 49 days, and 55 for male PICU. The Trust acknowledged that they were

an outlier compared to other Trusts for length of stay, which contributed to high occupancy

levels and meant that they often had to use private beds to accommodate needs; this

included a length of stay for older adults of 135 days. The commercial advisor found that bed

occupancy was at 97-98% for acute and 99% for older adults, the Trust’s ambition is to

achieve 95% by March 2018.

To achieve the overall aim of 95% bed occupancy by March 2018 the Trust programme was

to:

Free up 12 beds across the system by 31 July 2017 to enable the opening of a Women’s PICU by 1 November 2017;

Fully utilise new community resource to step down some long staying rehabilitation patients by September 2017;

Reduce the number of people staying beyond the agreed median Length of Stay (LoS) by 50% by the end of 2017;

Convert 4 older people’s continuing care beds to acute beds by 31 March 2018.

This was achieved in a range of ways including:

Re-assessment of number of patients who were outliers in terms of LoS;

Closer links with Islington’s voluntary sector Crisis House to better utilise this service, the Trust is a partner in the newly re-commissioned service which started in April 2018;

Greater social care presence in acute wards to strengthen links to the community and supported accommodation to facilitate move on. The clinical strategy is in line with local social care plans for Camden and Islington Councils. Both Councils have introduced a Strengths Based Approach, which emphasises support for individuals to develop self – reliance, resilience and make greater connections with their community. Developing services that put community provision at the heart of our vision is in clear alignment with social care ambitions.

Page 51: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

51

51

Senior clinical review of patients to support reduction in LoS, including older adults with a target of reducing stays to 60 days;

Introduction of Red to Green which is a daily analysis of the treatment and care delivered to inpatients; red days being days where the treatment given could have been provided in the community. Therefore, working towards ensuring that every inpatient day is fully utilised and that patients are supported to discharge ensuring that they are treated in the least restrictive setting.

The Trust has made significant progress on these targets with the following having been

achieved:

Reconfiguration of bed base to allow the opening of an 11 bed women’s PICU in November 2018 (this included one bed closure due to the restrictions of the SPH estate);

Reduction in Continuing Health Care beds by four as planned, but increases acute bed base to support demand;

Increased flow to rehabilitation beds which in turn supports reduction in length of stay in acute beds;

Utilisation of all types of beds has reduced in the last year (Appendix [25])

Utilisation of acute beds has reduced from 99% to 96% in the last year;

Length of stay for acute beds for 17/18 is 67 days including PICU wards;

Utilisation of older adult beds has reduced from a high of 648 bed days in June 2017 to 502 in March 2018, a reduction of 33%

Length of stay for older adult for 17/18 is 118 days;

Utilisation of rehabilitation beds has reduced from 99% to 97% over the last year

Length of stay for rehabilitation for 17/18 is 721 days;

Occupied bed days (OBD) for private sector placement for acute care and PICU are now on a significant downward trajectory, following sharp peaks between July – Dec 20175, and are now on a zero trajectory by March 2021 (submission to NHSE) (Appendix [25])6;

Total OBDs for private sector placement acute and PICU placements fell from a high of 2065 in quarter three of 2017/18 to 330 in the following quarter;

New admissions have reduced from 591 to 474 between 15/16 and 17/18 representing a 20% reduction.

5.1.9 Refreshed bed modelling

Further bed modelling has been developed for the Trust which forecasts further in to the

future. In this updated bed modelling local demographic trends have been extrapolated into

short term and long term growth scenarios. The forecast suggests population growth of

8.29% in the years 2017 to 2025 with the population of Camden and Islington rising from

509,594 in 2017 to 551,855 in 2025.

5 This was due to closure of a 12 bedded acute ward during the re-configuration to women’s PICU, since opening of the PICU

(November 2017) both PICU and acute bed admissions to private sector have fallen to under 100 per month, compared

with highs of 500 (PICU) and 400 (acute) per month. 6 STP trajectory is not zero but C&I trajectory is and this is likely to be achieved ahead of schedule.

Page 52: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

52

52

Growth in Islington is forecast to be higher that Camden over this period (9.24% compared

to 7.43%). The trajectory of demographic growth from 2017 – 2025 on the projected bed

requirement in would be 254 beds from the current bed base of 235, with no mitigation of

efficiency or service development. In short there would be a requirement of 19 additional

beds.

The Trust has the second highest number of acute beds per head of population and is within

the upper quartile of mental health trusts for acute admissions and length of stay (Appendix

[24]). The Trust has around 70 beds more than the crude arithmetic mean of all Trusts. 40 of

these beds result from a higher than average propensity to admit. 30 of these beds result

from a higher than average length of stay.

There are some local factors that account for a proportion of this higher admission and

length of stay, such as the need for higher dependency bed usage, and for admissions of

people with a diagnosis of psychosis (above upper quartile for Cluster 10-16, and near to it

for Cluster 17). London similarly has much higher proportion of psychosis patients. However,

figures suggest that this may account for as many as 29 beds. There are high relative levels

of homelessness in Camden that analysis suggests could account for 8 beds, plus the

ongoing need of high levels of funded overseas visitors, again an additional 8 beds.

Thus 45 excess beds can be explained by clinical need, (from the identified 70), leaving

opportunity for improving bed utilisation that could result in bed savings of 25. This reflects

the difference between the existing and remodel of care figures, and mitigates against the 19

forecast additional beds demographic change suggest should the care model not change.

The Trust has around the median number of older adult beds per head of population and is

in the lowest quartile of mental health trusts for older adult admissions (Appendix [24]). Both

Camden and Islington have relatively young populations compared to London and England.

Length of stay in the Trust is fifth highest nationally and the longest in London. The Trust has

a much lower propensity to admit but a higher length of stay, with overall fewer than average

beds (circa 2 beds) per head of relevant population. Analysis suggests that the lower

propensity to admit accounts for 12 beds fewer than the mean, whilst the higher than

average length of stay accounts for about 10 beds. There is little to suggest any capacity to

reduce the bed base in this area7 and would need to reflect demographic growth in the

future.

With regard to rehabilitation beds there is a predicted growth of eight beds. However,

significant work has been done to reduce the length of stay for these patients including the

opening of a new resource which has allowed the opportunity for patients to step out of

rehabilitation that had previously had very long stays. Therefore, the need for additional beds

is mitigated, and a further review of rehabilitation across inpatient and community wards’ will

be undertaken in 2018/19 to ensure optimised care pathway to reduce length of stay where

possible.

The evidence above with regard to the progress made so far both in terms of delivery of the

STP and Trust initiatives suggests that this requirement will not be needed. For example,

7 Source: 2016 NHS Mental Health providers’ benchmarking club

Page 53: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

53

53

through earlier diagnosis and intervention; and greater support and capacity to enable

patients to receive care in the community, as well as continuation of the Length of Stay

project to absorb demand as admission and treatment length are reduced. Some of these

initiatives are difficult to quantify exactly, for example, there is yet to be an established

evidence base on the impact of PBMH on inpatient beds. However, this, combined with

initiatives in crisis services, is the prevailing good practice model and one being followed by

all mental health Trusts.

Consequently, the CCGs are confident that maintaining the current bed base at 235, will be

sufficient to meet demand in 2025, and the new build will actually allow one additional bed to

236 due to the removal of the estate compromise that saw one bed close in 2017. The

CCGs believe that this is a conservative proposal based on the clinical efficiencies

postulated within the STP, the service developments being delivered in the Trust’s Clinical

Strategy and improved practice that is already in track. These movements are set out in

more detail in Figure [5.3].

Page 54: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

54

54

Figure [5.3]: Bed modelling

Type of Bed Current Location No of Beds

(Feb 16)

No of Beds Predicted by STP due to demographic growth and

no service development

s (Feb 21) McKinsey

No of Beds Predicted in

STP with demographic growth and

Service Developments

(Feb 21) McKinsey Mitigation

Current No of beds (Feb

18)

No of Beds Predicted in OBC due to

8% demographic growth and

no community

developments (Feb 25 )

No of Beds Predicted in OBC due to demographi

c growth with Clinical

Strategy implemented community

developments (Feb 25)

Service Developments

Assumed / Delivered

(15/16) full year

data available

to McKinse

y

Assumptions are 13.3% demographi

c growth from 15/16 -

20/21 (5 years) steady

length of stay and

occupancy

As detailed in the STP

Increased CRHT Teams / Perinatal/Prima

ry Care

Service Development

s from Feb 17 include: Women's

PICU

N/A

As detailed in the

Clinical Strategy

Men’s PICU Total 12 13 13 12 13 12

Length of stay MPICU 55 89

Women PICU Total 0 0 10 11 12 11

Length of stay WPICU 36

Acute Total 152 173 140 140 151 130

Length of stay Acute 49 38 67

Older Adult Total 28 32 27 28 30 30

Length of stay Older Adult

135 37 118

Page 55: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

55

55

Rehabilitation Total 44 51 66 44 48 52

Length of stay Rehab 1103 721

Total number of beds

236 269 246 235 254 235

Page 56: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

56

56

5.2 Expected benefit

The benefit impact of the proposed development of facilities is focused around the improved

therapeutic environment for service users. This is in line with the current clinical strategy to

promote recovery, resilience and independence via easy access to community-based

services and specialist care-pathways.

The main benefits that have been identified are as follows:

Improve quality of care by enabling transformation of service models;

Support the delivery of the Trust’s clinical strategy and STP by increasing accessibility to community services;

To create fit for purpose, therapeutic inpatient wards;

Enable the Trust to fully comply with CQC requirements without the need for high numbers of adaptations – both hospital regulations and standards and statutory regulations;

Improve the Trust’s status as a research and development centre of excellence through e.g. better facilities and partnerships with other organisations;

Promote equality through improved access to ‘disability friendly’ facilities;

Improve sustainability through improved efficiency of facilities and enablement of better and more efficient care models;

Enable greater alignment of Trust services with the needs of service users through improved access to safer facilities;

Reduce stigmatisation of Mental Health service users by facilitating easy access to new facilities and open spaces;

Improve service user experience with the ability to access integrated physical and mental health services in line with the 5YFV and national NHS Mental Health strategy “No Health without Mental Health”;

Enable greater proximity to services for a high proportion of service users by locating services in Camden and Islington;

Attract and retain high quality staff by providing a high level of staff support including improved engagement and facilities;

Contribute to the local community by promoting community health services and improving staff’s workplace;

Support the movement or maintenance of the current location of others Trusts as set out in the STP; and

To allow the development of joint Mental and Physical health care by the proximity of the Whittington health site.

5.3 Impact on service users and benefits

Of the 25,000-30,000 people seen by the Trust on average per year, just under 9,000 were

seen at the St Pancras site last year. Of these 9,000 users, over half were visiting services

that will remain at the St Pancras site and so the number of users expected to be affected is

around 3,100 (see Figures below).

Page 57: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

57

57

Figure [5.3]: Affected service users by service - Inpatients

Name of service Proposed new location Number of service users affected (based on attendances 1 Jan-31Dec 2017)

Dunkley Ward (mixed sex with 4 learning disability beds)

New in-patient facility 165

Laffan Ward (mixed acute mental health)

New in-patient facility 168

Ruby Ward (female PICU)8

New in-patient facility 20

Rosewood Ward (female acute mental health)

New in-patient facility 115

Montague Ward (mixed high dependency rehab ward)

New in-patient facility 32

Sutherland Ward (mixed long-term complex care ward)

New in-patient facility 27

Total number of service users 527

Note: The Approved Mental Health Professional Service and Pharmacy services are addition

to those listed above that form part of the proposal (see Appendix [1]). However, these two

services support services listed above and are therefore covered in their numbers of service

users.

Figure [5.4]: Affected service users by service - Community

Name of service Proposed new location Number of service users affected (based on attendances 1 Jan-31Dec 2017)

Camden Mental Health Assessment and Advice Team

Camden Hub 720

Islington Practice Mental Health Team9

Islington Hub 15

Islington Assertive Outreach Islington Hub 101

South Camden Recovery Team Camden Hub 720

iCope North Islington Team Islington Hub 2,179

Community Recovery Service for Older People (Camden and Islington)

Islington Hub 99

South Camden iCope Camden Hub 2,450

Total number of service users 6,284

These users will see a number of significant benefits depending on the service they access:

5.3.1.1 Community based care Over two-thirds of the users likely to be impacted are attributed to the South Camden iCope

service, which is a low intensity service providing guided self-help interventions alongside

8 Part year effect opened in November 2017

9 Those not able to be seen in GP surgeries – figure based on March 18 only when full roll-out was achieved.

Page 58: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

58

58

psychological interventions such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). For these users,

the relocation of this service to the Camden hub offers the opportunity to access services at

a more welcoming community based, non-acute setting. This will not only provide easier,

more direct access to services but also reduce the stigma attached with accessing mental

health services.

5.3.1.2 Improved therapeutic environment For inpatients at the St Pancras site, moving to a newly built facility ensures they receive

care in a high quality, specialised building with state of the art facilities. The current site was

deemed unfit for purpose following a CQC report in June 2016, with some wards having

serious health and safety concerns, including ligature points and blind spots. The latest CQC

inspection published in March 2018 noted that the Trust had sufficient mitigations in place,

however the overall rating for Safety remained as “Required Improvement”. Furthermore,

this most recent report highlights the staffing difficulties facing the St Pancras site, with the

vacancy rate over 20% on all wards. This not only increases workload for staff but also

increases the reliance on agency and bank staff, which increases the likelihood of protocol

not being followed and staff training shortfalls.

By transferring these services to a purpose-built facility, critical safety improvements will be

seen alongside drastic improvements to the general therapeutic environment. For example,

the new site will improve on the poor quality of available outside space at the St Pancras site

and improve lines of sight for monitoring of patients.

5.3.1.3 Improved access When rated for disability access, the current site’s 2016 PLACE rating is a significant outlier

at only 65.57% accessible when compared to the national average of 78.8%, and the even

higher rating for comparative MH Trusts at 93.32% accessible. By relocating to a newly built

site that meets modern accessibility requirements, this will increase equality of access for

users, staff and visitors.

5.3.1.4 Parity of esteem for mental and physical health By co-locating the new purpose built facility alongside the Whittington Acute Hospital,

service users are able to receive specialist mental health treatment from the same site as

users of the acute physical health care service. This helps reduce the stigma attached to

mental health facilities and is a key aim of both the Trust and the STP clinical aims.

5.3.1.5 Improved integration between acute and mental health services In addition to the reduced stigma, by having mental health inpatient and acute facilities on

the same site, it is expected that users transferring between the two services will receive a

quicker and more streamlined transition. For service users being ‘stepped-up or stepped-

down’ from the acute pathway, there will be a minimal physical transfer required and this will

be able to occur more quickly between the two providers, improving treatment and service

user experience.

By continuing to deliver a model of care that is primary care and community focused, the

proposed relocation of some services does not impact upon the majority of service users’

access to services. The ongoing roll out of practice-based teams ensures all service users

are able to access mental health professionals and receive treatment and support close to

their homes.

Page 59: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

59

59

5.3.1.6 Better working initiatives for staff: By developing new facilities and implementing the workforce plan as per the STP, it is expected that the local health organisations are more likely to attract a higher quality staff by providing a high level of staff support including improved engagement and facilities. There will also be a naturally higher retention rate due to the higher quality buildings. 5.4 Changes to travelling times and distances Detailed travel time analysis has been undertaken from the centre of each partial post-code to the existing service and the new service location using the Transport for London travel tool. The analysis tables demonstrate the impact on services users and populations for the average change in travel times between distances using by differing modes of transport available for the journey for the following scenarios:

For all postcodes - a table showing the change in time due to relocation of beds from

St Pancras to the Whittington.

For Islington postcodes – a table showing change in time due to relocation of

community services from St Pancras to Lowther Road.

For Islington postcodes – a table showing change in time due to relocation of

community services from Manor Gardens to Lowther Road

For Camden postcodes – a table showing change in time due to relocation of

community services from St Pancras to Greenland Road.

Looking across all postcodes compared to travelling to St Pancras, around half of the

postcodes would have increased journey times to Whittington Hospital, a third little change

and around one fifth would have a shorter journey time.

The travel time analysis for movement between St Pancras and Lowther Road was generally

positive, indicating that over three quarters of Islington service users would have a shorter

journey. Two thirds of journeys between Manor Gardens and Lowther Road would be longer,

with one third of journeys shorter and a small percentage showing no difference.

The travel time analysis for movement between St Pancras and Greenland Road across

Camden postcodes was even more positive with around 80% of people experiencing a

shorter journey time and just 15% of journeys being longer.

The public consultation document will simplify the travel analysis for Islington and Camden

residents, give examples of travel routes, and provide a link to the full analysis so that

individuals can look up their own postcode against their likely site change, which will also

depend on condition treated.

5.5 Public Sector Equality Duty

The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) process is designed to ensure that a project, policy or

scheme does not discriminate against any disadvantaged or vulnerable people or groups.

This ensures CCGs pay ‘due regard’ to the matters covered by Public Sector Equality Duty.

The EIA will be completed in two parts, with the initial phase completed prior to consultation

and a second stage to be completed following the consultation outcomes.

The initial phase EIA focused on:

How the services will impact on protected and vulnerable groups in the community;

Page 60: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

60

60

How the CCGs and providers must ensure equality and fairness in terms of access to these services- and appropriate provision for all patients based on their clinical, personal, cultural and religious needs; and

How the CCGs will work together with local providers and patients and carers to ensure a high quality of services that all patients can experience.

The majority of vulnerable or protected groups identified as part of the EIA have been judged

as achieving greater equality, improved outcomes or increased accessibility through the

proposal. For example, both inpatient and community developments will provide improved

disabled access for service users, staff and visitors. For many other groups, the purpose

built facilities offer an improvement in therapeutic environment, access to outdoor space and

care delivered closer to home.

At this stage, the EIA has identified the potential increased travel time for some disabled

service users as the only vulnerable group that may experience a reduction in accessibility.

In order to minimise this risk, route planning to the new site will be provided and shared with

local community groups for individuals with disabilities. Parking spaces for disabled service

users will be available on the current Highgate site of the Whittington Hospital.

Page 61: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

61

61

6 Governance

6.1 Governance structure for the consultation process

The consultation phase of the redevelopment of the St Pancras site is being overseen by the

St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group and led by the Chief Operating Officer

of ICCG (Figure [6.1]). This group is reporting to both of the CCGs in addition to providing

assurances to NHS England. NHSE representatives also have positions within a number of

the groups relevant to the redevelopment to ensure adherence to rigorous NHSE guidelines

for consultation. These arrangements are for the consultation phase only, with full project

governance details being set out in Section [9].

In order to proceed to public consultation, the process requires approval from the CCGs

Governing Bodies and NHSE. To support this decision, the CCG Governing Bodies will

review the proposed consultation document, consultation methodology (including the

Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and Quality Impact Assessment (QIA)), financial

modelling and consider the response from the Clinical Senate. Camden and Islington Local

Authority’s Heath and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committees will be also be provided an

opportunity to review and comment on the consultation process prior to launch.

Figure [6.1] Public Consultation Governance Structure

A full break down of these consultation groups is provided below.

Figure [6.2] Membership of consultation groups

Group Lead Members Reporting to

St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group

Chief Operating Officer, Islington CCG

Transformation Programme Director, the Trust Islington CCG Camden CCG NHSE

CCG Governing Bodies and NHSE

Clinical Senate Liaison

Associate Director of Joint Commissioning for Islington CCG

Camden CCG Islington CCG Medical Director, the Trust NHSE

St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group

Public Consultation Working Group

Senior Engagement Manager,

Camden CCG Engagement Lead Head of Communications and

St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment

Page 62: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

62

62

Islington and Haringey CCGs

Engagement, the Trust Healthwatch Camden and Islington Service users

Oversight Group

Financial Modelling Work stream

Chief Finance Officer, North Central London CCGs

Trust Director of Finance – NHSE Finance lead

St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group

6.1.1 St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group

The overall redevelopment programme is managed by the St Pancras Hospital

Redevelopment Oversight Group and chaired by the Chief Operating Officer for Haringey

and Islington CCGs. This group has representation from the Trust, the CCGs (including

Engagement leads from each CCG) and NHSE. This group reports to CCG Governing

Bodies and in turn to NHSE.

6.1.2 Clinical Senate Liaison

The Clinical Senate Liaison group is led by the Associate Director of Joint Commissioning for

Islington CCG and is responsible for co-ordinating activities with the London Clinical Senate

(LCS). This group includes the CCG GP leads for Mental Health from Camden and Islington

and clinical representatives from CCGs, the Trust and NHSE. This group reports to the St

Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group which in-turn reports to the NHSE locally

established Clinical Senate panel.

6.1.3 Public Consultation Working Group

The primary purpose of this group is to facilitate strong public engagement and ensure a

thorough and rigorous consultation is undertaken. All public consultation activities are being

managed by this group. The group is led by the Senior Engagement Manager for Islington

and Haringey CCGs and has support from the Camden CCG Engagement lead and the

Trust. Members from Healthwatch Camden and Healthwatch Islington and two service users

are members of this group. This group has inputted into the consultation document itself and

methodology.

6.1.4 Financial Modelling Work stream

This small working group consists of representatives from the Trust and NHSE and is led by

the Chief Financial Officer for the North Central London CCGs. This group is responsible for

providing financial insight and recommendations for funding of the redevelopment and also

report to the St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group.

6.2 Roles and Responsibilities

6.2.1 The CCGs

Approximately 98% of services provided at the St Pancras site are commissioned by

Islington CCG in their role as lead commissioner, with Camden CCG being a significant

Associate to the Islington CCG contract. As such, these CCGs will be the ultimate decision

making authority for the programme.

Page 63: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

63

63

6.2.2 The Trust

The Trust is leading on the SPH redevelopment proposal and working with stakeholders

such as NHSI, London Devo, NHSE, the Local Authorities, Service Users, staff and other

interested public bodies, including the CCGs to ensure plans are in line with individual

commissioner intentions and fit for purpose.

6.2.3 NHS England

NHSE are providing assurances and support at all levels of the programme, including

representation on many of the programme working groups.

6.3 Information Governance Issues

The Trust stores data about its patients that could identify each patient. This Patient

Identifiable Data (PID) can be classed as any information, electronic or paper format that

would allow a third party to identify the patient.

As a part of the proposed relocation, the Trust is not proposing to change the use, storage or

accessibility of any PID it holds. A Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) screening questions

form was completed by the Trust (Appendix [4]) whereby the result indicated that a PIA was

not required.

The principal reasons include:

1. Trust staff will still be able to access data in the usual way via Care notes and N3 secure connection to digital records

2. Trust staff will still be able to access paper records through the Iron Mountain procedures

Should there be any changes to information privacy as a part of this proposal in the future;

the Trust will re-complete the PIA screening questions form to determine whether a PIA is

needed. The Trust’s Head of Information Governance and Security will be consulted closer

to the relocation to discuss shredding bins, privacy displays, and photocopier / scanner /

medical device locations.

Page 64: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

64

64

7 Stakeholder engagement

This section sets out the engagement that has been undertaken to date regarding the relocation of some services away from the St Pancras site and the development of community hubs. This includes the stakeholder groups who have been included as a part of the pre-consultation process, engagement activities undertaken and the findings from those activities. Moreover, it explains how this feedback has been used to develop the options detailed in Section [8] of this PCBC.

7.1 Legal Context

The requirements for Clinical Commissioning Groups to consult with patients and

stakeholders is set out in statute.

Regulation 23 of the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Board and Health

Scrutiny) Regulations 2013, sets out the duty of health services to consult with Local

Authorities about any proposal for a substantial development of the health service in the

area of that local authority, or for a substantial variation in the provision of such service. The

Local Authority is entitled to make comments on the proposal to be consulted on. Paragraph

9 further sets out that the authority may report to the Secretary of State in writing where the

authority is not satisfied that consultation on any proposal has been adequate in relation to

content or time allowed or the authority considers that the proposal would not be in the

interests of the health service in its area.

Under section 242 of the NHS Act 2006 and section 142Z of the Health and Social Care Act

2012, NHS Trusts and CCGs have a legal duty to make arrangements for individuals to

whom the services are being or may be provided, to be involved (whether by being

consulted or provided with information or in other ways):

(a) in the planning of the commissioning arrangements by the group,

(b) in the development and consideration of proposals by the group for changes in the commissioning arrangements where the implementation of the proposals would have an impact on the manner in which the services are delivered to the individuals or the range of health services available to them, and

(c) in decisions of the group affecting the operation of the commissioning arrangements where the implementation of the decisions would (if made) have such an impact."

In order to meet these legislative requirements and the ‘four tests’ outlined in the Mandate

from the Secretary of State to NHS England and NHSE’s other tests, public involvement

must be an integral part of the service change process. Engagement should be early and on-

going throughout the process using a broad range of engagement activities.

The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) must make arrangements to secure that individuals to whom the services are being or may be provided are involved (whether by being consulted or provided with information or in other ways):

In the planning of the commissioning arrangements by the group;

In the development and consideration of proposals by the group for changes in the commissioning arrangements where the implementation of the proposals would have an impact on the manner in which the services are delivered to the individuals or the range of health services available to them; and

Page 65: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

65

65

In decisions of the group affecting the operation of the commissioning arrangements where the implementation of the decisions would (if made) have such an impact.

All public consultations should adhere to the Gunning Principles, which are:

Consultation must take place when the proposal is still at a formative stage;

Sufficient reasons must be put forward for the proposal to allow for intelligent consideration and response;

Adequate time must be given for consideration and response; and

The product of consultation must be conscientiously taken in to account.

7.2 Pre-consultation engagement on the case for change

The local health organisations have engaged with inpatient service users, community service

users, carers and staff as part of pre-consultation engagement work for the development of

the plans.

The local health organisations have met regularly as part of the Stakeholder Reference

Group, which is made up of senior representatives from the Trust, both CCGs and both

Councils. This group provides oversight and maintains responsibility for the pre-consultation

activities, consultation programme and implementation programme, including the review and

approval of business cases developed by member organisations. See Appendix [5] for a full

list of meetings conducted and pre-consultation engagement activities undertaken to date.

7.2.1 Pre-consultation engagement with service users and carers

The local health organisations have held a number of pre-consultation engagement events

to listen to the views of existing and previous service users and carer representation groups.

This has included:

The Trust’s medical director attending existing service user meetings to explain proposals and take questions;

The Nubian Service Users’ Forum and the Women’s Strategy Group are among the existing groups the Trust has engaged with;

A two borough community hubs event in March 2018, which attracted a diverse audience;

A Service User Alliance meeting on 31 March 2017; and

A Service User Conference on 13 April 2017.

At these meetings, senior leaders from the Trust provided information on the outline plan

and long list of options. Time was allocated for full debate, questions and feedback and this

has been logged and passed on for consideration. In addition, a survey was developed to

better understand the clinical and service priorities of service users in both the community

and inpatient settings. This was sent to all service users via email and copies were made

available in paper form at key meetings. Feedback from this survey is set out in Section [7.3]

below.

Some groups were asked to feedback on the positive aspects of the community services

they currently use, what could be improved, if they envisaged any problems if some

community services were based in the new hubs and if any problems were identified, what

the Trust could do to mitigate or minimise impact.

Page 66: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

66

66

Carers in both Camden and Islington have been given opportunities to hear more about the

proposals, to provide feedback and ask questions through a number of meetings throughout

2018. This includes the Islington Carers’ Hub and Camden Carers’ Hub. Healthwatch

Camden was also commissioned to attend the Camden and Islington carers meetings to

engage carers and listen to feedback.

Healthwatch interviewed 55 individuals comprised of current and former inpatients at SPH,

Highgate, staff and carers during February and March 2018.

7.2.2 Pre-consultation engagement with employees

Due to the potential workforce implications, the Trust have also completed initial

consultations with their staff and governors. This includes meetings with trade union

representatives and Governors and staff at key sites including St Pancras, HMHC, Lowther

Road and the Peckwater Centre.

Five clinical and technical design review workshops were also held to secure input from

approximately 30 clinicians on the optimal design of the estate in terms of both community

and inpatient facilities. See Appendix [5] for a full list of these meetings.

7.2.3 Pre-consultation engagement undertaken as a part of the STP

As a part of the STP process, a wide array of stakeholders was engaged that included CCG

Chairs, CCG Members, Clinical Cabinet, GPs, LINKs, Local Healthwatch, Local Authorities –

Health and Wellbeing Boards, Local Authorities – Lead Officers and Members, Provider

Trusts, OSC/JHOSCs and voluntary and community groups. Appendix [6] sets out how

these parties were engaged with and continue to contribute to the development and

implementation of the STP.

7.2.4 Pre-consultation engagement with GPs

The Trust’s Clinical Director and SPH programme director presented at a Camden CCG GB

seminar on 26 July 2017 and to Islington GB in July 2017. The Camden GB included the GP

chair of the locality meetings and an elected GP representative. The Islington GB includes

the GB Clinical Lead for Mental Health.

A written briefing was shared with Camden GPs in November 2017 and the medical director

is scheduled to present the Trust’s proposals at the CCG’s April 2018 locality meetings.

In March 2018 proposals were presented to the Islington GP Forum by the CCGs Clinical

Lead for Mental Health.

7.2.5 Pre-consultation engagement with the JHOSC

The London Boroughs of Camden and Islington are on the same committee of the North

Central London Joint Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee (“JHOSC”). The JHOSC

undertook a review of the SPH proposal in April 2017, September 2017 and March 2018.

At the 19 September 2017 JHOSC meeting, the redevelopment at the St Pancras site was

discussed, as part of the wider NHS Estates strategy. This meeting provided an opportunity

for the JHOSC to question and challenge current plans. A copy of the full minutes from this

meeting is in Appendix [7]. A summary of the points raised at this meeting includes:

Overall members welcomed the proposal to move inpatient facilities to the Whittington and agreed with the suitability of this site;

Page 67: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

67

67

Councillors would appreciate the opportunity to view the current site to assess the opportunities for Social Housing development and this was agreed at the meeting;

Following concerns raised that sale proceeds would be used for revenue spending, members were assured this would not happen;

The opportunity for surplus land to be used for GP surgery sites was raised as desirable;

Concerns were raise that the number of inpatient beds was not increasing. The Trust should ensure the justification for this is clear in the consultation; and

It was agreed that the Full Business Case would be presented to the JHOSC when appropriate.

The SPH Project Director presented at the JHOSC on 23 March 2018 with an update on the

SPH redevelopment project. The following was noted in the minutes which are yet to be

formally agreed:

It was agreed that further information would be provided at the June 2018 Camden and Islington OSCs by the Trust;

The London Estates Devolution team have been engaged and are being consulted but the SPH redevelopment would not require their approval;

It was agreed that the Chair of the Camden HOSC would be invited to the next SPH redevelopment programme board meeting, which for the first time would combine the separate boards of stakeholders and providers; and

There were no further concerns or issues raised about the proposal.

All review points raised by the JHOSC have been addressed and it should be noted that the SPH redevelopment is implementing the STP plan, to which the JHOSC contributed to.

7.2.6 Pre-consultation engagement with local people

The Trust has shared its proposals with local people through the St Pancras Community

Association and the Somers Town Neighbourhood Forum. Local people asked that

consideration is paid to what young people may need and the provision of jobs.

7.2.7 Pre-consultation engagement with other local stakeholders

The Trust has engaged with a number of local organisations including Healthwatch, Citizen’s

Advice Bureau, Voluntary Action Camden, the Old St Pancras Church, Octopus

Communities and the Holy Cross Centre Trust who provide support for people who are

socially excluded, for example, homeless.

7.3 Options appraisal engagement

As part of the options development (Section [8]), a series of meeting were held to get input

and understand the needs of stakeholders including health professionals, service users,

Local Authorities and the public (via Healthwatch meetings). The following options appraisal

engagement was incorporated into the options appraisal process, as set out in the next

section, up to the point of selecting the preferred option.

A brief summary of the options is set out below:

Re-provide inpatients at SPH;

Re-provide inpatients at Whittington site; or

Re-provide inpatients at St Ann’s Hospital.

Page 68: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

68

68

Each option had the same proposal for community services and other services as set out in Appendix [10] which is why they are not explicitly mentioned under each option above.

7.3.1 Overview

Key findings included:

Concerns over adequate consultation with service users;

Concerns over inpatient beds moving out of Camden;

Concerns over inpatient beds moving to St Ann’s site due to travel and accessibility issues;

Concerns over land disposal proposals of the SPH site; and

Concerns over the provision of appropriate services from the community hubs.

However, a consensus was reached on the preferred option: Moving the inpatient beds from St Pancras to a site in Camden or Islington, invest in community services through the two community hubs, build new facilities, and bring researchers and academics together on a single site at SPH. Specifically, the Healthwatch feedback indicated a unanimous agreement that the existing facilities at St Pancras Hospital are not fit for the purpose and the majority were in favour of the proposal.

7.3.2 Consulting with the service users

Local Healthwatch teams identified that service users felt strongly that there needed to be a

focus on consulting with current and ex-service users as part of the consultation.

7.3.3 Inpatient beds moving out of Camden

Concerns were raised in some service user groups about inpatient beds being moved away

from St Pancras and out of Camden – whether that be to Whittington Hospital or to St Ann’s

Hospital.

The ‘trade-off’, which reached a general consensus to be accepted by the majority of service

users, is that to resource the building of new warm, welcoming and therapeutic inpatient

spaces, beds would need to move from the high cost St Pancras site to one where a new

inpatient facility could be affordably built with additional revenue being directed towards

improving community services.

The Healthwatch engagement found a small minority said they would prefer to retain the

existing St Pancras Hospital. The central location and good transport links at St Pancras are

highly valued by many. However, depending on the specific circumstances for the individual,

a roughly equal number of respondents said a Whittington location would be easier for them

personally. Many people said they thought that the potential benefits of a new purpose built

hospital would outweigh any disadvantages associated with the re-location of the new site to

Whittington. The concerns about the Whittington location are almost exclusively related to

transport links and the walking distance to shops which in both cases are less convenient

than for St Pancras.

7.3.4 Inpatient beds moving to St Ann’s

Some service users with direct experience of the St Ann’s site raised concerns about the

possibility of inpatient beds moving there. There was concern mainly focused on the travel

challenges and general accessibility of the St Ann’s site. This concern is analysed in more

Page 69: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

69

69

detail through the travel analysis undertaken in Section [5.4] and also factored into the

options evaluation process in Section [8.4].

It was explained that the Trust would create its own buildings and deliver its own services. It

was also emphasised that the purchase of land at St Ann’s would be cheaper, enabling more

resources to be channelled into our community services. Relocating inpatient beds to St

Ann’s next to Barnet, Enfield and Haringey’s mental health inpatient site might allow for the

sharing of some facilities, such as an on-site gymnasium for example.

7.3.5 Land disposal proposal for SPH

Concerns were raised over the irreversible selling-off of ‘precious’ NHS resources, namely

the St Pancras site.

The mitigation includes the plan to offer some of the land to another NHS provider, as well

as sell a portion of the estate for the creation of affordable accommodation – with an element

being key-worker staff, potentially including Trust staff. It was explained that all existing

services remaining on the St Pancras site would no longer be viable beyond a certain point

in time, because without a substantial additional and continuing stream of finance it would

become unaffordable to either maintain and or replace existing St Pancras facilities to

ensure they were safe and fit-for-purpose.

7.3.6 Community care delivery

Service users highlighted confusion at the term “community hub”, confusing it with a

community centre. Part of the session was used to identify more suitable terms for the new

hubs. Going forwards, further engagement will be sought to define the community hubs in a

clear and consistent manner.

A need for a non-stigmatising and respectful environment that is considerate to different

cultures was highlighted. It was generally felt that more interventional services were required

to prevent a mental health crisis, namely a drop-in facility that is accessible to service users

so they have a place to go when they begin to feel unwell. It was felt that A&Es are

inappropriate and terrifying when suffering a mental health crisis with a preference for a

different “first port of call” option.

Equally, it was felt that more support is needed when an individual is out of crisis – which the

Trust needed to be more proactive rather than reactive. Although one service user stated

that some of the Trust’s proposed new locations could be more difficult for those with

mobility issues, if they did have to travel further, the majority view was that location was less

of an issue if services were good, improved and inclusive.

Some group members were particularly interested in the design of the buildings – asking that

they are Obsessive Compulsive Disorder friendly, not anxiety provoking in terms of design or

layout and present a more therapeutic environment with the right colours and plants. Others

said that there was a need to ensure the Trust had staff to support these new buildings –

people who have experience of the issues to talk to service users.

Most service users were generally positive about the proposed new facilities. The strongest

views were based on wanting services that were inclusive, resourced with knowledgeable

and compassionate staff and a non-stigmatising and welcoming environment. One service

user said: “Buildings need to feel more vibrant, don’t want to feel that we’re going to that

place”.

Page 70: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

70

70

7.4 Applying pre-consultation engagement findings to options appraisal

As part of the formal consultation process, the group of stakeholders who will be engaged

will be widened to include commentators and influencers such as local media, ward

councillors, NHS pressure groups and heritage bodies, as well as the wider local community,

including residents and businesses. Furthermore, Camden Healthwatch and Islington

Healthwatch will be commissioned to engage local people covering the nine protected

characteristics and other vulnerabilities. Accordingly, the range of methodologies will also be

expanded to cover targeted and ongoing engagement, across a range of channels, as

shown in Section [7.5.3]. Stakeholder mapping has been completed to ensure all interested

and relevant groups are captured.

The concerns raised through the pre-consultation engagement highlight the requirement for

full and contextual information to be provided alongside the options when undertaking the

formal consultation. Specific concerns raised will be incorporated in the consultation as

follows:

7.4.1 Consulting with current and ex-service users

The Trust’s Clinical Director will speak at all of the Trust’s service users’ groups to introduce the consultation, taking questions and letting people know how to fill it in (along with taking some hard copies).

Further targeted engagement using the consultation survey with service users across all five

of the Trust’s divisions – Acute, Services for Ageing and Mental Health, Recovery and

Rehabilitation, Substance Misuse Services and Community Mental Health. This will include

both current service users of inpatient services and community services.

7.4.2 Moving services out of Camden

This stresses the importance of ensuring the case for change is clear in all consultation

materials; emphasising not only the inadequate provision currently at the St Pancras site and

the premium paid on land there, but also the added value of the public pound when looking

at the alternative sites. The strategic case must be accessible to all stakeholders to ensure

this message is understood thoroughly.

Moving inpatient beds to the St Ann’s Hospital site in Tottenham, would mean moving them

out of the boroughs of Camden and Islington. The majority of pre-consultation engagement

activity points to individuals being not in favour of St Ann’s, saying it is a harder-to-reach

location for most people than the HMHC. We are therefore proposing we move the inpatient

beds to a new site at Whittington opposite the HMHC. This is consistent with the qualitative

scoring undertaken in Section [8] of the St Ann’s option and therefore will not form part of the

consultation.

7.4.3 Travel challenges

The concerns raised around travel times and access highlights the need for clear distance

and travel time information. To this end, travel analysis has been completed (see appendix

[3]) and provides interested parties the opportunity to understand the direct impact of a

move. This information will also be included in the consultation document and materials,

including publication on the CCGs and Trust’s websites.

Page 71: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

71

71

7.4.4 Sale of NHS Resources

This common concern is particularly emotive, and this issue must be handled sensitively

during the wider consultation to ensure the underlying strategy behind the move of some

services is clear. This also highlights that there should be some emphasis placed on the

number of services that will remain at the St Pancras site, alongside the proposed use of the

redeveloped space for NHS use; such as supported living accommodation, the Institute of

Mental Health and any space that will be utilised by other NHS healthcare providers.

7.4.5 Services in the Community Hubs

There will be opportunities for broader input on a range of issues. For example, to agree a

new name for the community hubs, ideas to generate this include a board where service

users can post suggestions and vote on a range of names. It will be a number of years

before community hubs opened, should the proposal go ahead, so there is ample time to

develop this with services users.

7.5 Other pre-consultation engagement activity

Following on from the above engagement activity, the Whittington site was selected as the

preferred option as set out in Section [8].

There has since been further engagement undertaken in the form of regular meetings with

service users, carers, Trust staff, JHOSC updates and meetings with NHSI and NHSE by the

local health organisations.

7.6 Consultation Plan

This section provides an outline of the plan for public consultation on the proposal. This plan

is in the process of review and is subject to change. The full consultation plan can be found

in Appendix [8].

7.6.1 Overview of the consultation plan

In line with statutory duties, both CCGs are required to involve the public on the redevelopment proposals, ensuring local people are given the opportunity to share their views on the redevelopment of the St Pancras Hospital site and all of the services affected. As the proposals represent a significant change in service provision, the CCGs have chosen to formally consult on the proposals.

The redevelopment of the site will affect the inpatient facility, the community services both on

the site and on additional Trust sites, along with NHS services which are delivered on the St

Pancras Site by other NHS Providers such as the Royal Free Hospital. A summary of

service changes can be seen in Section [1].

7.6.2 Summary of planned activities

In light of these plans, Islington CCG is proposing to run a public consultation for 12 weeks

starting in early July 2018 to the end of September 2018.

A draft consultation document, questionnaire and Frequently Asked Questions have been

developed and can be found in Appendix [9]. These will be finalised and approved by CCG

GBs in June 208. The consultation aims to:

Understand the views of the local community on the development of two new mental health community hubs, one in Camden and another in Islington.

Page 72: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

72

72

Understand the views of the local community on the relocation and development of new Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust mental health inpatient services from the St Pancras Hospital site to a site by HMHC and Whittington Hospital; and

The CCGs will speak to as many people in the local community as possible, ensuring they

hear from a wide range of service users of all of the services proposed for relocation, the

local community, local voluntary organisations and the two local Healthwatch as well as

other key stakeholders such as local Councillors and MPs.

7.6.3 Consultation communications and engagement channels

The channels used to share the consultation and gather as many views as possible are set

out in Figure [7.1].

Figure [7.1]: Communication channels for the consultation

Channels Implementation assumptions

Websites/online media A full consultation document containing a survey about the proposals will be available on Islington CCG, Camden CCG, and the Trust and Healthwatch websites. Prompts placed on the Trust social media channels will advise on how to leave feedback and join the public consultation meetings

Paper copies Copies of the full consultation will be available at each service affected by the St Pancras redevelopment, at other Camden and Islington Foundation Trust sites and upon request. Posters and leaflets in all 30 Trust sites will advise on the consultation and opportunities for feedback. Paper copies of the survey will also be available at each site. All paper publications will be in an easy to read format, with copies available in large print, easy read, community languages, braille and audio on request. There will be a dedicated telephone line for local people either requesting the consultation documents or any questions they may have.

Public meetings Held at easily accessible sites for people in Camden and Islington to discuss and provide feedback on the consultation. There will be a drop-in session with the Trust’s Clinical Director.

Focus groups Healthwatch Camden and Healthwatch

Page 73: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

73

73

Islington will be commissioned to undertake targeted research with groups that face barriers to accessing services and do not traditionally have their views heard in service redevelopment.

Staff Engagement Trust and CCG staff will be updated on the consultation via staff meetings and staff newsletters. GP member practices will also receive regular updates in GP forums, locality meetings and GP newsletters.

NHS Provider Roadshows Targeted engagement using the consultation document and survey with the services users of the other NHS providers affected by the proposed redevelopment.

Targeted Interventions Using the EIA to identify disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, the Trust will support the CCGs to consult with these groups.

Further targeted engagement using the consultation survey with service users across all five of the Trust’s divisions – Acute, Services for Ageing and Mental Health, Recovery and Rehabilitation, Substance Misuse Services and Community Health. This work will be carried out by Healthwatch Camden.

Local networks The consultation document and survey will be shared with local groups for distribution amongst their members, including Islington Patient and Community Groups, Trust Service User Groups, Patient representatives, local voluntary and community sector groups.

As mentioned in Section [7.4], following pre-consultation engagement feedback, the Trust’s

Clinical Director will attend all service user groups to introduce the consultation, and service

users across the Trust’s five divisions will be targeted with surveys.

7.6.4 Proposed consultation timeline

The table below (Figure [7.2]) provides an overview of the primary consultation activities and

communications planned.

Figure [7.2]: Timeline for Consultation Activities

Action

Lead Date

Page 74: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

74

74

Consultation documents and methodology sign off

Islington CCG Governing Body

June 2018

Camden CCG Governing Body

June 2018

Consultation documents and methodology reviewed by Camden and Islington Health and Overview Scrutiny Committees

ICCG and CCCG

June 2018

Public consultation goes live ICCG early July 2018 to end September 2018

Evaluation of responses External agency

October 2018

Results of consultation published and shared

Islington CCG, Camden CCG, the Trust and partners

November 2018

Final Business Case prepared

Islington CCG

November 2018

Consideration of Final Business case by Islington CCG Governing Body

Islington CCG

November 2018

Consideration by Camden CCG Governing Body

Camden CCG

November 2018

A decision is made by Camden and Islington CCGs on the final Business Case

Camden and Islington CCG

November 2018

The decision is communicated with the local community, HOSCs, Healthwatch and partners

Islington CCG / Camden CCG / The Trust

November 2018

7.6.5 Results, feedback and analysis

The CCGs will appoint independent partner (third party agent) to evaluate the consultation

responses and to analyse the results of the consultation. The partner will develop a process

and infrastructure that reassures stakeholders of the independent nature of the evaluation.

This will inform proposals in a Decision-Making Business Case (“DMBC”) that will validate

the consultation outcomes.

Following the closure of the consultation on in September 2018, the evaluation team will

have a period to analyse the results and present these to both of the CCG Governing

Body’s.

Page 75: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

75

75

Islington and Camden CCGs will then make a decision on whether to proceed with the redevelopment proposals and confirm this decision to NHS England and both OSCs for Islington and Camden.

The results will be available publicly, which will include, sharing on CCG and Trust websites

and sharing through other stakeholders’ networks, such as Healthwatch Islington and

Camden.

Page 76: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

76

76

8 Options development, analysis and evaluation process

This section sets out the range of options identified to address the objectives set out in the

Case for Change and documents the appraisal process used to evaluate these.

The local health organisations have developed a four-stage process (Figure [8.1]) for the

identification of a preferred option from a long list of options. This includes:

1. An initial feasibility study;

2. The development and application of a set of ‘hurdle’ Critical Success Factors (CSF)

to create a short list of options;

3. The development and application of a more detailed set of qualitative CSFs to

appraise short-listed options; and

4. A value for money assessment of the short-listed options.

The outcome of this process is to enable the local health organisations, through the St

Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group, to determine preferred options for each

area that will be subject to full public consultation.

Figure [8.1]: Overview of option evaluation process

8.1 Option development

In advance of developing options for the St Pancras site, a process was run by the local

health organisations, incorporating service user input, to decide the appropriate setting for its

services; see a summary in Appendix [10]. This work concluded:

Set 1: Certain services, as set out in Appendix [10], should be provided in community hubs off site (including on existing Trust owned sites at Greenland Road and Lowther Road);

Page 77: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

77

77

Set 2: Other services, again as set out in Appendix [10], should be provided on the St Pancras site to maintain a presence in the area and to enable the Institute of Mental Health; and

Set 3: Inpatient services should be re-provided on or off site.

Therefore, all options to be developed, bar the ‘do minimum’ benchmark option, will include

the Set 1 services being provided off the St Pancras site and all options include the Set 2

services being provided on the St Pancras site. The key variable between options is

therefore the location of the re-provision of inpatient services (Set 3).

8.2 Appraisal 1: Feasibility Study

As lead comissioner, 98% of services provided at the SPH are comissioned by Islington

CCG, for the population of the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, where the

majority of patients come from. Therrefore, the focus of the sites search was primarily within

the Camden and Islington boroughs to ensure continuity of provision, access for service

users and building on the support gained to date from the two councils for this propoal. This

is consistent with the pre-consultation engagement feedback receied as set out in Section [7]

which detailed concerns around time travel to a new location.

To allow the Trust to support its current cohort of service users effectively, sites were only

considered if they were within the boroughs of Camden or Islington, unless there was an

exceptional reason for their inclusion. For example, St Ann’s Hospital was included at

Strategic Outline Case (SOC) stage as it was identified that the Trust who owns that site

(Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust) had land available next to their existing

mental health facilities which are located approximately two miles away from the Islington

boundary.

The following types of site were considered:

Surplus council owned land in Camden or Islington;

Sites owned by other government bodies which are being decommissioned;

Sites owned by neighbouring NHS providers; and

Privately owned sites.

Following identification of the long list of options, these were then screened for viability and

site availability. This process was led by the Project Director and Transformation Programme

Director in dialogue with local stakeholders and real estate consultants, GL Hearn. This

assessment was presented to the Boards of the local health organisations for consideration

and approval as summarised in Appendix [11].

The Boards reviewed the proposed screening of the long list and validated the options to be

taken forward to the next stage of evaluation via the CSF process. A detailed description of

the options considered can be seen in Appendix [12].

8.3 Appraisal 2: Hurdle CSF

The purpose of Hurdle Critical Success Factors (CSFs) is to eliminate options that are not

able to satisfy any one of the three hurdles, using a binary pass/fail process. As such the

hurdle objectives are critical success factors that must be delivered for the project to

succeed. These were developed with service users and carers, and were enhanced

following pre-consultation engagement feedback around the need to minimise disruption for

any inpatients. Figure [8.2] sets these CSFs out in more detail.

Page 78: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

78

78

Figure [8.2]: Hurdle Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

# CSF Key points

1 CQC

requirements

The option provides a safe environment for service users and

staff. Facilities must as a minimum meet all CQC requirements,

and ideally exceed them.

2 Minimise service

user disruption

The option does not require inpatient facilities to be moved more

than once and minimises disruption to services users. This is

critical due to the nature of the services delivered.

3 Research and

development

The option supports and facilitates the creation and successful

operation of a research and development institute closely

integrated with a top research university.

The four options were then assessed against the three hurdle CSFs as shown below.

Figure [8.3]: Results of Hurdle CSF evaluation

# Option Name

Hurdle CSF

1

CQC

requirements

Hurdle CSF

2

Minimise

service user

disruption

Hurdle CSF

3

Research

and

development

Progressio

n to

qualitative

CSFs

A1 Do minimum with inpatients

For

comparison

only

A2

Re-provide inpatients at

SPH

For Net

Present

Cost (NPC)

comparison

only

A3 Re-provide inpatients at

Whittington

Yes

A4 Re-provide inpatients at St

Ann’s Hospital

Yes

As shown above, the following decisions were made about which options to take forward to

the qualitative CSF appraisal:

Option A1, (Do minimum with inpatients) is not a viable option on the basis that it failed to meet any of the hurdle criteria. However as this provides the baseline comparison it was progressed to the shortlist for evaluation purposes only as a benchmark for the other options in line with NHS capital business case requirements.

Option A2, (Re-provide inpatients at SPH), failed to meet the hurdles as it will cause significant disruption to service users during construction, particularly the large amount of heavy traffic movements and demolition that would be required. There is also concern that privacy and dignity could be compromised on St Pancras for inpatient services, as there are approved development plans around St Pancras are for tall residential blocks (up to 12 storeys) with balconies overlooking the site, and therefore over any inpatient

Page 79: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

79

79

facilities gardens or outdoor areas. In addition, the reduction in value of the St Pancras site under this option was found to make it the least affordable and to provide the worst value for money. This option will be considered in the quantitative analysis of net present costs for comparison purposes only in line with an approach agreed with NHS Improvement (NHSI).

Option A3, (Re-provide inpatients at Whittington), was progressed based on meeting all of the hurdle criteria.

Option A4, (Re-provide inpatients at St Ann’s Hospital), was progressed based on meeting all of the hurdle criteria.

8.4 Appraisal 3: Qualitative CSF

A total of nine further qualitative CSFs were jointly identified and agreed between the local

health organisations, service users and carers. These criteria were judged to be important to

the provision of mental health services but would not cause the project to be unachievable in

their own right.

Figure [8.4]: Qualitative Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

# CSF Key points

4 Quality of service

user care

The option enables the Trust to deliver the highest possible

standards of care quality to service users.

5 Aligned to

service user need

and supportive of

the clinical

strategy

The option enables alignment of clinical service location to the

needs of the population it serves.

The option supports the Trust and the wider STP objectives for

early intervention in community settings.

6 Destigmatise

mental health

The option enables services to be provided in a setting which

destigmatises mental health services, creating an attractive

welcoming environment for service users.

7 Promotes

equality

The option provides facilities which are accessible to all users

and helps to promote equality for service users, staff and wider

stakeholders.

8 Integrated care The option enables integration of mental health service provision

with other healthcare provision.

9 Located with in-

borough or close

to Camden and

Islington

The option provides new facilities which are based in either the

London Borough of Camden or the London Borough of Islington,

or if this is not possible, as close as possible to the Boroughs.

10 Support staff

wellbeing

The option supports staff health and wellbeing, including the on-

site provision of staff wellness services (e.g. fitness classes,

changing rooms and staff faith rooms).

11 Consistent with

the NCL STP

The option aligns with the plans set out in the STP and facilitates

delivery of the STP. It supports and enables wider plans for

other Trusts in NCL including proposed relocation of Moorfields

12 Consistent with

plans for local

community and

The option aligns with local authority and community plans for

place and area development, including the provision of housing

for local people, employment opportunities and environmental

Page 80: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

80

80

place

development

benefits

The agreed list of CSFs was evaluated by the local health organisations to establish the

appropriate weighting. It concluded that all CSFs should carry equal weighting as there were

no ‘mutually exclusive’ or ‘conflicting’ factors. The CSFs which were regarded as constituting

an absolute requirement were additionally designated as ‘hurdles’.

8.4.1 Application of the Qualitative CSF

The key themes from the quality assessment scoring workshops can be seen in Appendix

[13]. The scores across the workshops were averaged to establish a total overall ranking.

The detailed option scores arrived at during each workshop is also set out in Appendix [14].

The qualitative options evaluation was carried out by scoring each of the four options against

the CSFs, including the hurdles. The option scoring was carried out by the following three

groups, for which further information on the members is included in Appendix [15].

The Clinical Reference Group;

The Trust Board; and

The Trust Governors.

On each occasion the committees carrying out the scoring were briefed on the options under

consideration and provided with a summary of the options. The scoring was carried out in

small groups and the options were scored between 0 and 4, with 4 being the highest score.

This was done for the three Hurdle CSFs and the nine other CSFs (12 in total). The scores

were then averaged across the different groups to give an average score out of 48.

8.4.2 Pre-consultation feedback

As laid out in Section [7], the local health organisations completed a range of pre-

consultation engagement with key stakeholder groups, such as service user and carer

representative groups and Healthwatch teams since March 2017 and will continue to do so

throughout the pre-consultation phase. The findings of these preliminary consultations will be

used to further shape options, as a good indicator of user and public acceptability of options.

Of the three key themes identified during the consultation activities was a particular concern

over the accessibility of the St Ann’s site and also the potential loss of identity by moving

alongside another mental health Trust. The integrity of the service’s identity can be an

emotive and important factor for service users and staff. Consequently, when measuring the

St Ann’s site against the Whittington site, the Whittington site was preferred as a direct result

of pre-consultation engagement activities.

8.4.3 Summary qualitative evaluation of options

Overall, option A3 (rebuild at the Whittington) has the highest average score, and therefore

highest rank, leading it to being selected as the preferred option from a quality perspective.

The key drivers of this are:

Whittington is more accessible and geographically better located for service users, their families and staff;

Page 81: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

81

81

Whittington will deliver significant benefits to service users through delivering a better clinical environment and a more relaxed suburban community with green space;

Whittington has good transport connections;

The Whittington site is located close to the existing HMHC which provides opportunity for a stronger staff community and joint training;

The Whittington is an inpatient community hospital, with acute services and an A&E. This means that service users will benefits from comprehensive holistic care on one site;

Whittington is in the borough of Islington, with other current in-patient beds located at HMHC in the borough of Camden, and is therefore supported by both the local authorities and the STP; and

The Whittington site enables the construction of the Institute of Mental Health on the SPH site and maintains close links with the Community Hubs.

8.5 Appraisal 4: Value for Money evaluation of options

8.5.1 CCG impact

The financial appraisal was undertaken by the Financial Modelling Work stream that is led by

the Chief Financial Officer of the North Central London CCGs, (Section [6.1]). The impact

was found to not be significant as the commissioning arrangement between the CCGs and

the Trust is not one that is directly impacted by any changes in activity (such as Payment by

Results arrangements) and instead is based on an agreed settlement for providing mental

health services in the region (‘block’ payments). There is no change expected therefore in

the financial forecast of either of the CCGs as a result of these proposals.

8.5.2 Trust Impact

8.5.2.1 Economic assessment of options The quantitative evaluation of the options was carried out by KPMG and a specialist long

term financial model consultant (‘Assista’). They worked with the finance team from the

Trust to verify the current financial status of the Trust, as the starting point for the model.

The Trust’s finance department worked with Assista to understand what the income and cost

of providing services would be going forward, without any changes to the delivery model.

This analysis was based on information in the STP and the Trust’s understanding of future

funding and likely demand for the Trust’s services as described below.

They worked together to understand the implications of each options, including the do

minimum option. This included an evaluation of the risk that a forecast benefit was only

partially delivered or not delivered at all.

8.5.2.2 Outcome of quantitative assessment of options For the quantitative assessment, the project costs (capital, revenue and lifecycle), benefits and risks were calculated for the Trust cash flows under the different options in accordance with relevant guidance by independent technical consultants (Turner and Townsend (T&T)).

Page 82: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

82

82

8.5.2.3 Net present cost (NPC) assumptions The Department of Health and Social Care Template Generic Economic Model (“GEM”) was

used to generate the Net Present Cost (“NPC”) and Equivalent Annual Value (“EAV”).

8.5.2.4 Capital Costs The Trust and its technical consultants have developed a schedule of accommodation and

functional requirements based on the scope agreed with the board to deliver the vision and

consistent with the analysis of the bed requirement in Section [5.1.9] of the model of care.

This has supported the development of initial designs for the four options being considered

in this phase. The capital costs of all options have been developed by T&T and are

summarised in the figure below.

Option A1 (Do Minimum) has been based upon the latest estimate of backlog maintenance

which is attached at Appendix [16]; therefore, no specific additional capital has been

considered.

Figure [8.7]: Capital costs for each option

8.5.2.5 Operating costs and lifecycle An LTFM has been produced for each option that covers the period from 2017/18 to

2025/26. This was used as the basis of the operating cost assumptions for that period.

Beyond that period, it was assumed that costs were flat in real terms.

8.5.2.6 Quantifiable benefits The Trust has sought to quantify the public benefits that the proposed development will

deliver to the local and wider community as well as NHS. To do this, members of the project

team reviewed the benefits identified to set out those benefits that were able to be

quantified. The Trust worked through the list of potential benefits with input from clinicians

delivering the services.

Once benefits were identified as quantifiable, they were considered either as a reduction in

cost or an increase in income. Where benefits were reducing costs, full consideration was

given to the cost at present and to the impact that the change would have on that cost.

Where an additional income stream was identified this was valued based on past experience

Reconciliation of costs from LTFM to GEM Option A1 Option A2 Option A3 Option A4

£000sDo minimum

Reprovide IP

at SPH

Reprovide at

Whittington

Reprovide at

St Anns

Total incremental capital cost per LTFM - 124,345 135,845 117,693

Less: transitional fees capitalised - (4,852) (4,852) (4,852)

Less: land acquisitions - - (14,460) (4,000)

Less: decant costs - (589) - -

Nominal capital investment (nominal) - 118,904 116,533 108,841

Discount nominal to real (17/18 prices) - (10,036) (8,501) (7,923)

Less: Planning contingency (real) - (7,371) (7,555) (7,123)

Less: VAT (real) - (18,145) (18,005) (16,820)

Real capital investments (less contingency

and VAT) - 83,353 82,472 76,975

Discount real to NPC - (9,580) (8,228) (7,664)

Capital investment NPC per GEM - 73,773 74,243 69,311

Page 83: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

83

83

and current benchmarks. Once the benefit was identified the period when it is most likely to

have an impact was agreed an applied to the model, there were then discounted where

appropriate in the model.

Appendix [17] summarises the benefits identified, the value of those benefits and the key

assumptions associated with those benefits.

8.5.2.7 Net Present Cost summary The figure below sets out the outputs of the assumptions given above for the four options.

As described above, Option A1 and Option A2 are only provided for comparative purposes

as both have failed the Trust’s Hurdle CSFs.

Figure [8.9]: NPC calculations of the options

As shown above, Option A3 (rebuild at Whittington) has the lowest net present cost, slightly

ahead of Option A4 (rebuild at St Ann’s) and therefore is ranked as the preferred option from

a NPC perspective. Whilst the initial capital investment is slightly higher for this option the

operational savings delivered through co-location with both mental health and acute facilities

at the Whittington has driven this outcome (see benefits above).

8.6 Combined appraisal

The quality ranking has been averaged with the quantitative NPC ranking in the figure below.

This resulted in option A3 (build a new inpatient facility at Whittington) being identified as the

preferred option.

Net Present Cost (NPC) Option A1 Option A2 Option A3 Option A4

£000sDo minimum

Reprovide IP

at SPH

Reprovide at

Whittington

Reprovide at

St Anns

Property and opportunity cost 71,770 36,781 34,963 25,827

Initial capital investment - 73,773 74,243 69,311

Other capex - - - -

Lifecycle and business as usual capex 59,413 59,413 59,413 59,413

Total capex 131,183 169,967 168,619 154,551

Fees - 4,349 4,349 4,349

Total transitional costs - 4,349 4,349 4,349

Operating costs 3,078,767 2,978,245 2,958,380 2,973,361

Working capital adjustments (6,875) (7,616) (7,635) (7,635)

Total opex 3,071,893 2,970,630 2,950,746 2,965,727

Externalities - - - -

Total NPC (unadjusted) 3,203,076 3,144,946 3,123,715 3,124,627

Total Risk Adjustment 73,370 90,625 92,407 93,219

Trust total (risk adjusted) 3,276,446 3,235,572 3,216,121 3,217,846

Rank 4 3 1 2

Page 84: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

84

84

Figure [8.10]: Combined rankings of the Options

The option to build a new inpatient hospital facility on land vacated by the Whittington

Hospital is the preferred option from both the quantifiable and qualitative appraisal. Trust

clinicians also believe that the Whittington option delivers the closest alignment to the clinical

objectives of the STP and the Trust’s Clinical Strategy.

8.7 Impact of the preferred option

8.7.1 Quality Impact Assessment

A Quality Impact Assessment (QIA) process was developed and led by the Clinical Work-

stream Group for the preferred option to evaluate the impact on quality of care. This was

developed in partnership with clinicians at the Trust to ensure it provides an accurate

reflection of the changes to service delivery.

Specifically, the QIA of the proposed redevelopment will provide assurance that any

resultant reconfiguration services will not adversely affect the quality of service user care.

This is defined by NHS England as care that is clinically effective, safe and that provides as

positive an experience for service users as possible

8.7.2 Independent review

The Clinical Senate Liaison Group was established as part of the pre-consultation phase to

ensure proposals are independently reviewed and guided by NHSE Clinical Senate. Clinical

Senates provide independent strategic advice and guidance to commissioners and

stakeholders regarding healthcare provision. A request for advice from the London Clinical

Senate (LCS) was requested on 29 February 2018 by Islington CCG, with support from both

the Trust and Camden CCG. The LCS request sought guidance on:

Whether the change of environment will improve clinical care for inpatient and

community services;

Whether the proposals for changes to inpatient and community mental health

services:

Preferred option analysis Option A1 Option A3 Option A4

Do minimumReprovide at

Whittington

Reprovide at

St Anns

Quantifiable appraisal

Total risk adjusted NPC (£m) 3,276.4 3,216.1 3,217.8

Total risk adjusted EAC (£m) 121.0 118.8 118.8

Qualitative benefits (weighted scores)

Weighted benefits score 18 42 28

Quality points per EAC 0.149 0.354 0.236

Quantifiable appraisal 3 1 2

Qualitative appraisal 3 1 2

Points per EAC 3 1 2

Preferred option 3 1 2

Page 85: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

85

85

o will enable improvements in clinical care and quality benefits for patients

o are informed by best practice

o align with national policy and are supported by STP plans and commissioning

intentions;

Whether the approach ensuring the inpatient demand of population growth is

absorbed by the development of mental health community services.

The Local Clinical Senate will complete its work in June 2018. The recommendations will be shared with the CCG Governing Body’s for to ensure recommendations are addressed.

NHSE conducts a series of assurance tests including financial assurance which will be required before CCGs can launch the public consultation.

Page 86: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

86

86

9 Finance case

9.1 Introduction

The purpose of the financial case is to set out the impact of the preferred option on the

CCGs and Trust’s financial performance and position and to show the impact of the key

financial risks. This is important as it demonstrates the options being considered for

consultation are sustainable financially.

9.1.1 CCG impact

Contracts are in place between Islington and Camden CCGs and C&I until March 2019. The

CCG resource settlement runs through until 31 March 2021. Beyond 2020/21 growth

assumptions are not available. The assumption is that activity growth will be between 0.7%

and 1.7% across the two main CCGs between now and 2025/6. This is an average of +1.1%

per annum compound annual growth rate across the period.

CCG growth rates are as below:

FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21

%age uplift %age uplift %age uplift %age uplift %age uplift

Camden 1.4 0.2 0.1 0 1.5

Islington 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.7

Camden’s average growth over the three remaining years is +0.5% per annum and Islington’s is +3.0% per annum, or an average of +1.7% across the two CCGs. The Trust’s growth assumption is based on a range of 0.7% to 1.7% per annum; which is less than CCGs growth assumptions. It is recognised that commissioners will fund different providers of mental health services at different rates of growth within their allocations, subject to overall compliance with the mental health investment standard. Both of the CCGs have reviewed the activity and financial modelling undertaken by the

Trust. The CCGs are assured that the underlying assumptions behind the activity and

income are consistent with their own projections, and the wider STP expectations.

Specifically, the Chief Financial Officer for both Camden CCG and Islington CCG

corroborated the financial information presented below with the Director of Finance for the

Trust. Most of the commentary in the section below therefore focuses on the impact on the

affordability of the proposals to the Trust as a provider – the Trust will see substantive

impacts on its cost base, balance sheet and cash flows as a result of the proposals in this

document.

9.1.2 Provider impact

The impacts of the proposals impact almost exclusively on the Trust in terms of providers

and therefore the system affordability of the proposals can be shown by setting out the

position for the Trust. This section sets out what those impacts are from a financial

perspective and that the preferred option is affordable for the Trust.

For the purposes of this analysis, affordability is defined as:

ensuring that the Trust has the cash required to complete the estates programme;

having sufficient cash to cover the Trust’s working capital requirement throughout the ten-year period (assumed to be two months of operating costs, circa £20.0m);

Page 87: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

87

87

the Trust being forecast to have a sustainable positive net surplus position by the end of the period considered; and

the Financial Sustainability Risk Rating (FSRR) will be at least 3 in all years when appropriate adjustments are made for the impact of bridge financing.

This section of the business case:

Shows the financial forecast of the investment case, with an analysis of the incremental impact against the baseline (do minimum) case;

Shows that the preferred option is affordable in the base case.

9.2 Basis of preparation

The projections in this section have been prepared on the following basis:

The Trust has completed NHSI’s 10-year Long Term Financial Model (LTFM). In line with the approach agreed with NHSI, 2016/17 was the outturn year used based on the forecast outturn at month 11 that had been submitted to NHSI. Separate models were populated for the baseline and the preferred option and a comparison of the outputs was used to assess the incremental impact.

The assumptions for the baseline case (do minimum) were based on a revised version of the Trust’s annual operating plan over the ten-year LTFM period.

The costs of the investment and associated operating and financing costs were obtained from the Trust’s facilities building cost model.

9.3 Financial projections

A series of assumptions have been used to forecast the Trust’s Income & Expenditure (I&E),

Balance Sheet and Cash Flow statements. These are set out in Appendix [18].

The figures presented in the financial case may differ from those presented in the economic

case due to discounting. The financial case figures are all nominal and not discounted,

whereas the economic case figures are discounted.

9.3.1 Income and expenditure

The Figure below sets out the Trust’s projected income and expenditure under the

investment case. This covers the period of construction (from 2018/19 to 2021/22) and the

following three years of steady state operations.

The incremental impact of the investment over the baseline is shown further below (the full

baseline income and expenditure is set out in Appendix [19]). A bridge is also included,

which shows the incremental impact of the investment on the first full year of operation

(2022/23).

Page 88: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

88

88

Figure [9.1]: Projected income and expenditure for the investment case

The projected investment case income and expenditure shows that:

Income growth is driven principally by the underlying growth in contractual income from clinical services (from the CCGs), with inflation accounting for 33% of the increase. This growth is partially offset by the assumed loss of £0.8m Sustainability and Transformation Fund (STF) funding from 2019/2020.

Pay costs are forecast to remain at £97.0m in 2017/18, due to the underlying growth being matched by the Trust’s CIP programme (3.2% of pay costs in that year). In subsequent years pay CIPs are projected at between 1.2% and 1.5%, thereby only partially offsetting the underlying pay cost growth. The investment is projected to reduce substantive and agency staff costs by £1.6m from 2021/22. Any increases above this amount in line with recent government announcements are assumed to be funded and it is therefore assumed would not have an impact on affordability. This will be modelled at FBC stage, but the assumptions are set out in appendix 17.

Non-pay costs are projected to fall from £29.0m in 2016/17 to £27.6m in 2017/18 due to recurrent CIP savings of £2.2m in other expenses (8.4% of other expenses). The CIP target for other expenses is £0.8m per year thereafter. The investment is projected to generate savings in other expenses of £3.5m in 2021/22, increasing to £4.4m in 2025/26).

An impairment of £8.2m is projected upon completion of the building works in 2021/22. This is the result of the requirement to change the valuation method of the new building from a cost basis to depreciated replacement cost upon its completion.

As shown above the Trust remains in surplus throughout the projection period except for two years:

2020/21: the £ (0.1) m deficit is projected due to the increased finance costs incurred during construction, with the benefits not being realised until the building is completed in the following year.

2021/22: the £ (7.1) m deficit is projected due to the one-off impairment charge described above.

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Income

Clinical income 108.4 108.0 109.4 110.2 111.7 112.8 113.9 115.0 116.1 117.2

Research & training 19.2 19.1 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3

Other income 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

Total income 136.6 136.1 137.5 137.5 139.0 140.0 141.1 142.2 143.4 144.5

Operating costs

Pay (97.0) (97.0) (98.1) (99.6) (101.2) (101.8) (103.4) (105.3) (107.3) (109.4)

Non-pay (29.0) (27.6) (27.4) (27.1) (26.0) (23.1) (22.4) (21.7) (21.3) (20.8)

Total operating

expenses(126.1) (124.6) (125.4) (126.7) (127.3) (124.9) (125.8) (127.0) (128.6) (130.2)

EBITDA 10.5 11.5 12.1 10.8 11.7 15.2 15.4 15.2 14.8 14.3

Impairment - - - - - (8.2) - - - -

Depreciation &

amortisation(4.7) (5.2) (5.4) (5.4) (5.4) (6.4) (7.9) (7.9) (7.9) (7.9)

Financing 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 (3.5) (3.5) (3.2) (2.8) (2.4) (2.0)

PDC (4.3) (4.3) (4.7) (4.8) (2.9) (4.2) (3.9) (3.5) (3.1) (2.2)

Surplus/(deficit) 1.7 2.0 2.0 0.7 (0.1) (7.1) 0.4 1.0 1.4 2.2

£m

Page 89: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

89

Figure [9.2]: Incremental impact of the investment on income and expenditure

£m 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Income

Protected revenue - - - - - - - - - -

Research & training - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total income - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Operating costs

Pay - - - - 0.3 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Non-pay - - - - 0.8 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.3 4.4

Total operating

expenses - - - - 1.1 5.0 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.3

Earnings before Interest, Tax,

Depreciation and Amortisation

(EBITDA)

- - - - 1.1 5.0 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.3

Impairment - - - - - (8.2) - - - -

Depreciation & - - - - - (1.0) (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) (2.5)

Page 90: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

90

amortisation

Financing - (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (3.7) (3.6) (3.3) (2.9) (2.6) (2.1)

Public Dividend Capital (PDC) - (0.3) (0.6) (1.3) 0.5 (0.9) (0.7) (0.4) - 0.9

Surplus/(deficit) - (0.3) (0.6) (1.4) (2.0) (8.7) (0.8) 0.3 1.1 2.5

Page 91: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

91

The incremental impact of the investment on income and expenditure described above shows:

The investment is projected to generate a marginal increase in income (£30,000 per year) from research and development and other income.

Pay and non-pay cost reductions are described above.

The investment is projected to increase EBITDA by £6.3m (recurrently) by the end of the projection period.

The impairment relates to the revaluation of the new building, as described above.

Depreciation on the new building is projected to start from 2021/22, as the building is brought into use.

The investment is projected to cause an increase in financing costs throughout the construction and operating phases. This relates to the cost of financing the bridging loan described above in Figure [9.2]. This is a short term loan that could be substantially repaid within five years but to be prudent the Trust has modelled as having a ten-year term.

The net impact of the investment is a deficit through construction from 2017/18 and into the first year of full operation (2022/23). As loan repayments reduce the financing cost, the investment is projected to yield a surplus from 2023/24.

Page 92: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

92

Figure [9.3]: Net deficit/surplus bridge between the baseline and investment cases at 2025/26

The £ (0.3) m net deficit forecast in 2025/26 for the baseline case is significantly improved in the investment case to a £2.2m net surplus. As

noted above, the additional financing cost is expected to fall to nil from 2026/27, further improving the investment case position over the

baseline case.

9.3.2 Statement of financial position

The investment case statement of financial position is set out below, along with the incremental impact assessed against the baseline case (the

statement of financial position for the full baseline case is included in Appendix [20]).

£(0.3)m

£1.9m

£4.4m £(2.5)m

£(2.1)m

£0.9m £2.2m

£(1.0)m

-

£1.0m

£2.0m

£3.0m

£4.0m

£5.0m

£6.0m

£7.0m

£8.0m

Baseline case2025/26 deficit

Pay costs Non-pay costs Depreciation &amortisation

Financing PDC Investment case2025/26 surplus

Page 93: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

93

Figure [9.4]: Projected statement of financial position for the investment case

The investment case projected statement of financial position shows:

The property, plant and equipment balance is projected to increase significantly in the construction phase from 2017/18 to 2021/22. An impairment of the new building of £8.2m is projected in 2021/21 as set out in the assumptions above. The sale of the St Pancras site is projected to be phased between 2022/23 and 2025/26, reducing the property, plant and equipment balance significantly in each of these years.

The trade receivables balance is projected to remain fairly constant, as no significant changes in trade receivables days are assumed.

Cash is projected to remain above the Trust’s requirement of £20.0m, which is sufficient to meet its working capital requirements. Cash is discussed further in the following section.

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Property, plant and

equipment122.1 137.7 139.6 142.4 213.0 231.1 208.6 185.7 162.8 125.8

Trade receivables 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.6 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 13.0

Other current assets 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Cash and cash

equivalents44.0 24.9 23.7 21.8 76.1 37.5 47.7 58.9 70.5 97.0

Total assets 180.2 176.7 177.5 178.2 302.9 282.6 270.4 258.8 247.6 237.3

Trade payables (6.8) (6.9) (6.9) (7.0) (6.8) (6.1) (6.0) (5.9) (5.8) (5.7)

Loans: current - - - - (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5)

Other current liabilities (18.1) (12.4) (11.2) (11.2) (11.2) (11.2) (11.2) (11.2) (11.2) (11.2)

Loans: non-current - - - - (112.5) (100.0) (87.5) (75.0) (62.5) (50.0)

Other non-current

liabilities(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

Total liabilities (24.9) (19.4) (18.2) (18.2) (143.0) (129.9) (117.2) (104.6) (92.0) (79.4)

Net assets 155.3 157.3 159.3 160.0 159.9 152.7 153.1 154.2 155.6 157.8

PDC 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3

Retained earnings 42.8 44.8 46.8 47.4 47.3 40.2 40.6 41.6 43.0 45.3

Revaluation reserve 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2 52.2

Total equity 155.3 157.3 159.3 160.0 159.9 152.7 153.1 154.2 155.6 157.8

£m

Page 94: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

94

The fall in the trade payables balance of around £1.1m between 2017/18 and 2025/26 is driven by the reduction in other expenses which form part of CIP savings. There are no significant changes in trade payables days assumed over this period.

A loan of £125.0m is projected to be drawn down in 2020/21 (current element: £12.5m, non-current element: £115.5m). As noted in the assumptions table, £125.0m is the amount required for the Trust to maintain a minimum cash balance of £20m, required for working capital. As shown below the Trust’s cash balance presents an opportunity to optimise these loan arrangements to improve the net surplus position and this will be considered further throughout the Trust’s business case process as part of the commercial dialogue with the Independent Trust Financing Facility (ITFF). The £125.0 value is based on a prudent approach to the timing of payments to the Trust for the St Pancras site. It will be revised downward if payments could be made available earlier.

The capital receipt from the redevelopment of the SPH site is expected to be greater than this. In the Trust’s OBC, a red book valuation has been undertaken as per NHSI and HMT guidance which presents a prudent value. Therefore, the risk of not achieving a level of capital receipt to cover the costs of the redevelopment is low.

Figure [9.5]: Incremental impact on the projected statement of financial position

The incremental impact of the investment on the statement of financial position shows the following:

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Property, plant and

equipment- 15.4 17.9 34.9 106.8 126.3 105.1 83.5 61.9 26.2

Cash and cash

equivalents- (15.6) (18.8) (37.2) 13.7 (27.5) (19.7) (10.4) (0.2) 25.5

Total assets - (0.3) (0.9) (2.2) 120.6 98.7 85.4 73.0 61.7 51.7

Trade payables - - - - 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0

Loans: current - - - - (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5)

Loans: non-current - - - - (112.5) (100.0) (87.5) (75.0) (62.5) (50.0)

Total liabilities - - - - (124.8) (111.7) (99.1) (86.6) (74.0) (61.5)

Net assets - (0.3) (0.9) (2.2) (4.3) (13.0) (13.8) (13.5) (12.4) (9.8)

Retained earnings - (0.3) (0.9) (2.2) (4.3) (13.0) (13.8) (13.5) (12.4) (9.8)

Total equity - (0.3) (0.9) (2.2) (4.3) (13.0) (13.8) (13.5) (12.4) (9.8)

£m

Page 95: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

95

The property, plant and equipment balance increases during the construction phase, subsequently falling as the St Pancras site is sold.

The negative impact on the cash balance is managed through the projected loan draw down, so that the Trust maintains sufficient cash for its working capital requirement.

The trade payables balance is projected to decrease by £1.0m as a result of the CIPs enabled by the investment that reduce other expenses.

Loans are drawn down and repaid.

Retained earnings is lower in the investment case, principally due to the additional financing costs (£21.1m), additional depreciation (£11.1m) and impairment of the new building (£8.2m), which is partially offset by the improved underlying cost base (£30.6m).

9.3.3 Cash flows

Figure [9.6] below sets out the sources and uses of funding for the proposal on the Trust for the scheme. It can be seen that the funding is

provided through a source of land value from SPH, Tottenham Mews and Trust reserves.

[Figure 9.6]: Source and uses of funds excluding external financing

Sources of funds Uses of funds

SPH Land value 95.4 Land receipt for Trust space 5.0

Tottenham Mews 12.0 Land purchase 14.5

Hanley Road 1.0 New inpatient facility 59.0

Trust reserves 32.0 Community hubs 40.6

SPH hub 16.4

Fees 4.9

Total 140.4 Total 140.4

Figure [9.7] below shows the cash flow statements for the investment case. The incremental impact of the investment against the baseline case

is shown on the following figure and the full baseline cash flow statement is included in Appendix [21].

Page 96: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

96

Figure [9.7]: Projected cash flow statement for the investment case

The cash flow statements show the following:

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Surplus from operations 10.5 11.5 12.1 10.8 11.7 15.2 15.4 15.2 14.8 14.3

Movement in working capital

(Inc)/dec in NHS trade

receivables(1.3) (0.0) (0.0) 0.1 0.2 (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

(Inc)/dec in non-NHS trade

receivables1.2 - - 0.0 (0.0) (0.0) - - - -

(Inc)/dec in other receivables 0.3 - - - - - - - - -

(Inc)/dec in prepayments (0.2) - - - - - - - - -

Inc/(dec) in deferred income 0.2 - - - - - - - - -

Inc/(dec) in provisions (0.3) - - - - - - - - -

Inc/(dec) in trade payables 0.0 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.2) (0.6) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

Inc/(dec) in other payables (2.1) - - - - - - - - -

Inc/(dec) in accruals 2.7 (5.7) (1.2) - - - - - - -

Net cash inflow/(outflow)

from operating activities

11.1 5.9 10.8 11.0 11.6 14.4 15.1 15.0 14.6 14.1

Capital expenditure (4.2) (20.7) (7.3) (21.2) (76.0) (32.7) (4.5) (4.1) (4.1) (4.1)

Proceeds on disposal of PPE - - - 13.0 - - 19.1 19.1 19.1 33.2

Net cash inflow/(outflow)

from investing activities

(4.2) (20.7) (7.3) (8.2) (76.0) (32.7) 14.6 15.0 15.0 29.1

Dividends paid (4.1) (4.3) (4.7) (4.8) (2.9) (4.2) (3.9) (3.5) (3.1) (2.2)

Net interest (paid)/received 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 (3.5) (3.5) (3.2) (2.8) (2.4) (2.0)

Drawdown/(repayment) of

loans- - - - 125.0 (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5)

Net cash inflow/(outflow)

from financing activities

(4.0) (4.3) (4.6) (4.8) 118.6 (20.2) (19.6) (18.8) (18.0) (16.6)

Net cash inflow/(outflow) 2.9 (19.1) (1.2) (1.9) 54.3 (38.6) 10.2 11.2 11.6 26.6

Opening cash balance 41.2 44.0 24.9 23.7 21.8 76.1 37.5 47.7 58.9 70.5

Closing cash balance 44.0 24.9 23.7 21.8 76.1 37.5 47.7 58.9 70.5 97.1

£m

Page 97: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

97

Surplus from operations corresponds to the EBITDA shown in Figure [9.1].

Working capital movements are as described below. These show minimal projected movements in the working capital requirement, apart from accruals.

Capital expenditure includes the capital investment, as well as ongoing maintenance capped at between £2.3m and £2.7m per year.

Proceeds on the disposal of Property Plant and Equipment (PPE) includes the sale of Tottenham Mews (£12.0m) and Hanley Road (£1.0m) in 2019/20 and receipts relating to the sale of St Pancras of £19.1m each year from 2022/23 to 2024/25 and a final receipt of £33.2m in 2025/26.

The increase in interest costs relate to the financing of the bridge loan, which is due to be fully repaid by the end of 2025/26.

The projections show a minimum cash balance of £21.8m in 2019/20, which is sufficient to cover its working capital position.

Page 98: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

98

Figure [9.8]: Incremental impact of the investment on the cash flow statement

The incremental impact of the investment on the Trust’s cash flows over the baseline shows:

An improvement in surplus from operations, resulting from the CIPs that are enabled by the investment.

A slight decrease in trade payables, driven by the reduction in other expenses CIPs.

Capital expenditure relating to the investment.

Proceeds from the sale of the St Pancras site. Note that the sale of Tottenham Mews and Hanley Road in 2019/20 are assumed in both baseline and investment cases and therefore does not form part of the incremental impact.

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Surplus from operations - - - - 1.1 5.0 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.3

Movement in working capital

(Inc)/dec in non-NHS trade

receivables- - - - (0.0) (0.0) - - - -

Inc/(dec) in trade payables - - - - (0.2) (0.6) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0)

Net cash inflow/(outflow)

from operating activities

- - - - 1.0 4.4 5.7 6.0 6.2 6.3

Capital expenditure - (15.4) (2.5) (17.1) (71.9) (28.6) (0.4) - - -

Proceeds on disposal of PPE - - - - - - 19.1 19.1 19.1 33.2

Net cash inflow/(outflow)

from investing activities

- (15.4) (2.5) (17.1) (71.9) (28.6) 18.7 19.1 19.1 33.2

Dividends paid - (0.3) (0.6) (1.3) 0.5 (0.9) (0.7) (0.4) - 0.9

Net interest (paid)/received - (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (3.7) (3.6) (3.3) (2.9) (2.6) (2.1)

Drawdown/(repayment) of

loans- - - - 125.0 (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5)

Net cash inflow/(outflow)

from financing activities

- (0.3) (0.6) (1.4) 121.8 (17.1) (16.5) (15.8) (15.1) (13.8)

Net cash inflow/(outflow) - (15.6) (3.1) (18.4) 50.9 (41.3) 7.8 9.3 10.2 25.7

Opening cash balance - - (15.6) (18.8) (37.2) 13.7 (27.5) (19.7) (10.4) (0.2)

Closing cash balance - (15.6) (18.8) (37.2) 13.7 (27.5) (19.7) (10.4) (0.2) 25.5

£m

Page 99: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

99

The £125.0 million bridging loan (assumed to be ITFF) is projected to be drawn down in 2020/21 and repaid at £12.5m per year over 10 years by 2031.

The net impact on cash of the investment is projected to be a cash outflow in each year of the projections except 2020/21, due to the loan receipt, and in 2025/26, when the final payment for the St Pancras site is assumed to be received.

There is no assumed income statement impact from the disposals at this stage. The Trust will formally review this treatment at FBC stage once the development partner is identified as in the commercial case. This will not impact on affordability insofar as it does not impact on cash and would be treated as an exceptional item if a gain were recognised.

The principal factors of the investment that impact the cash balance at 2025/26 are illustrated in Figure [9.9] below.

Figure [9.9]: 2025/26 cash bridge from the baseline to the investment case

Page 100: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

100

The main differences in cash between the baseline and investment cases arise from the following cumulative impacts:

Operating surplus: £30.6m, of which £21.0m relates to other expenses, £9.4m relates to reduced pay costs and £0.2m relates to additional income.

Capital expenditure of £131.0m is set out in the capital bridge above.

The drawdown of a £125.0m loan to bridge the temporary cash shortfall10.

Loans repaid of £62.5m.

10

The Trust have assumed a £125m facility is available at ITFF rates. There is a risk that this funding will not be available at the time it is needed or altogether which could delay the project

timescales.

£71.5m

£30.6m £(1.0)m

£(135.8)m

£90.4m

£(2.8)m

£125.0m

£(62.5)m

£(18.3)m

£97.1m

£(50.0)m

-

£50.0m

£100.0m

£150.0m

£200.0m

Baseline case2025/26 cash

Operatingsurplus

Workingcapital

differences

Capitalexpenditure

Proceeds ondisposal of

PPE

PDC dividendpaid

Loansdrawndown

Loans repaid Net interest Investmentcase 2025/26

cash

Page 101: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

101

Net interest paid increases by £21.1m, relating to the bridging loan described above.

9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR)

The financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) is NHSI’s view of the level of financial risk a Trust is exposed to and is a therefore key metric to

consider for this transaction. Ratings go from 1 to 4, where 1 is the highest risk and 4 is the lowest risk.

The FSRR scores for the investment and baseline cases are set out in Appendix [22]. The FSRR calculation performed by the LTFM yield a

capital service cover risk rating of 1 for the investment case, as the bridge loan repayments are included in the debt service total

9.5 Sensitivities

The Trust has run a number of sensitivities to understand the impact of different risks on the project:

1. Construction programme delay by one year: This has an initial I&E and cash benefit, but worsens the position by 2025/26 as the benefits are also delayed.

2. Development/capital cost increase by 10%: This has a limited impact on the net surplus (decreasing it by £0.8m by 2025/26) but it reduces the forecast cash balance by £15.3m by 2025/26.

3. Land value at Whittington 50% higher: This has a limited I&E impact (decreasing it by £0.5m by 2025/26), but reduces forecast cash by £10.0m by 2025/26.

4. Land value at SPH 10% lower: This has a limited I&E impact (decreasing it by £0.4m by 2025/26), but reduces forecast cash by £11.6m by 2025/26.

5. Benefits delivered at 50% below plan: This reduces the recurrent net surplus by £3.8m £2.3m and cash by £16.6m at 2025/26.

6. Benefits delivered at 30% below plan: This reduces the recurrent net surplus by £2.3m and cash by £10.0m at 2025/26.

7. Recurrent CIP 30% lower than plan: This reduces the recurrent net surplus by £5.7m and cash by £21.3m at 2025/26.

8. Pay costs 5% higher than plan: This reduces the recurrent net surplus by £6.7m and cash by £40.2m at 2025/26. As this sensitivity is also considered in the baseline case analysis, it has no impact on the incremental impact of the transaction.

9. Pay costs 2.5% higher than plan: This reduces the recurrent net surplus by £3.4m and cash by £20.2m at 2025/26. As this sensitivity is also considered in the baseline case analysis, it has no impact on the incremental impact of the transaction.

The sensitivities set each have minimal or no impact on the forecast FSRR score when considered individually. A combined downside case will

be considered in the Trust’s FBC along with the impact on the FSRR, including the impact of delays in land receipts.

Page 102: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

102

9.6 Conclusions

The projections show that the Trust will have sufficient cash to implement the investment, while maintaining sufficient headroom for the working

capital requirement. The adjusted FSRR scores also imply an acceptable level of financial risk.

The projections require that a bridge loan of £125.0m is made available by the ITFF from 2020/21. The Trust will need to secure a commitment

on this loan or to make alternative funding arrangements in order to proceed with the investment.

There is no financial impact on any other parties, including both of the CCGs due to the block-payment contract provided to the Trust for the

delivery of mental health services.

Page 103: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

103

10

Page 104: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

104

11 Implementation

This section sets out what happens after the consultation phase, namely, how the Trust

plans to manage the project and sets out in more detail the actions that will be required to

ensure the successful delivery of the scheme in accordance with best practice.

11.1 Post consultation process

Following the close of the consultation, the CCG Governing Body’s will consider the

responses to the consultation and be asked to give approval to the proposals (please see

the decision-making process as set out at the end of Section [7]). The Trust will implement

the proposal, having already factoring in considerations from the consultation process, as set

out in subsequent sections.

11.2 Programme management arrangements

The Trust has implemented a robust programme management and governance structure

which ensures accountability through clear allocation of responsibilities, and provides

assurance through regular reporting, enabling quick identification and addressing any issues

as they arise. This section describes the following programme management arrangements:

Programme management approach;

Project implementation budget;

Risk Management Arrangements; and

Benefits management.

11.2.1 Programme management approach

The Trust will follow the PRINCE2 principles in their approach to project management to

ensure the delivery of the project. This is the de facto standard in use in the public sector in

the UK.

Project implementation budget

The implementation costs for the project are expected to be £4.9m in nominal terms over the

project implementation period and are inclusive of costs associated with the programme

team, town planning and technical support.

11.2.2 Risk Management

The risk management strategy is in line with the HM Treasury Green Book and NHS

guidance for capital projects.

There is an existing risk management process in place for the Programme, and this process

will continue throughout the implementation and delivery phase of the programme to ensure

that risks are identified, monitored and where possible, mitigated. The overarching risk

management policy is based on an iterative process of:

Identifying and prioritising the risks to the achievement of the Programme aims and objectives;

Evaluating the likelihood of those risks being realised and the impact should they be realised;

Page 105: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

105

Managing the risks efficiently, effectively and economically.

The Programme Office maintains the Risk Register for the Programme. Project risks

registers are maintained by the project manager/work stream lead and risks escalated where

necessary via reporting.

11.2.3 Programme governance structure

The key elements of the programme governance structure include:

A clear governance and delivery structure from operational work streams to the Trust

Board.

The structured relationship between programme management and delivery.

The interface between the Programme Board and its assurance mechanism.

The interface between the Trust Board and its assurance mechanism.

The programme governance structure surrounding this project is illustrated in the diagram

below:

Figure [10.1]: Project Governance Structure

The day to day development of the case is delivered by a series of project work streams

within which the membership will vary in line with the specific needs of the work stream and

the phase of the business case.

Page 106: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

106

Finance and Procurement

Lead: Director of Finance, the Trust or nominee

To monitor the development expenditure and advice on elements such as cash flow, VAT

and compliance with finance requirements. Procurement should advise on best practice for

contracts and equipping new schemes.

Workforce

Lead: Director of HR & OD, the Trust

Review the project for any impact on the workforce that creates change, and set out the

process for achieving this within the business case.

Estates

Lead: Director of Estates and Facilities, the Trust

To review the proposals for Estates issues and advise and provide solutions.

Operational

Lead: Chief Operating Officer, the Trust or nominee

To review the design proposals, advise on operation issues such as compliance and working

with Trust objectives and policies.

Clinical

Lead: Medical Director, the Trust or nominee

Review the clinical implications of the design proposals.

IM & T

Lead: Associate Director of ICT, the Trust

Review the design proposals against the Trust IT strategy and advice how this can be

best delivered.

Partnership

Lead: Transformation Programme Director, the Trust

To work closely with the Trust partners to keep them informed and understand and report on

any deliverables, groups include: On Site Partner, Stakeholders Holder Reference Group,

Council of Governors Site Development Working Group.

Communication

Lead: Head of Communications and Engagement, the Trust

To set out the communication strategy to deliver and monitor the plan. The Trust will be

subject to an ongoing duty to involve the public as it implements the decisions.

Page 107: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

107

11.2.4 Trust implementation team

The Trust implementation team will comprise approximately 4-6 people on a whole time

equivalents (WTE) basis to be engaged at various points during the implementation. The

function requirements during the implementation include:

Programme Director;

Project Director;

Project Managers:

Main Inpatient Build;

Community Projects;

St Pancras Hub and Disposal;

Finance Support;

HR and Workforce Support;

Clinical Support; and

Administration.

Page 108: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

108

Figure [10.2]: Trust implementation team

Role 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/2021 2021/22 2022/23

Programme Management Office WTE WTE WTE WTE WTE WTE

Leadership 2 2 1 1 1 ¼

Management 1 ¼ 2 1 ¾ ½

Activity Modelling ½ ½

Financial 1 1 1 1 1 1

HR support ¾ ½ ½

Project Support 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total 4 ½ 5 ¼ 4 ¼ 5 ½ 5 ¼ 2 ¾

This proposed staffing profile for the implementation team has been informed by the recommendations of the Project Director based on

experience of similar schemes.

11.3 Project implementation plan

The key milestones for implementation are set out in Figure [10.3] below. These milestones will be updated on a regular basis as more

information becomes available and the project develops. For further details on the consultation phase and approval timeline, see Section [7.5].

Figure [10.3]: Project milestones

Date Key item

Page 109: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

109

Date Key item

TBC Approval of OBC

TBC Go to market for Development Partner

TBC Appointment of Development Partner

TBC Planning application for new inpatient facility

TBC Planning application for community facilities

TBC Planning Application for SPH

TBC Completion of FBC

TBC Approval of FBC

TBC Construction of new inpatient facility completed

TBC Decant of inpatients into new inpatient facility

June 2022 Community hubs operational

February 2022 Redevelopment of SPH site begins

August 2023 SPH site operational (for C&I)

TBC Post project evaluation

11.4

Page 110: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

110

11.5 Post project evaluation

The Trust has developed a high level post project evaluation plan which identifies the

mechanisms that would enable monitoring and review of performance at different stages of

the project. These are to be shared with and approved by the Trust at each key milestone.

A thorough and robust post project evaluation will:

Facilitate continual learning from the project to be implemented at subsequent

stages as well as future projects.

Ensure that the project adheres to the project plan/ milestones and review of project

risks

Enable measuring of project performance against project aims including the

realisation of benefits

Provide useful feedback and knowledge that can be shared with key stakeholders as

well as the NHS as a whole.

The key components of the Trust’s post project evaluation arrangements are:

A review of performance against Project Programme throughout the life of the

project;

A review of actual performance toward achieving the benefits detailed in the Benefits

Realisation Plan and confirmation that they have been met;

A review of project implementation to learn lessons for future; and

A review of the FBC capital and revenue costs to assess their robustness and

accuracy.

At the OBC stage, Design Quality Indicator (DQI) workshops have been conducted to review

and improve the design and construction approach based on input from a range of

stakeholders.

Going forward, service users, staff and the project team will be asked to evaluate the project

through the use of questionnaires, stakeholder consultation meetings, staff focus groups and

benefits realisation data.

The arrangements for the Post Project Evaluation will be established in accordance with best

practice. The Trust will identify responsibilities and resource requirements for management

of the Post Project Evaluation during the FBC development period, and Post Project

Evaluation will be an integral part of the post implementation operating model.

11.6 Approvals process for investment by the Trust

NHS Improvement require Trusts to submit a SOC, OBC and FBC for approval for capital

investment proposals of this value (i.e. >£50m). The SOC submitted to NHSI in November

2016 has already been approved, while the OBC was submitted in June 2017 and is

currently going through approvals with an open dialogue with NHSI. The FBC may take

between 3-6 months to gain approval. The process for approval of each case is shown in

figure [10.3].

Page 111: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

111

Figure [10.3]: Capital Business Case Approval Process

Source: Capital Regime, Investment and Property Business Case Approval Guidance for

Trusts and Foundation Trusts, NHS Improvement, 2016.

HM Treasury Consultation with

DHSC

NHS Improvement Resources

Committee Approval

NHS Improvement

Board Approval DHSC Approval HM Treasury

Approval

Page 112: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

112

12 The Secretary of State’s Four Tests

NHS England, in ‘Planning and delivering service changes for service users’ published in

December 2013, outlined good practice for commissioners on the development of proposals

for major service changes and reconfigurations.

Building on this, the 2014/15 mandate from the Secretary of State to NHS England, outlines

that proposed service changes should be able to demonstrate evidence to meet four tests:

1. Strong public and patient engagement;

2. Consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice;

3. A clear clinical evidence base; and

4. Support for proposals from clinical commissioners.

5. Bed closure test

Reconfiguration proposals must meet the four tests before they can proceed. These tests

are designed to demonstrate that there has been a consistent approach to managing

change, and therefore build confidence within the service, and with service users and the

public.

12.1 Test 1: Strong public and patient engagement

This test evaluates how service users and the public have been involved in the development of the proposals for the redevelopment of the St Pancras site and the development of the community hubs and relocation of some community services.

The extensive stakeholder engagement undertaken to date and that which is proposed over

the course of the project is laid out in detail in Section [7] of this document. The methods and

approaches for consultation have included presentations, discussions, surveys, meetings

and emails.

A summary of these activities includes;

15 Service User engagements;

5 Staff engagements;

5 Carer engagements;

5 for senior stakeholders;

2 Governor engagements;

5 Healthwatch engagements;

5 local community engagements;

1 local resident engagement.

Page 113: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

113

The figure below lists each of the committees who have considered the pre-consultation plan and associated engagement activities.

Figure [11.1]: Staff Engagement

Meeting/approach Date How were participants informed

Staff-side meeting 14 March 2017 Presentation and discussion

Peckwater Centre staff 28 March 2017 Presentation and discussion

Highgate Mental Health staff 04 April 2017 Presentation

St Pancras staff 05 April 2017 Presentation and discussion

Lowther Road staff 05 April 2017 Presentation and discussion

C&I Senior Leadership Team Meeting 24 April 2017 Presentation

St Pancras and Greenland Road staff 11 May 2017 Presentation

Highgate Mental Health staff 12 May 2017 Presentation

All-staff briefing 24 May 2017 Presentation

Email update for staff 02 February 2018 Update email

C&I staff briefing, Greenland Road 30 April 2018 Presentation

C&I staff briefing, St Pancras 01 May 2018 Presentation

C&I staff briefing, Lowther Road 03 May 2018 Presentation

C&I staff briefing, Highgate 04 May 2018 Presentation

Figure [11.2]: Service User and Carer Engagement

Meeting/approach Date How were participants informed

cBug, iBug, Nubian Users’ Forum, Women’s Strategy Group

24 March 2017 Presentation followed by Q&A session

Service User Alliance 31 March 2017 Presentation followed by Q&A session

Service Users’ Conference at St Pancras 13 April 2017 Presentation followed by Q&A session

cBug 25 April 2017 Discussion

Islington Carers’ Hub 28 April 2017 Discussion

Camden Carers’ Hub 19 May 2017 Discussion

iBug 27 June 2017 Discussion

Nubian Users’ Forum 18 July 2017 Presentation

Service User Alliance 22 September 2017 Discussion and Q&A session

Page 114: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

114

Briefing SMS Service Users at Margarete Centre 28 September 2017 Briefing

Frontline Service Users 02 November 2017 Discussion

Meeting of CPPEG 06 November 2017 Presentation

iCope Islington 15 November 2017 Discussion and Q&A

Carers’ Partnership Meeting 09 January 2018 Discussion and Q&A session

Healthwatch inpatient survey 24 January 2018 Verbally by Healthwatch and then asked a series of questions

Healthwatch inpatient survey 26 January 2018 Verbally by Healthwatch and then asked a series of questions

Healthwatch inpatient survey 30 January 2018 Verbally by Healthwatch and then asked a series of questions

Extraordinary Service Users’ Forum 02 February 2018 Update presentation followed by Q&A session

Islington Carers’ Meeting 06 February 2018 Verbally by Healthwatch and then asked a series of questions

Camden Carers’ Meeting 16 February 2018 Verbally by Healthwatch and then asked a series of questions

Previous inpatients Through March 2018 Verbally by Healthwatch and then asked a series of questions

St Pancras Redevelopment Consultation Review Group 07 March 2018 Papers and verbally

Two borough community hubs engagement event 15 March 2018 Presentation

Communications meeting with Paul Ware 19 March 2018 Verbally

Meeting with Paul Ware 18 April 2018 Verbally

Nubian Service Users' Forum 09 May 2018 Presentation

Figure [11.3]: Senior Stakeholder Engagement

Meeting/approach Date How were participants informed

Stakeholder Reference Group meeting 27 July 2016 Discussion

Stakeholder Reference Group meeting 05 October 2016 Discussion

Page 115: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

115

Stakeholder Reference Group meeting 26 January 2017 Discussion

Stakeholder Reference Group meeting 27 February 2017 Discussion

Stakeholder Reference Group meeting 29 March 2017 Discussion

JHOSC 21 April 2017 Presentation

North Central London JHOSC 19 September 2017 Presentation

Stakeholder Reference Group meeting 24 October 2017 Discussion

Knowledge Quarter 01 November 2017 Presentation followed

Clinicians community hubs meeting 26 January 2018 Discussion

North Central London Joint Health Overview Scrutiny Committee

23 March 2018 Presentation

Stakeholder Reference Group meeting 24 April 2018 Discussion

Figure [11.4]: Governor Engagement

Meeting/approach Date How were participants informed

Council of Governors 09 May 2017 Presentation

Email update for governors 02 February 2018 Update email

C&I Council of Governors 08 May 2018 Presentation

12.2

Page 116: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

116

12.3 Test 2: Consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice

This test is to illustrate whether the proposed redevelopment will maintain the availability of

service user choice.

For most service users that currently access mental health services in the Borough of

Camden and Islington, the entry pathway will remain the same following the proposed

redevelopment. As the clinical model remains unchanged, with the majority of services

continuing to be delivered in the community and via primary care, the range of service user

choice is unaffected.

For service users of the inpatient facilities at St Pancras, the proposed changes will have

minimal impact on the choices available due to the fact that there is no change in the

number of providers serving the local area and the Trust’s own services are moving 2.5

miles further away. Currently the closest alternative provider of inpatient mental health is at

Gordon Hospital (operated by CNWL and 3.7 miles from St Pancras and 5.8 miles from the

Whittington site). In respect of the fact that many users of this service are admitted to the

facility under the Mental Health Act, the relocation would be insignificant in terms of impact

on patient choice.

In addition, the travel time identified, there should not be any services users that, following

the relocation of services to the Whittington site, would find the travel time an issue or that

their choice of provider has substantively diminished. This will be discussed further with

service users as part of the consultation phase following approval of the PCBC.

Patient choice would also be improved from a quality perspective as with the proposed

redevelopment, service users would have a purpose-built, higher quality, and safer facility

from which to receive care than is available currently. This increase in the quality is in line

with the CCGs and the Trust’s vision to deliver their vision of excellence; “We will continually

improve the quality and safety of service delivery, service user experience and improve

outcomes.”

12.4 Test 3: A clear clinical evidence base

This test is to demonstrate sufficient clinical evidence and clarity on the case for change.

This is clearly outlined in Section [4]. The independent verification of this case for change will

be gained through submission for consideration by the London Clinical Senate, engagement

with a range of clinicians as detailed below, and using reports from the CQC reports.

The model of care and proposals to relocate certain services have the support of the CCG

GP mental health leads and were developed by the Trust’s Medical Director and Director of

Nursing.

CQC Report

The Trust’s most recent CQC report was published in March 2018, where the Trust received

an overall rating of “Good”. The previous report, published in June 2016 identified the

deteriorating St Pancras Hospital site compared to the refurbished HMHC. Due to the ageing

and inflexible site at St Pancras, there is a clinical need to move service users to a site

without multiple ligature points and multiple blind spots from where staff cannot easily

observe service users. After publication of the 2016 report, the CQC was briefed on the

Trust’s plans to review the entire St Pancras estate.

Page 117: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

117

London Clinical Senate

The St Pancras Redevelopment Oversight Steering Group contacted the London Clinical

Senate (LCS) for advice on:

Whether the change of environment will improve clinical care for inpatient and

community services

Whether the proposals for changes to inpatient and community mental health

services:

o will enable improvements in clinical care and quality benefits for patients

o are informed by best practice

o align with national policy and are supported by STP plans and commissioning

intentions

Whether the approach ensuring the inpatient demand of population growth is

absorbed by the development of mental health community services.

The LCS will provide the CCGs will feedback on the clinical case for the proposed service

changes. The CCGs will need to take account of these comments and include them in the

consultation document as appropriate. The CCGs responding to the LCS is part of the NHSE

assurance process of the CCGs approach to the consultation.

A wide range of clinicians have been engaged and consulted throughout the process to

ensure proposals have patient outcomes central to plans. There has been broad and varied

communication with a range of clinical staff, further details of which can be found in Figures

7.3 and 7.3. Of particular note are the GB Seminars, which the Trust presented the

redevelopment plans. CCG GB leads have been involved in the process throughout,

alongside the member GPs.

Furthermore, a meeting of clinical leads from the local health organisations was held on 26

January 2018 to discuss the community hubs. The Trust is scheduled to attend the Camden

GP locality meetings in April 2018 and Islington GPs were updated in March 2018. A number

of engagement events for Trust staff have been held at various Trust locations where

clinicians have attended. Trust clinicians also continue to be kept informed through existing

internal meeting structures.

Feedback provided demonstrated a strong level of support for the proposal with a consensus

that the changes identified would improve services for service users. A letter of support from

the Trust’s Director of Nursing, dated June 13th 2017, provides this assurance on behalf of

the clinicians at the Trust, stating that “considering the environmental challenges around

access, ligature management, the privacy and dignity of our service users and infection

control, we believe that the proposal reflects the collective view on how our local services

should be configured”. This can be found in Appendix [23].

12.5 Test 4: Support for proposals from clinical commissioners.

This test is to provide assurance that the proposals have the approval of local

commissioners.

Both of the CCGs have been involved and provided their support for the proposed

redevelopment as joint commissioners of the Trust. There have been a series of meetings to

Page 118: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

118

brief all GP members of the CCGs, where they have had an opportunity to provide feedback

on the proposals. Formal and informal presentations and discussions have taken place at

several CCG Governing Body meetings, both public and private. The Chief Operating Officer

for Haringey and Islington CCG has led the engagement on behalf of Camden and Islington

CCGs and been the primary communicator to senior stakeholders. They also lead the St

Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group, providing guidance over the

Consultation work stream and with representation from Camden CCG and Islington CCG.

Figure [11.5]:

Meeting/approach Date How were participants informed

Target audiences

Number of attendees/number of hits or users

Islington CCG Governing Body

September 2017

Presentation Governing Body

19

Islington GP Forum 22 March 2018

Presentation GPs 18

Islington CCG Governing Body seminar

11 April 2018

Presentation Governing Body

14

Camden CCG Governing Body seminar

25 April 2018

Presentation Governing Body

13

South Camden GP Locality meeting

11 April 2018

Presentation GPs 16

North Camden GP Locality meeting

12 April 2018

Presentation GPs 10

West Camden GP Locality meeting

13 April 2018

Presentation GPs 13

Islington CCG Governing Body

9 May 2018 Presentation Governing Body

18

Camden CCG Governing Body

9 May 2018 Presentation Governing Body

20

12.6 NHSE’s Bed Closures Test

From 1 April 2017, NHSE introduced a new test to evaluate the impact of any proposal that

includes a significant number of bed closures and to ensure commissioners are able to

evidence that one of the following three conditions have been met;

Sufficient alternative provisions have been made, such as increased GP or community services;

New treatments or therapies will reduce specific categories of admissions, or;

Where a hospital has been using beds less effectively than the national average, that there is a credible plan to improve performance without affecting patient care.

This test is only applied where the proposal includes plans to significantly reduce bed

numbers. As this proposal maintains the current inpatient bed provision following activity and

bed modelling, as outlined in further detail in section 5, this test is not applicable.

Page 119: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

119

13 Decision making and next steps

Following consultation, the St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group will review

consultation responses received from members of the public and organisations. The

committee will then consider the views of the participants and the effect these may have on

the decision-making process.

At this stage of the development of options, it is not possible to fully detail the timescales in

which decisions will be taken and when subsequent implementation could take place. This is

due to a number of factors, including:

The quantity and detail of consultation responses received, and timescales required to analyse those responses;

The consideration of consultation responses by the St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group and subsequent update of analysis and evaluation of options as required;

Camden and Islington CCGs, as the decision-makers, need to consider the consultation responses and make the decision about whether the proposals should go ahead;

The development of a decision making business case and confirmation by the St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group; and

The development of detail implementation plans between providers and commissioners on the basis of the decision made by the St Pancras Hospital Redevelopment Oversight Group.

However, to give an indicative timeline, the programme expects the following milestones for

this process. These may be subject to change, as described above:

Formal public consultation – July 2018 - October 2018 (14 weeks).

External analysis of consultation responses – October 2018.

The C&I CCGs will consider the responses to the consultation and agree whether the proposals to redevelop the St Pancras site and relocate in patient services should go ahead – November Governing Body meetings

Final business case preparation – November 2018

Each CCG GB to consider the final business case document – November 2018

Each CCG to make a decision on the final business case – November 2018

Page 120: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

120

Appendix Contents

Appendix Number

Name

1 Trust services provided at SPH relocation summary

2 Other Provider’s services at SPH

3 Travel time report

4 Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) screening questions form

5 Pre-consultation engagement meetings

6 NCL STP stakeholder engagement summary

7 JHOSC meeting minutes

8 Consultation plan

9 Consultation document, questionnaire and FAQs

10 Options development summary

11 Feasibility Study

12 Options considered

13 Qualitative assessment workshop summary

14 Qualitative assessment scoring

15 Qualitative scores of each option

16 Backlog maintenance

17 Quantifiable benefits

18 Trust’s Income & Expenditure assumptions

19 Baseline income and expenditure

20 Baseline statement of financial position

21 Baseline cash flow statement

22 Trust FSRR scores for the investment and baseline cases

23 Letter of support from the Trust’s Director of Nursing

24 Bed modelling benchmarking

25 Occupied Bed Days Trend Analysis

Page 121: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

121

Appendix 1 Trust services provided at SPH relocation summary

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

ST PANCRAS

Dunkley Ward (16 bed mixed sex with 4 learning disability beds)

ACUTE

Laffan Ward (16 bed mixed acute mental health) ACUTE

Rosewood Ward (12 bed female acute mental health) ACUTE

Ruby Ward (11 bed female PICU) ACUTE

Montague Ward (14 mixed high dependency rehab ward)

R&R

Sutherland Ward (14 mixed long-term complex care ward)

R&R

Complex Depression, Anxiety and Trauma Service COMMUNITY

Camden & Islington Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Service

COMMUNITY

Page 122: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

122

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

Sexual Problems Team COMMUNITY

South Camden iCope COMMUNITY

Traumatic Stress Clinic COMMUNITY

NHS Transition, Intervention and Liaison Veterans’ Mental Health Service (formally known as LVS)

COMMUNITY

ADHD Team Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder COMMUNITY

Adult Autism Clinic COMMUNITY

Camden Mental Health Assessment and Advice Team

COMMUNITY

Islington Practice Mental Health Team

COMMUNITY

South Camden Crisis Resolution Home Treatment ACUTE

Acute Day Unit (Jules Thorn) ACUTE

Page 123: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

123

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

The Rivers Crisis House (subject to separate review)

Approved Mental Health Professional Service ACUTE

Recovery College COMMUNITY

Pharmacy ACUTE

Clozapine Clinic COMMUNITY

HIGHGATE

Sapphire Ward (16 bed mixed acute mental health) ACUTE

Emerald Ward (15 bed mixed acute mental health) ACUTE

Opal Ward (16 bed mixed acute mental health) ACUTE

Jade Ward (16 bed mixed acute mental health) ACUTE

Page 124: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

124

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

Amber Ward (16 bed mixed acute mental health) ACUTE

Topaz Ward (16 bed acute mental health) ACUTE

Pearl Ward (14 bed mixed older people with mental illness)

SAMH

Highgate Day Centre R&R

Malachite Ward (16 bed mixed high dependency rehabilitation)

R&R

Coral Ward (12 bed male PICU) ACUTE

Garnet Ward (14 bed mixed dementia care) SAMH

Personality Disorder Therapies Team COMMUNITY

Personality Disorder Community Team COMMUNITY

Accommodation Team R&R

Page 125: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

125

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

GREENLAND ROAD

Camden Assertive Outreach Team R&R

Islington Assertive Outreach Team R&R COMMUNITY

Camden Early Intervention Team R&R

Islington Early Intervention Team R&R

Focus Homeless Outreach COMMUNITY

LOWTHER ROAD

North Islington Rehabilitation and Recovery Team R&R

Cornwallis Outreach Project R&R

Islington Mental Health Re-ablement Service R&R

PECKWATER CENTRE

Page 126: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

126

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

Camden Community Team SAMH

Camden Memory Service SAMH

Care Home Liaison Team SAMH

South Camden Recovery Team R&R

BLENHEIM COURT (NON-CLINICAL SITE)

Dementia Navigators SAMH

Home Treatment Team SAMH

Islington Community Mental Health Team SAMH

Islington Memory Team SAMH

Care Home Liaison Team SAMH

Page 127: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

127

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

MARGARETE CENTRE

South Camden Drug Centre SMS

ARLINGTON ROAD

Camden Alcohol Service SMS

THE HOO

North Camden Recovery Team R&R

DALEHAM GARDENS

North Camden Drug Service SMS

North Camden Recovery Centre R&R

SOUTHWOOD SMITH CENTRE

Accommodation Team R&R

Page 128: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

128

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

South Islington Recovery Team R&R

DRAYTON PARK

Islington Learning Disabilities Service COMMUNITY

MANOR GARDENS

iCope - North Islington Team

COMMUNITY

CAMDEN MEWS

Community Recovery Service for Older People - covering both Camden and Islington

SAMH

Mental Health Liaison Team ACUTE

OTHER SITES

Aberdeen Park R&R

Highview R&R

Page 129: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

129

Current locations and services No move (staying as is) Move to new site

Move to Greenland Road

Move to Lowther Road

Stacey Street (subject to separate review)

Raglan Day Centre SAMH

Whittington Hospital

Mental Health Liaison Assessment Team (ILAT),

Key:

Acute: Acute and Crisis Care (Urgent care)

R&R: Recovery and Rehabilitation (Psychosis)

SAMH: Services for Ageing and Mental Health (Older people and Dementia)

SMS: Substance Misuse Services (Alcohol and drugs)

Community: Community Mental Health (Complex psychological and common mental health conditions)

Page 130: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

130

Appendix 2 Other Provider’s services at SPH

NHS Services & description of service Current address Future location

Rehabilitation inpatient wards (Central and

North West London Foundation Trust)

Provides treatment and support for patients

whose physical abilities have been reduced

through illness, such as a stroke, or a fall or a

musculoskeletal condition.

South Wing To remain in current

building

Evergreen Ward (University College London

Hospital)

A ward predominantly for care of the elderly

South Wing To remain in current

building

Kidney dialysis clinic (Royal Free Hospital) St Pancras

Hospital

To remain but in a

new building

Ophthalmology clinic (Royal Free Hospital) St Pancras

Hospital

To remain but in a

new building

GP out of hours service (London Central &

West Unscheduled Care Collaborative)

St Pancras

Hospital

To remain but in a

new building

Kings Cross GP Practice (AT Medics) St Pancras

Hospital

To stay but in a new

building

Page 131: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

131

Appendix 3 Travel time report

Travel time change from postcode between major site changes using public transport

Changes are colour coded in the tables in the following way:

Green – a reduction in travel time of 5 minutes or more

Amber – a reduction in travel time of less than 5 minutes or an increase of up-to 5

minutes

Red – an increase in travel time of 5 minutes or more.

Camden postcodes Travel Times by TFL

Travel times (in minutes) from centre of Postcode to: Postcode St Pancras

Hospital Proposed site at

Whittington Hospital Net

change Greenland

Road Net

Change

WC1N 1 27 39 12 28 1

WC1N3 33 40 7 32 -1

WC1X9 29 44 15 32 3

NW1 0 8 35 27 9 1

NW1 1 10 36 26 16 6

NW1 2 22 34 12 16 -6

NW1 3 20 38 18 15 -5

NW1 4 39 47 8 29 -10

NW 1 7 21 30 9 6 -15

NW1 8 23 35 12 11 -12

NW1 9 16 38 22 14 -2

NW5 2 25 24 -1 16 -9

NW5 3 30 34 4 22 -8

NW5 1 30 17 -13 24 -6

NW3 1 35 38 3 26 -9

NW3 7 40 39 -1 31 -9

NW3 6 33 43 10 31 -2

NW3 5 40 42 2 31 -9

NW6 1 43 45 2 36 -7

NW6 2 41 42 1 35 -6

NW6 3 39 45 6 36 -3

NW6 4 41 47 6 32 -9

NW6 5 39 53 14 38 -1

NW2 3 47 49 2 47 0

NW3 3 35 39 4 26 -9

NW3 4 33 36 3 23 -10

Page 132: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

132

Islington postcodes Travel Times by TFL

Travel times (in minutes) from centre of Postcode to:

Postcode

St Pancras Hospital

Proposed site at Whittington Hospital

Net change

Lowther Road

Net change

EC1Y8 52 44 -8 37 -15

EC1V3 54 44 -10 37 -17

EC1R0 24 42 18 31 7

N17 39 43 4 26 -13

N18 38 68 30 55 17

N19 39 27 -12 30 -9

N10 56 48 -8 59 3

N11 46 53 7 36 -10

N12 37 30 -7 44 7

N13 57 70 13 50 -7

N14 47 62 15 39 -8

N51 35 46 11 28 -7

N52 43 47 4 30 -13

N78 32 43 11 2 -30

N79 29 39 10 26 -3

N 16 8 49 61 12 39 -10

N4 2 35 47 12 28 -7

N4 3 31 41 10 25 -6

N4 4 38 44 6 27 -11

N7 0 33 28 -5 31 -2

N7 6 33 32 -1 19 -14

N7 7 33 38 5 16 -17

N19 4 34 13 -21 27 -7

N19 5 29 21 -8 33 4

N6 5 36 29 -7 32 -4

N6 6 34 26 -8 51 17

Page 133: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

133

Travel time change from postcode compared to Lowther Road or Manor Gardens.

Islington postcodes

Travel Times by TFL

Postcode Lowther Road

Manor Gardens

Net change

EC1Y8 37 42 -5

EC1V3 37 43 -6

EC1R0 31 40 -9

N17 26 38 -12

N18 55 44 11

N19 30 13 17

N10 59 40 19

N11 36 41 -5

N12 44 41 3

N13 50 50 0

N14 39 47 -8

N51 28 15 13

N52 30 30 0

N78 2 17 -15

N79 26 15 11

N 16 8 39 35 4

N4 2 28 22 6

N4 3 25 18 7

N4 4 27 20 7

N7 0 31 9 22

N7 6 19 3 16

N7 7 16 9 7

N19 4 27 11 16

N19 5 33 18 15

N6 5 32 15 17

N6 6 51 26 25

Page 134: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

134

Map of Camden and Islington showing the main sites for proposed service change

Page 135: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 4 Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) screening questions form

Documenting here which of the screening questions are applicable to your initiative will help to draw out the particular privacy considerations that will help formulate your risk register later in the template. This will also assist in ensuring that the investment the organisation makes is proportionate to the risks involved: Remember! – imagine this initiative involved the use of your own information or that of a relative

Yes No Unsure Comments

i Is the information about individuals likely to raise privacy concerns or expectations e.g. health records, criminal records or other information people would consider particularly private?

☐ ☒ ☐ No change will be made to the way staff access patient information electronically. The Trust stores paper records in a central off-site facility.

ii Will the initiative involve the collection of new information about individuals?

☐ ☒ ☐ No new information will be collected.

iii Are you using information about individuals for a purpose it is not currently used for, or in a way it is not currently used?

☐ ☒ ☐ There are no changes to the way data is used.

iv Will the initiative require you to contact individuals in ways which they may find intrusive11?

☐ ☒ ☐ Stakeholders, including patients have been publically and privately engaged throughout.

v Will information about individuals be disclosed to organisations or people who have not previously had routine access to the information?

☐ ☒ ☐ There are no staff changes and data remains with the Trust.

vi Does the initiative involve you using new technology which might be perceived as being privacy intrusive e.g. biometrics or facial recognition?

☐ ☒ ☐ There are no new technologies used.

vii Will the initiative result in you making decisions or taking action against individuals in ways which can have a significant impact on them?

☐ ☒ ☐ No impact of the initiative on decision making.

Page 136: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 5 Pre-consultation engagement meetings

Pre-consultation engagement activities – Service users and carers

Service User Engagement

24-Mar-17 cBug, iBug, Nubian Users’ Forum, Women’s Strategy Group

31-Mar-17 Service User Alliance

13-Apr-17 Service Users’ Conference at St Pancras

25-Apr-17 cBug

27-Jun-17 iBug

18-Jul-17 Nubian Users’ Forum

22-Sep-17 Service User Alliance

28-Sep-17 Briefing SMS Service Users at Margarete Centre

02-Nov-17 Frontline Service Users

06-Nov-17 Meeting of CPPEG to road-test Public Consultation document and survey

15-Nov-17 iCope Islington

24-Jan-18 Healthwatch inpatient survey

26-Jan-18 Healthwatch inpatient survey

30-Jan-18 Healthwatch inpatient survey

02-Feb-18 Extraordinary Service Users’

15-Mar-18 Community hubs engagement event

Pre-consultation engagement activities - Staff

Staff Engagement

14-Mar-17 Staff Side

28-Mar-17 Peckwater Centre staff

4-Apr-17 Highgate Mental Health staff

5-Apr-17 St Pancras staff

5-Apr-17 Lowther Road Staff

11-May-17 St Pancras and Greenland Road staff

12-May-17 Highgate Mental Health staff

24-May-17 C&I All-staff briefing

24-Jan-18

26-Jan-18

30-Jan-18

02-Feb-18 Email update for all C&I staff

Pre-consultation engagement activities – Broader Engagement

Broader Engagement

20-Mar-17 Islington and Camden Healthwatch

21-Apr-17 Joint Health Oversight Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC) (elected representatives from local Health Oversight Scrutiny Committees (HOSC))

28-Apr-17 Islington Carers’ Hub

09-May-17 Council of Governors

19-May-17 Camden Carers’ Hub

03-Aug-17 St Pancras Community Association

12-Sep-17 Islington Healthwatch

16-Sep-17 Voluntary Action Camden

Page 137: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

25-Sep-17 Camden Healthwatch

29-Sep-17 Service User Conference

17-Oct-17 Camden and Islington Healthwatch

01-Nov-17 Knowledge Quarter (DS)

08-Nov-17

07-Dec-17 Margie Butler, CEO at Camden Citizen’s Advice Bureau (MM)

14-Dec-17 Julie Parish, Operational Lead, Octopus Communities (MM)

15-Dec-17 Saul Gallick, Operational Lead and Sam Hopely, Chief Executive, Holy Cross Centre Trust (MM)

09-Jan-18 Carers’ Partnership Meeting

10-Jan-18 Somers Town Neighbourhood Forum

26-Jan-18 Clinicians community hubs meeting (Trust and CCG clinical leads)

02-Feb-18 Email update for governors

06-Feb-18 Islington Carers’ Meeting (Healthwatch)

16-Feb-18 Camden Carers’ Meeting (Healthwatch)

Page 138: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 6 NCL STP stakeholder engagement summary

We have developed a governance structure to enable NHS and local government partners to

work together in new ways. The objectives of our governance arrangements are to:

Support effective collaboration and trust between commissioners, providers, political

leaders and the general public to work together to deliver improved health and care

outcomes more effectively and reduce health inequalities across the North London

system;

Provide a robust framework for system level decision making, and clarity on where

and how decisions are made on the development and implementation of the North

London STP;

Provide greater clarity on system level accountabilities and responsibilities for the

North London STP;

Enable opportunities to innovate, share best practice and maximise sharing of

resources across organisations in North London; and

Enable collaboration between partner organisations to achieve system level financial

balance over the remaining 3 years of the Five Year Forward View timeframe and

deliver the agreed system control total, while safeguarding the autonomy of

organisations.

The North London Programme Delivery Board oversees delivery of the plan. This is an

executive steering group made up of a cross section of representatives from across North

London. This group is specifically responsible for providing accountability for the

implementation of the workstream plans. Membership includes the Senior Responsible

Officers (SRO) of each workstream and SRO leads for CCGs, Providers and Local

Authorities.

Two subgroups provide advice to the Programme Delivery Board: the Health and Care

Cabinet (formerly the Clinical Cabinet) and the Finance and Activity Modelling Group.

The Health and Care Cabinet meets monthly to provide clinical and professional steer, input

and challenge to each of the workstreams as they develop. Membership consists of the five

CCG Chairs, the eight Medical Directors, clinical leads from across the workstreams, three

nursing representatives from across the footprint, Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions

representatives, a representative for the Directors of Public Health and representatives for

the Directors of Adult Social Services and the Directors of Children’s Services respectively.

The Finance and Activity Modelling Group is attended by the Finance Directors from all

organisations (commissioners and providers). This group currently meets fortnightly, to

oversee the finance and activity modelling of the workstream plans as they develop.

The workstreams are responsible for developing proposals and delivery plans in the core

priority areas and feed into the overarching governance framework. Every workstream has

its own governance arrangements and meeting cycles which have been designed to meet

their respective specific requirements, depending on the core stakeholders involved.

Page 139: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

The STP Advisory Board enables a collective partnership approach, and acts as the

‘sounding board’ for the implementation of the STP plans. The membership of this group

includes Local Authority leaders, NHS Chairs, and Healthwatch.

In addition to the above governance groups, CEOs and other relevant executive directors

and stakeholder representatives will meet quarterly for executive leadership events to enable

continued engagement and momentum, regular communication, and to assist with resolving

any programme delivery issues identified by the programme delivery board.

Follow this link to view a detailed governance handbook including the terms of reference for

all of the governance groups.

Link: https://adoddleak.asite.com/adoddlepublic/dpd/n9xeEI75ebM9H6bjyz

Page 140: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 7 JHOSC meeting minutes

Meeting on 19th September 2017 Consideration was given to an amended presentation from the Camden and Islington Foundation Trust. Malcolm McFrederick, the Project Director, was the lead presenter. He explained that they

were not as far in the process for the St Pancras site as the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

Mental Health Trust were for St Ann’s. They had submitted an outline business case to NHS

Improvement and were waiting for it to be approved. They were anticipating it would be

approved in October. If approval was granted, there would be a full CCG-led public

consultation.

Mr McFrederick highlighted that the existing buildings were not fit for purpose and it was not viable to bring the St Pancras buildings up to date. They wanted to see good and vibrant community facilities and mental health research taking place. A modern therapeutic environment would be good for patients and safer for staff. Inpatient beds would be moved from the St Pancras site and there would be two new ‘community hubs’. Mr McFrederick said there had been consultation with service user groups, CCGs and local councils. Members were informed that the preferred option of moving inpatient beds to the Whittington, establishing community hubs and bringing researchers and academics onto one site had been reached by considering it against 12 Quality Critical Success Factors. There were benefits from co-locating mental and physical health services. They had also researched the travel patterns of their patients, and had wanted to find a site which was easily accessible to those who used public transport and did not have a car. There was discussion about what would be in community hubs. There would be an office area, clinical space (for mental health services and for other health services), and a community space. The community space could include a café or gallery for service users to spend time in and for voluntary sector organisations to operate in. The Chair mentioned that the Adult Education strategy made mention of community hubs. She asked whether the Trust were working with Camden and Islington on this. Mr McFrederick said that they had spoken to Islington about this and would also speak to Camden in future. Trust officers said that they wished to align their plans for the surplus land in the St Pancras site with the borough’s plans for housing. Members asked how the redevelopment would fit in with wider STP matters. The Trust felt that community hubs would help with the linking of mental and physical health services. The Chair asked where the revenue from estates disposals would go. Mr McFrederick said that the sales proceeds would be used to fund the redevelopment plans. The Trust would be selling 80% of the St Pancras site and retaining 20%. Some of the land

would be used for housing and some would be used by Moorfields Eye Hospital.

Members sought clarification that sales proceeds would not be used for revenue spending. They were assured that this would not be the case.

Page 141: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

The Trust representatives were asked if a developer had been appointed. They said that this would take place after the outline business case was approved and would then go through the OJEU process. Members asked about the progress Moorfields were making in terms of their business case for locating on part of the St Pancras site. The Trust representatives said that the two bodies were working together in terms of the timing of their work and submissions. However, they were two distinct schemes and not integrated. Angela McNab, the Trust Chief Executive, confirmed that land which was surplus to Camden & Islington Foundation Trust requirements would be offered to other health bodies. Members said that there was pent-up demand for GP surgery sites in the area, and they hoped that some of the surplus land could be used for this. Councillor Connor asked if the number of beds would increase following the move of inpatient facilities from St Pancras to the Whittington. She was informed that they would not decrease, however there had been no indication from commissioners that they would purchase enough beds to allow for the creation of a whole new ward. She expressed disappointment at this and felt it was important to ensure there were more inpatient facilities available for mental health patients, as demand for these had not fallen. Members also wished to avoid patients having to be placed out of area. Officers said that, on average, the number of Camden and Islington patients who had to be placed outside of those boroughs was low. Ms McNab said the Trust had noted that people were being kept in beds here long than elsewhere and that they could be moved into intermediate care. Councillor Khatoon, who was a ward councillor for the area, addressed the meeting. She wanted to see consultation with local residents and attention given to how more social housing could be provided on the site and if employment opportunities could be created for local residents. Trust officers agreed to arrange an opportunity for Councillor Khatoon to have a walkabout around the site. Members expressed concern about the availability of key worker housing, and they felt that this was important to recruit and retain staff. Members welcomed the proposals to move beds to the Whittington and felt that it was a suitable site. They wished the final business case to come back to the Committee at a future date.

Meeting on 23 March 2018 – Draft Minutes

Malcolm McFrederick, the Project Director (Camden & Islington Foundation Trust), addressed members on the St Pancras hospital plans. He said that they were planning on selling their site and moving the inpatient facilities to the Whittington site. They were looking to develop two new hubs – on Lowther Road and Greenland Road – and they were considering whether a third site would be required. Mr McFrederick said that the Trust were going to go out for tender for a development partner. This could be on a long lease basis rather than for sale. The matter was also complicated by the fact the Department of Health had a historic interest in the site. Mr McFrederick explained that the site could possibly be sold to Moorfields Eye Hospital as a replacement for their old site. The Trust wanted to involve local communities in consultation on the future of the site. Mr McFrederick said that further information would come to both the Camden and Islington health scrutiny committees in June.

Page 142: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Members asked whether London Estates Devolution would apply to the schemes. They were informed that they were not at the stage where estates devolution would apply. The Chair voiced concerns about the development board for St Pancras not meeting. Mr McFrederick said that the two development boards – one involving stakeholders and one involving providers – were being amalgamated. He assured the Chair that she would be invited to the next meeting.

Page 143: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 8 Consultation plan

Consultation methodology: St Pancras Site Redevelopment

Islington Clinical Commissioning Group, together with Camden Clinical Commissioning

Group is leading a consultation on the proposals for the redevelopment of the St Pancras

Hospital site of which Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust is the landlord.

These changes will affect the inpatient facility and community mental health services

currently delivered on the site and on additional Trust sites. The other NHS services which

are delivered on the St Pancras Hospital Site by other NHS Providers such as the Royal

Free Hospital and a Camden GP practice will remain on the site. In some cases, these

services will be delivered in newly refurbished buildings, as part of the redevelopment

process.

In line with our statutory duties, the CCGs will consult on the redevelopment proposals, ensuring local people are given the opportunity to share their views on the services affected by the redevelopment of the St Pancras Hospital site. The statutory duties are:

Section 242 of the NHS Act 2006 states:

Each relevant English body must make arrangements, as respects health services for which it is responsible, which secure that users of those services, whether directly or through representatives, are involved (whether by being consulted or provided with information, or in other ways) in:

The planning of the provision of those services

The development and consideration of proposals for change in the way those services are provided, and

Decisions to be made by that body affecting the operation of those services

Section 14Z2 of the Health & Social Care Act 2012 states: The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) must make arrangements to secure that individuals to whom the services are being or may be provided are involved (whether by being consulted or provided with information or in other ways): a) In the planning of the commissioning arrangements by the group, b) In the development and consideration of proposals by the group for changes in the commissioning arrangements where the implementation of the proposals would have an impact on the manner in which the services are delivered to the individuals or the range of health services available to them, and c) In decisions of the group affecting the operation of the commissioning arrangements where the implementation of the decisions would (if made) have such an impact In light of these plans, Islington and Camden CCGs are proposing to run a public consultation for 12 weeks starting from 5h July to end of September 2018. A consultation document, questionnaire and Frequently Asked Questions have been developed. Aims of the Consultation:

Page 144: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

To understand the views of the local community on the relocation and development of new Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust mental health inpatient services from the St Pancras Hospital site to a site by Highgate Mental Health Centre and Whittington Hospital.

To understand the views of the local community on the development of two new mental health community hubs, one in Camden and another in Islington.

The CCGs, with support from Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, will speak to as many people in the local community as possible, ensuring they hear from a wide range of service users of all of the services proposed for relocation, the local community, local voluntary organisations and Healthwatch’, as well as other key stakeholders such as local Councillors and MPs. Communications and engagement channels The channels we will use to share the consultation and gather as many views as possible are: General Population and Service Users:

A full consultation document with a survey about the proposals will be available on Islington Clinical Commissioning Group, Camden Clinical Commissioning Group, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust and Healthwatch websites

There will be hard copies available of the above with a freepost addressed envelope at Camden and Islington Foundation Trust sites, on request

Posters/ flyers across the Trust’s 30 sites advertising the consultation

Prompts on social media, encouraging people to join one of the consultation meetings or provide their feedback online

Public meetings on 11th July, 19th July and 4th September 2018 at venues that are easily accessible to people in Camden and Islington

A drop-in session with C&IFT Trust Clinical Director - Vincent Kirchner

Sharing the consultation document and survey through our local networks, this includes to the Islington and Camden patient and community groups and Trust service user groups, our patient representatives and our local voluntary and community sector groups

Sharing information on the consultation through the GP newsletters and at the GP Forums

Sharing information on the consultation through our staff newsletters and at our staff briefings (CCGs and Trust)

Promoting the consultation survey to seek input from groups who traditionally face barriers to accessing services or having their voice heard Availability of the consultation document and survey questions in audio, braille, large print, easy read and in languages other than English, upon request.

There will be a dedicated telephone line for local people either requesting the consultation documents or any questions they may have.

Service Users Specific

It was felt strongly by the local Healthwatch and Service Users that there needed to be a focus on consulting with current and ex Service Users as part of the consultation. The points below specifically cover how we will work with service users:

Attendance (with Clinical Director Dr Vincent Kirchner) to speak at all of the Trust’s service users’ groups introducing the consultation, taking questions and letting people know how to fill it in (along with taking some hard copies)

Page 145: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Further targeted engagement using the consultation survey with service users across all five of the Trust’s divisions – Acute, Services for Ageing and Mental Health, Recovery and Rehabilitation, Substance Misuse Services and Community Mental Health. This will include both current service users of inpatient services and community services. This work will be carried out by Healthwatch Camden and Islington with Trust service users.

Results, analysis and feedback

Camden & Islington Clinical Commissioning Groups will appoint an independent partner to evaluate the consultation process and analyse the results of the consultation. The partner will develop a process and infrastructure that reassures stakeholders of the independent nature of the evaluation. Following the closure of the consultation on 30th September 2018, the evaluation team will have a period to analyse the results and present these to Islington and Camden Clinical Commissioning Group Governing Bodies. Islington Clinical Commissioning Group will then make a recommendation on the redevelopment proposals to NHS England and Council Overview and Scrutiny Committees for Islington and Camden.

The results will be available publically, which will include, sharing on CCG and C&IFT websites and sharing through other stakeholders’ networks, such as Healthwatch Islington and Camden.

Decision making process

7. Proposed consultation timeline

Action

Lead Date

Consultation documents and methodology sign off

Islington CCG Governing Body

June 2018

Camden CCG Governing Body

June 2018

Consultation documents and methodology reviewed by Camden and Islington Health and Overview Scrutiny Committees

Islington CCG and Camden CCG

June 2018

Public consultation goes live Islington CCG 5th July 2018 to 10th October 2018

Evaluation of responses External agency October 2018

Results of consultation published and shared

Islington CCG, Camden CCG, the Trust and partners

November 2018

Final Business Case prepared

Islington CCG November 2018

Consideration of Final Business case by Islington CCG Governing Body

Islington CCG November 2018

Consideration by Camden CCG Governing Body

Camden CCG November 2018

A decision is made by Camden and Islington CCGs November 2018

Page 146: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Camden and Islington CCGs on the final Business Case

The decision is communicated with the local community, OSCs, Healthwatch and partners

Islington CCG / Camden CCG / The Trust

November 2018

Page 147: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 9

Consultation Document Transforming mental health services in Camden and Islington: Proposals for change to the Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust Estate Date: 4th July to 10th October 2018

St Pancras Hospital

Consultation Document A4 AMEND STAGE 6_25.06.18.pdf

NHS Camden and

Islington_survey amend stage 3 _25.06.18.pdf

Page 148: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 10 Options development summary

Service Location Review by Camden and Islington Foundation Trust April 2017

Background

As part of the Outline Business Case one of the options under consideration is the

redevelopment of St Pancras with services moving to new community facilities funded

through the business case.

In order for the Trust to make a decision on the services to remain on St Pancras a process

was agreed with the board for criteria for services to be reviewed.

The criteria are noted below

CQC requirements met in full by facilities

Patient disruption must be minimised inpatients moved once only

Research and innovation supported alongside wider learning/ knowledge focus

Staff wellbeing supported

Enabling of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) ambitions

Enabling wider healthcare transformation across North Central London (NCL)

Affordability and value for money achieved

St Pancras site to be symbolic of our vision for mental health e.g. visibly

demonstrating integration, recovery, research etc.

Consideration of service user feedback that had been received to date

Workshops

Two workshops were arranged by Operations to be undertaken on the 24th and 31st March

2017, the attendees at these meetings were Clinical Directors, Consultants, Divisional

Directors and Service Managers, a full list of attendees can be seen in the Appendix 2.

The Outcome:

Stays at SPH Adult autism ADHD team London Veteran’s Service / traumatic stress clinic Medical education Head Quarters & Staff Facilities? Could be SPH / could be somewhere else (academic) Recovery College (Community feel) Sexual Problems Clinic Moves with inpatient Adult inpatient Inpatient rehabilitation and recovery service Volunteers Advocacy Moves to community

Page 149: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Approved Mental Health Professionals Assessment and Advice Team Acute Day Unit (one of two facilities) Phlebotomy - building must have good access, as currently an issue Could go to community but want to be in one place Complex Depression Anxiety and Trauma Services (Acute Day Unit, Crisis House, Crisis Team) – Exists in Daleham Gardens – would be good to replicate for Rivers Crisis centre Community / mainly primary care – some admin ICOPE Psychological Therapies Service (Consider future need for TMS machines)

A full table is noted below of the preferences, along with comments made during the two

meetings.

The next stage

The work needs to be ratified by a number of groups before being presented to Executive for

agreement, so far it has been suggested that this is reviewed by the academics group held

at UCL, and the consultants group held at St Pancras.

In addition, Operations have been requested to review other services not currently provided

at St Pancras.

Page 150: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

The review output

CQC requirements met in full by facilities

Patient disruption must be minimised; inpatients moved once only

Research and innovation supported alongside wider learning/ knowledge focus

Staff wellbeing supported

Enabling of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) ambitions

Enabling wider healthcare transformation across North Central London (NCL)

Affordability and value for money achieved

St Pancras site to be symbolic of our vision for mental health e.g. visibly demonstrating integration, recovery, research etc.

Service

Adult Autism Diagnostic and Consultation Service

x x x x x x x

Adult inpatient services

x X x x x x x

Approved Mental Health Professionals Team (AMHPs)

x x x x x

Assessment and Advice Team

x x x x x

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

x x x x x x

Page 151: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

Disorder (ADHD) Team

Camden and Islington Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Services

x x x x x

Complex Depression Anxiety and Trauma Service (CDAT)

x x x x x

ICOPE Psychological Therapies Service

x x x x x

London Veteran’s Service

x x x x x x x

Rehabilitation and Recovery Service – Inpatients

x X x x x x x

Sexual Problems Clinic

x x x x x

Acute Day Unit – x x x x x

Page 152: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

Jules Thorn

South Camden Crisis Team

x x x x x

The Rivers Crisis House

x X x x x x

Traumatic Stress Clinic

x x x x x

Page 153: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

The attendees

24th March 2017

Ian Griffiths Clinical Director Acute

Suzanne Joel Clinical Director SAMH

Gina Waters Consultant psychiatrist Acute

Liz McGrath Clinical Director SMS

Gillian Paterson Service Manager SMS

Dominic O’Ryan Clinical Psychologist STIS

Aisling Clifford Divisional Director Acute

Adele McKay Senior Service Manager Acute

Diana Brown Social Worker CDAT

Allison Arekion Service Manager CDAT

Matt Allin Psychiatrist RR R&R

Robert Murray Divisional Director R&R

Neill Wells Senior Service Manager R&R

Roger Evans Service Development Manager

Ops

Allison Arekion Divisional Director CMH

Ian Prenelle Clinical Director R&R

Chris Dunbar KPMG

Neil Turvey Project Director

Andy Stopher Acting Director of Operations

31st March 2017

Conor McIntyre Service Manager North Islington R&R

Druid Fleming Senior Service Manager North Islington R&R

Neill Well Senior Service Manager Camden R&R

Adele McKay Senior Service Manager Acute

James Wakefield Assistant Psychologist CDAT

Alison Areilion Service Manager CDAT

Emily van de Pol Divisional Director Community

Matt Allin Clinical Director SMS

Dominic O’Ryan Clinical Psychologist STIS

Andy Stopher Acting Director of Ops

Chris Dunbar KPMG

Lauren Oxley KPMG

Additional Comments

Acute

Acute all on one site would be preferable

Retain Crisis hub on St Pancras? 12 bed Crisis House

Acute day units - Doesn’t need to be on St Pancras, but does function better when collocated with inpatient acute.

In patient facility - Library for head office / back office?

Acute – could be some value in collocation (acute day units, crisis house, crisis team)

Acute day units – need large group rooms and consulting rooms Community Hubs

Page 154: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

CRTs – predominantly mobile working – need hot-desking space and car parking – need cars

Direction of travel is that crisis teams staffing might grow slightly

ADUs should not grow but should develop to do prevention / step down – join up with CRTs (acute service is currently 9-5)

Social housing to supported accommodation – (One Housing and Circle Housing) – currently there is a lack of move on/step down. Residential development could provide an opportunity for the Trust to incorporate MH focussed social housing/step down facilities.

East London has a step down unit with roadside exits (i.e. access directly from the street) – this represents the next level of step down housing.

Rehab wards remain with acute wards R&R

2 x EIS teams (need to be collocated)

2 x AOT teams (could be incorporated into community R&R teams)

Focus team – (should stay in Camden Town)

Community Rehab teams – May not need two – where do we co-locate? HOO?

HOO – currently difficult to maintain and a long way away. Could be an opportunity.

What do we do whilst rebuilding takes place? – Need a solution

Always need co-location for a particular cohort with long term needs (AOT and rehab)

Clinical strategy sees movement into GP surgeries but will be an ongoing need for central spaces for communication / to allow practice based teams to come together – all grades of staff, regular team meetings.

Technology will help, but it won’t eliminate the need for a ‘home’ space. Hot-Desking Reasons this might not work for specific teams / individuals:

Special physical / OH requirements

OH quiet space

Professions requiring dedicated space (i.e. Doctors need dedicated space – although could possibly hot desk within the dedicated area)

Confidentiality / noise distraction

Managers – confidential/sensitive discussions

Culturally inequitable if not required at all levels (i.e. including Executive) Other considerations

Lowther Road – pleased to see something being done with this

When you create community hubs – need to consider what happens to staff in the interim as interim accommodation costs can be expensive

154 Camden Mews – could we be doing more with that site? – we need the beds and the day service

Aged Mental Health:

“We are very happy with Peckwater in Camden” – very happy with it as a community site integrated with primary care and CNWL

In Islington we are happy with Brewery Road – but we don’t like that we can’t see patients there. D1 declined. Means Brewery Road could be a possible location for cheap back office space. Would mean we need another community site in Islington.

Southwood – not much opportunity to expand and surrounded by residential development.

Page 155: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

See most people in own homes – need some group rooms and clinic space (can be shared with other services)

Expect to slowly expand service over coming years. Substance Misuse

Holloway Road is not fit for purpose

Would be happy for substance misuse to be part of a larger community hub

Critical to have dispensing pharmacy in each hub

Would like to be more integrated with R&R teams

Key things to consider: 1. Future of Margaret Centre Site (HS2 / underutilised) 2. Redevelopment / alternative use of Holloway Road site 3. Daleham site – tenant (GP) dominates – could expand 4. Future of Grays in Road site? – should we keep it 5. Need more flexible space for day programmes / web based delivery 6. Do we want medically assisted detox beds (e.g. upstairs at Daleham?) –

commercial opportunity as no other providers of this service 7. Conference facilities would be beneficial (i.e. for 40/50 people to come together)

– could be provided within community hubs 8. Opportunity for community use of Conference facilities – come in and use (nice

quality) 9. Hubs should have a site coordinator / manager to make the building work 10. Section 75 review in Camden – currently don’t know the outcome but will impact

the role of social workers and level of integration – more focused space

Support social enterprises – support GP surgeries – link to physical care – currently no facilities for online therapy (either public / treatment room or social enterprise use)

We are not really engaging the younger population. Community Mental Health

We need to integrate with primary care, and also with other teams

Our services (CDAT, PD, traumatic stress) work across boroughs

ICOPE benefits in combining across boroughs (call centre / admin space)

More and more wanting to see patients within primary care space – but this is dependent on timescales for expanding GP estate / facilities

Many consultation rooms (high volume services)

Need group space

Need IT capacity / workstations Further comments for considerations

- ‘Where community services are located at the St Pancras site, it is positive when they can be easily accessed without passing through the hospital e.g. Camden iCope is easily reached via the new entrance. Clients can be deterred from engaging with community services if they find that attending the service means they are in contact with clients who are more unwell.

- Crisis teams at hospital locations: on occasion clients are anxious to attend a crisis service at a hospital due to fear of being sectioned. As such being in the community can help de-stigmatize.

- Crisis houses that are not so medicalised in appearance have received positive

feedback from clients.’

Page 156: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 11 Feasibility Study

Option Name

Option Description Option Evaluation Option Outcome

Camden Council Site

Make use of council land which is either vacant or due to become vacant in the near future in the London Borough of Camden.

Camden Council has recently consolidated its estate and built a new head office near St Pancras. It has advised the Trust that is has no suitable land available.

Islington Council Site

Make use of council land which is either vacant or due to become vacant in the near future in the London Borough of Islington

Islington Council has confirmed that it has no suitable land available.

Pentonville Prison Site

Pentonville Prisons is located near to the western edge of the London Borough of Islington and is due to close in the near future.

The agent responsible for the redevelopment has confirmed they intend to make use of the land for residential development and the timetable is uncertain at this stage as the prison has no close date.

Holloway Prison Site

Holloway Prison is located just to the North of Pentonville Prison and was closed in 2016. The site may therefore be available in the near future.

The agent responsible for the redevelopment has confirmed they intend to make use of the land for residential development and the timetable for works is too short for this project as the prison is closed and negotiations on its redevelopment already well advanced.

Royal Free Site

The Royal Free’s main hospital site is located roughly in the centre of the London Borough of Camden. As the Trust would like to co-locate with an acute hospital Trust this would provide an ideal location.

The Royal Free is landlocked and has no surplus available space.

Moorfields Hospital Site (Moorfields)

Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS FT (Moorfields) is located in the south eastern corner of the London Borough of Islington. Moorfields is a specialist eye hospital.

Moorfields Eye Hospital has its own plans to relocate away from its current site at the North Eastern Edge of the City of London. Their project is reliant on a significant capital windfall

Page 157: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Option Name

Option Description Option Evaluation Option Outcome

as a result of the sale and is therefore not a suitable site for the new inpatient facility.

University College London Hospital (UCLH)

UCLH’s main hospital is located in the south of London Borough of Camden. As the Trust would like to co-locate with an acute hospital Trust this would provide an ideal location. UCLH also has excellent links with University College London (UCL) for the development of a research centre.

UCLH is landlocked and has no surplus available space.

Vacant Private Sector Land

Any vacant private land of a suitable size that is identified in the area has the potential to be used to deliver the new hospital facility.

No private sector vacant land has been identified.

St Ann’s St Ann’s Hospital was identified during the SOC stage as having the potential to host a new inpatient facility for the Trust.

It is located in the London Borough of Haringey, but has been included as it was identified as the best site during the SOC stage and is a mental health Trust and is within two miles of the Islington border. There is land available to deliver the project and early discussions have taken place.

Whittington The Whittington Hospital is located on the border between Camden and Islington to the North of both Borough’s. It is an acute hospital with land available for the Trust to build a new inpatient facility.

The Whittington Hospital has land available as part of their ongoing capital strategy and is an acute hospital so has the potential to provide a full range of care for service users as part of the collaboration. It is also close to the existing Highgate mental health facility.

Do minimum

Under this option the Trust would carry out the minimum works necessary to improve the quality of their existing estate to enable the Trust to deliver a higher quality of care.

This option requires the minimum amount of capital as the land is available and buildings are already built.

Page 158: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Option Name

Option Description Option Evaluation Option Outcome

Rebuild at SPH

A new mental health inpatient facility would be built on the existing SPH site.

The land at SPH is currently occupied by the Trust’s existing facilities and therefore these will need to be relocated or worked around while the new site is being built. However the land is the Trust’s to use as required.

Page 159: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 12 Options considered

Inpatient options

Option name Option description and key observations

A1 Do minimum

(Continue to provide inpatient services in existing buildings).

The configuration of the SPH site will remain unchanged. We will continue to maintain the facilities.

As care will still be provided in old buildings, there will be a number of challenges with providing modern facilities.

Due to space constraints on the current site there will be no Institute of Mental Health and the ability to fundamentally transform care will be limited.

A2 Re-provide inpatients at SPH

A new inpatient facility will be built on the SPH site. This will provide a modern clinical space which is disability friendly and enable the Trust to deliver a safe service for service users and staff.

This would however be on a site that would offer limited ability to offer privacy and dignity to the inpatients. The only location available to enable the build (without the decant of one or two inpatient facilities) would be on the site adjacent to Granary Street, where a recent development scheme has achieved planning permission for up to 13 stories on the opposite side of the road, so this significantly reduces the value that can be realised from the site for reinvestment back into developing sustainable high quality facilities. In addition, the Trust is aware of development plans for the so called ‘Ugly Brown Building’ at the south of St Pancras of up to 12 stories directly overlooking the site, therefore a new inpatient facility could be overlooked in two directions, and only a double carriageway apart which is not seen as a desirable environment for delivering mental health inpatient services.

The inpatient facilities would also restrict the density of development adjacent to them, if inpatient facilities are to be delivered on the SPH site, to ensure the wellbeing of service users. The Trusts capital receipt will also be affected by the lower density.

The Trust would receive less capital receipt due to selling less land and less receipt because of the reduced density on the site; this results in a considerable reduction in the overall capital receipt for the site. This will undermine the Trust’s ability to deliver the requirements of this business case.

A3 Re-provide inpatients at Whittington Hospital

A new inpatient facility will be built adjacent to the Whittington Hospital in Archway, Islington. This will provide a modern clinical space that is disability friendly and enable the Trust to deliver a safe service for service users and staff.

Disruption to service users will be minimised during the

Page 160: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Inpatient options

Option name Option description and key observations

construction phase as significant work will not commence at SPH until inpatients are moved to the new site.

The Institute of Mental Health can be delivered at the SPH site, but there will also be potential to sell some of the site for residential development, releasing funds for the rest of the project.

The new inpatient facility will continue to be located in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington.

A4 Re-provide inpatients at St Ann’s Hospital

A new inpatient facility will be built adjacent to the St Ann’s Hospital, Haringey. This will provide a modern clinical space, which is disability friendly and enable the Trust to deliver a safe service for service users and staff.

Disruption to service users will be minimised during the construction phase as significant work will not commence at SPH until inpatients are moved to the new site.

The Institute of Mental Health can be delivered at the SPH site, but there will also be potential to sell some of the site for residential development, releasing funds for the rest of the project.

The new inpatient facility will not to be located in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington.

Page 161: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 13 Qualitative assessment workshop summary

Forum Date of Workshop Key themes

Senior Leadership Team

26 April 2017

Key themes from the Senior Leadership Team included:

The benefits of remaining in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington to ensure they remain close to their communities was considered an issue for the St Ann’s site – particularly as transport links are not as good as for the other options. There should be good transport links for service users and staff.

Support for improved links between the community and inpatient services offered by the C&I.

There will be long term clinical benefits for service users from developing a new research facility

Whittington option allows for the co-location of a new Whittington Facility with the existing Highgate Mental Health Centre

Co-location with Whittington also provides acute and mental health care on the same site

Clinical Reference Group

25 April 2017

Key themes from the Clinical Reference Group included:

Refurbishing the existing facilities at SPH will not ensure they meet CQC guidelines and will continue to impact the care delivered to service users.

Travelling between St Ann’s and SPH would be a significant challenge for C&I personnel.

Staff wellbeing facilities can be incorporated into the new site, improving staff morale.

Council of Governors

9 May 2017 The council of governors identified:

The need to do more work to establish the impact on service users, staff and other stakeholders of increased travel to the preferred option chosen if moving from SPH. It was confirmed that further work on this will be completed as part of the FBC stage.

Page 162: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 14 Qualitative assessment scoring

Option A1

Option A3

Option A4

Summary of comments made by each of the groups when scoring against the critical success factors

Do

minimum Whittingto

n St Ann's

CSF 1 0.8 3.9 2.4

The two new build inpatient facilities will meet CQC requirements. However, the St Ann’s option creates travel challenges for service users and staff due to limited public transport links and will make co-ordination between inpatient and community activity more difficult.

CSF 2 1.3 3.1 2.7

There will be significant disruption at St Pancras during the refurbishment work over an extended period of time. There will also be some disruption for service users during the transition to either St Ann’s or Whittington although for service users and their families when visiting St Ann's this will be more challenging due to the relative inaccessibility of the site.

CSF 3 1.7 3.9 2.8

The do minimum option does not make any land available for the new research facility. The new inpatient facility at St Ann’s would be considerably more remote from the research hub than an inpatient facility at Whittington.

CSF 4 1.1 3.9 2.6

Only new facilities can have a significant impact on the quality of care. Travel time for carers and family when visiting at St Ann's will have a significant impact on those individuals.

CSF 5 1.3 3.8 2.4

Only new facilities are aligned to the service user needs and enable the clinical strategy. Travel time for carers and family when visiting at St Ann's will have a significant impact on those individuals.

CSF 6 1.2 3.7 2.4

The current SPH cannot support the de-stigmatisation of mental health. Putting the new inpatient site next to an existing mental health site will allow the internal changes to be made but will not support the external perception, which would be supported by co-locating with the Whittington (an acute physical health hospital).

CSF 7 1.4 3.7 2.3

The ability to make changes to SPH to meet the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010 is limited. St Ann's is not as good for the service user cohort due to accessibility.

CSF 8 1.5 3.8 2.2 Whittington is the only site that provides the potential for an integrated whole person health solution (i.e. integrated physical and mental health).

CSF 9 4.0 3.4 1.2 St Ann's is out of area whereas SPH and

Page 163: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Whittington are within the borough.

CSF 10

2.3 3.6 2.1

The is concern that staff travelling St Ann's will have a lifestyle impact due to the additional travel time. Whittington has the critical mass of staff to provide more support.

CSF 11

0.3 2.5 2.1

Do minimum, prevents delivery of the NCL STP as it continues to occupy SPH, it doesn't encourage community care and continues to provide care in substandard, high cost facilities. Whittington meets the STP most closely, while the St Ann's option is outside the borough.

CSF 12

0.7 2.7 2.6

Both Whittington and St Ann’s enable delivery of the local plans, in particular delivery of new housing. SPH in its current form does not allow housing on the land it occupies.

Overall Score

18 42 28 Option A3 (Rebuild at Whittington) has the highest score in the qualitative assessment and therefore is the preferred option. Overal

l Rank 3 1 2

Page 164: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 15 Qualitative scores of each option

Senior Leadership Team and Board Scores

Critical Success Factor

Option A1

Option A3

Option A4

Notes

1) CQC requirements 1 4 2 Community inpatient link weaker at 3 compared to 2 due to location

2) Minimise service user disruption

1 3 3

3) Research and development

1 4 4 It was noted that a new research facility could not be constructed under option 1

4) Quality of service

user care 1 4 3

Again the community - inpatient link was emphasised, hence 2 scoring greater than 3

5) Aligned to service user need and supportive of the clinical strategy

1 4 3 Yet again the community - inpatient link was emphasised, hence 2 scoring greater than 3

6) De-stigmatise mental health

1 4 3

A view that option 3 creates a large mental health facility compared to a mental health facility collocated with physical health in option 2. Options 2 and 3 will both facilitate new facilities on the St Pancras site

7) Promotes equality 2 4 2 The accessibility of option 3 was a concern, as was the accessibility for the current buildings in Option 1

8) Integrated care 2 4 3 Option 2 provides colocation with physical health that the other options do not.

9) Located with in-borough or close to Camden and Islington

4 3 1

10) Support staff wellbeing

2 4 3 The effective creation of a larger mass of staff in option 2 gives this option the extra point

Page 165: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

11) Consistent with the NCL STP

1 3 3

12) Consistent with plans for local community and place development

1 3 3

Page 166: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Council of Governors Scores

Critical Success Factor

Option A1

Option A3

Option A4

Notes

1) CQC requirements 0.4 3.7 2.1 St Pancras doesn't meet the criteria

2) Minimise service user disruption

0.8 3.2 2 St Ann's impact on friends and family travelling to see admitted patients

3) Research and development

2 3.8 2.4 St Pancras already undertakes this

4) Quality of service user care

1.4 3.8 1.8

5) Aligned to service user need and supportive of the clinical strategy

1.9 3.3 1.2 St Pancras is a good location, St Ann's is too far

6) De-stigmatise mental health

2.7 3.1 1.2 Whittington does put all our beds close together, and concentration of patients

7) Promotes equality 2.2 3 2

8) Integrated care 1.6 3.4 1.6

9) Located with in-borough or close to Camden and Islington

4 3.2 0.6 St Ann's is out of area

10) Support staff wellbeing

3.8 2.7 1.2 Don't need a building to support staff development, this is cultural, but longer travel could affect staff

11) Consistent with the NCL STP

0 0.6 0.2 Not all members of the group scored this CSF, which has distorted the average.

12) Consistent with plans for local community and place development

0.2 2 1.8 Some people will want to keep SPH beds

Page 167: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Clinical Reference Group Scores

Critical Success Factor

Option A1

Option A3

Option A4

Notes

1) CQC requirements

1 4 3

New facilities will meet the criteria, existing unlikely too due to the age of the building and the lack of amenity space and the ability to put adequate accessibility into buildings designed in the C18th. Concern was noted that the location of St Ann’s would meet the accessibility criteria for service users due to the lack of close tube or train service directly to the site and it being only on one bus route

2) Minimise service user disruption

2 3 3

The greatest known disruption would be at St Pancras given the planning approvals around the site but also noting the other options also have building plans

3) Research and development

2 4 2

Under option 1 there will be no available space for an IoMH on the St Pancras site, as services will continue to be delivered in the same way. Locating Institute of mental health at St Pancras with easy link to Archway will be better than having our main facilities at St Ann’s due to the difficulty of access between the St Pancras and St Ann’s as whilst the nearest tube to St Ann’s is Seven Sisters a further walk of c20mins is needed to get to the site.

4) Quality of service user care

1 4 3

Only new facilities can ensure this criteria but travel difficulties to St Ann’s noted in scoring The travel relates to carers of those being in the trust premises, as St Ann’s is not as easy to get to as Archway which is accessible on buses as well as the tube for our Camden and Islington residents, whereas as St Ann’s is not on many bus routes is difficult to get to from Camden and Islington and only with substantial walking

5) Aligned to service user need and supportive of

1 4 3 As with the CSF above the same reasoning

Page 168: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

the clinical strategy

6) Destigmatise mental health

0 4 3

St Pancras Hospital does not achieve this in current layout, all options with community hubs improve this aside from St Ann’s being similar to St Pancras as being recognised as a specific mental health hospital site, not a general hospital site as the Whittington

7) Promotes equality

0 4 3 St Pancras has poor EA10 compliance new builds should be better but transport links to St Ann’s are poor

8) Integrated care 1 4 2

Only the Whittington options provides fully integrated care with inpatient and community hubs located within Camden and Islington, and the inpatient facilities co-located with acute facilities, whilst St Ann’s option will provide the community hubs, the inpatient facility is not located in Camden or Islington or on an acute site but a mental health site.

9) Located with in-borough or close to Camden and Islington

4 4 2 The 3rd option only has community hubs in borough, St Ann’s is close but not within

10) Support staff wellbeing

1 4 2

The new facilities can provide a higher level of staff wellbeing, but the score also reflects staff being isolated at St Ann’s

11) Consistent with the NCL STP

0 4 3 Only options 2 &3 support this and option 2 is more aligned to closer to home

12) Consistent with plans for local community and place development

1 3 3 Options 2 &3 enable this to be delivered at St Pancras

Page 169: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Page 170: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

Building External Internal M&E External Internal M&E External Internal M&E External Internal M&E External Internal M&E Total Comments

Ash House - SPH 48,900 75,000 - - - - - 1,200 - 125,100£

Bloomsbury Building - SPH 211,931 13,600 75,000 - 50,000 - - 350,531£

Boiler House - SPH 35,300 100,000 100,000 - - - 235,300£

East Wing - SPH 100,000 300,000 47,950 - - 447,950£

Camley Centre/Estates Office - SPH - 300,000 50,000 - - - - - 350,000£

Jules Thorn Day Hospital - SPH - 44,348 - - - 150,000 200,000 394,348£

Gate House Building - SPH 58,132 75,000 75,000 16,650 - 27,650 - - 10,650 - 263,082£

Huntley Centre - SPH 350,000 97,951 100,000 - 10,100 - 558,051£

Former Kitchen - SPH - - - - - - 100,000 300,000 - - - - - 400,000£ Cost to bring building back to beneficial use

Former Mortuary Building - SPH - 50,000 50,000 - - - - - - - - 100,000£

North East Building - SPH 199,473 150,000 400,000 24,365 20,000 - - - - - 793,838£

North Wing - SPH - 114,201 - 11,700 200,000 - - 325,901£ This is RF cost under lease but shown to indicate extent of BLM

Post Room Building - SPH - 65,000 47,000 - - - - - - - 112,000£

Former Residence Building - SPH - 400,000 - 250,000 400,000 - 400,000 - - - 1,450,000£ Cost to bring building back to beneficial use

River Crisis House - SPH - - 1,800 20,000 - - - - - - 21,800£

South Wing - SPH 100,000 97,650 400,000 391,018 150,000 56,200 - 3,200 1,198,068£

The Well - SPH 36,305 1,276 1,225 - 4,000 1,739 6,344 - - 50,888£

West Wing - SPH 10,650 181,370 250,000 300,000 250,000 13,350 56,350 - 1,061,720£

SPH Site Infrastructure & Services 1,218,000 543,000 1,761,000£

HMHC M Block 100,000 47,760 3,500 550,000 7,000 - 20,000 - 728,260£

3-5 Daleham Gardens 8,140 7,678 2,850 10,469 20,000 - 6,962 3,500 - 5,441 15,000 - 80,040£

19 Aberdeen Park 4,600 2,940 7,540 2,226 10,000 4,475 15,088 600 - 350 - 47,819£

Camden Mews - 100,000 1,200 100,000 4,920 - - - 206,120£

154 Camden Road - - 100,000 1,200 - 4,780 - - - 105,980£

Drayton Park 7,872 - 1,400 50,463 2,320 5,090 - - - - 67,145£

Greys Inn Road 9,024 - - - - 2,850 - 2,120 - - 6,500 - 20,494£

Greenland Road 350 - 26,700 100,000 350,000 5,920 - - 15,000 - 497,970£

75 Hanley Road 60,000 300,000 100,000 - - 460,000£ BLM liability assuming retention

Hornsey Lane - - - - -£ Leased to third party - no residual BLM liability

The Hoo 20,000 150,000 110,298 14,000 2,800 100,000 9,900 41,807 20,222 5,000 3,850 200,000 677,876£

Holloway Road 5,784 3,698 2,830 614 1,000 - 2,943 780 - 33,582 2,500 - 53,730£

Lowther Road 19,100 100,000 350,000 1,200 6,500 780 477,580£

Margarete Centre - - 7,939 - - - - 50,000 50,000 107,939£

Southwood Smith Building 2,370 800 - - 62,660 10,730 527 - - - - - 77,087£

Stacey Street 13,557 5,868 2,050 2,987 3,500 3,435 209 15,000 - 28,681 - - 75,287£

Highview Residential - 3,000 1,600 - - 2,242 9,418 5,240 650 - - - 22,150£

Blenheim Court Brewery Road - - - - -£ Leased but no BLM liability beyond repairing covenants

Caledonian Road - - - - -£ Not owned by C&I - no BLM liability

Finsbury Health Centre - - - - -£ Not owned by C&I - no BLM liability

Raglan St - - - - -£ Not owned by C&I - no BLM liability

Hanley Gardens - - - - - - - - - - - - -£ Not C&I properties - no backlog liability

Highgate Road - - - - -£ Not owned by C&I - no BLM liability

Hunter Street - - - - -£ Leased building no residual BLM liability - possible vacation

Isledon Road - - - - -£ Not owned by C&I - no BLM liability

Manor Gardens - - - - -£ Leased but no BLM liability beyond repairing covenants

Netherwood St - - - - -£ Not owned by C&I - no BLM liability

Peckwater - - - - -£ Leased building no residual BLM liability - possible vacation

Simmons House - - - - -£ Leased and sublet - no residual BLM liability

Tottenham Mews - - - - -£ Derelict Building surplus to requirements - potential disposal

71,346£ 950,000£ 1,107,835£ 2,034,640£ 2,300,332£ 1,830,552£ 1,977,847£ 1,685,147£ 745,060£ 57,546£ 200,618£ 90,280£ 203,850£ 450,000£ -£ 13,705,054£

2,129,181£ 6,165,525£ 4,408,054£ 348,444£ 653,850£ 13,705,054£

St Pancras Hospital -£ 850,000£ 956,641£ 1,666,370£ 1,373,276£ 1,675,333£ 1,096,225£ 1,200,000£ 678,800£ 15,089£ 112,693£ 25,150£ 150,000£ 200,000£ -£ 9,999,578£

HMHC -£ 100,000£ 47,760£ -£ -£ 3,500£ 550,000£ -£ 7,000£ -£ -£ 20,000£ -£ -£ -£ 728,260£

Community Sites 71,346£ -£ 103,434£ 368,270£ 927,056£ 151,719£ 331,622£ 485,147£ 59,260£ 42,457£ 87,925£ 45,130£ 53,850£ 250,000£ -£ 2,977,216£

Total 71,346£ 950,000£ 1,107,835£ 2,034,640£ 2,300,332£ 1,830,552£ 1,977,847£ 1,685,147£ 745,060£ 57,546£ 200,618£ 90,280£ 203,850£ 450,000£ -£ 13,705,054£

Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total

Capital 2016/17 Capital 2017/18 Capital 2018/19 Capital 2019/20 Capital 2020/21

Appendix 16 Backlog maintenance

Page 171: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

Appendix 17 Quantifiable benefits

Type of Benefit Benefit

Option A1

Do Minimum

Option A2

Rebuild SPH

Option A3

Whittington

Option A4

St Ann’s Assumptions

Activity (less acute because more community intervention / early intervention / less duplication)

Quicker service user recovery frees up bed capacity and reduced cost (non-cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £1.5m per annum (from 2023/24)

£1.5m per annum (from 2023/24)

£1.5m per annum (from 2023/24)

Improving the environment for service will mean they make a quicker recovery.

Identifying service users earlier, means that the severity of their conditions is reduced.

Reduced cost of physical healthcare through co-location of mental and physical healthcare services (non-cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a N/a £70k per annum (from 21/22)

N/a Costs of care for the Trust will reduce as a result of co-locating with an acute Trust.

Costs of service user transport will reduce

Staffing (reduced staff costs through less agency, more productive and happier staff)

Reduced agency staffing, so reducing cost, through improved staff working conditions and therefore retention (cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £800k per annum

£800k per annum

£800k per annum

The new facility will improve staff morale.

The new facility will therefore encourage staff to stay in post, reducing vacancies and therefore agency staffing costs.

Reduced costs due to new build wards, with large bed capacity and better layout (cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £800k per annum

£800k per annum

£800k per annum

Reducing the number of wards by one but maintaining the number of beds means that the number of senior staff required on each shift will reduce.

Reduced cost of staff training due to co-location of the site with other similar medical facilities (non-cash

N/a N/a £80k per annum (from

£80k per annum (from

By training staff in larger groups or being able to offer more training on site will

Page 172: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

releasing, recurrent) 2021/22) 2021/22) reduce costs.

Staff progression and therefore satisfaction will increase due to increased opportunity

Admin staff flexibly located to increase operational efficiency (non-cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £100k per annum (from completion of the project)

£100k per annum (from completion of the project)

£100k per annum (from completion of the project)

Admin staff are more accessible to clinical staff, reducing inefficiency.

By making effective use of flexible working arrangements less space is required.

Overheads Operating costs of a new building are lower than those of an old building (cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £1.8m per annum (from 2021/22)

£1.8m per annum (from 2021/22)

£1.8m per annum (from 2021/22)

Lifecycle cost report provided by T&T shows a significantly reduced costs from a more efficient new building.

Energy and utility costs (cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £360k per annum (from 2021/22)

£360k per annum (from 2021/22)

£360k per annum (from 2021/22)

The new building will be more efficient due to using better building design / materials.

Renegotiation of existing FM contracts (cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £575k per annum (from 2018/19)

N/a N/a Based on benchmarking data the existing FM costs can be reduced by renegotiating the contract.

Other Increased research income from working closely with the Institute of Mental Health (IoMH) (cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £10k per annum (from 2021/22)

£10k per annum (from 2021/22)

£10k per annum (from 2021/22)

IoMH works closely with the Trust and therefore benefits from some research grants.

Sub-let consultancy rooms (cash releasing, recurrent)

N/a £20k per annum

£20k per annum

£20k per annum

2% of consultancy rooms sublet on a regular basis to enable the provision of other

Page 173: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

services.

Uptake of these rooms will be high.

Realisation of land proceeds from access community and hospital estate. (cash releasing, non-recurrent)

N/a £66.3m (between 2017/18 and 2026/27)

£90.4m (between 2017/18 and 2026/27)

£90.4m (between 2017/18 and 2026/27)

Land which is surplus to requirements in both the community estate and inpatient estate can be sold at market value to realise a financial gain

Page 174: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 18 Trust’s Income & Expenditure assumptions

Area Assumption

Income Baseline and investment case

Contractual income from clinical services with Camden CCG and Islington CCG is assumed to grow at an average rate of 0.7% and 1.7% per year between 2016/17 and 2025/26 (before inflation).

Income from other contracts for clinical services is assumed to fall from £13.3m in 2016/17 to £11.7m in 2017/18 (an 11.5% decrease) and then grow by 0.8% per year (before inflation).

Non-contract activity income is assumed to remain at the 2016/17 level of £1.3m per year throughout.

Section 75 income is assumed to remain at £12.7m per year throughout.

A reduction in income reflecting the risk of funding from parity of esteem has been applied from 2019/20 at £0.7m, increasing to £1.9m by 2025/26.

STF funding has been assumed at £0.8m per year for 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19. No funding has been assumed thereafter.

Investment case

The investment case is assumed to increase research and development and other revenue by £10k (from 2021/22) and £21k (from 2020/21) respectively.

Expenditure: Pay costs

Baseline and investment case

Activity growth is assumed to increase pay costs across all staff groups by 1.0% in 2017/18 and 0.6% per year thereafter.

Pay-related CIPs are assumed at 3.3% of total pay costs in 2017/18 and between 1.5% and 1.2% per year thereafter.

The impact of agenda for change (AfC) pay rates is assumed to be an annual increase of 1.2% in pay costs across all staff groups.

The cost associated with additional parity of esteem funding is assumed at 0.3% for 2019/2020, around 0.7% for 2020/21 and 0.5% per year thereafter.

Investment case

The investment is assumed to reduce spend on substantive nursing staff by £0.9m per year from 2021/22. This is a CIP plan to reduce the number of staff by one ward, made possible by the larger modern wards in the new building.

CIP plans to further reduce agency staff costs through: more efficient staff rotas, better staff retention and co-locating admin staff with community hubs is assumed to reduce agency costs by:

o £0.3m in 2020/21

o £0.6m in 2021/22

o £0.9m per year thereafter

Page 175: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Area Assumption

Expenditure: Non-pay costs

Baseline and investment case

Activity growth is assumed to increase drug costs, clinical supplies and directly managed staff costs by 0.7% in 2017/18 and is assumed to have no further impact thereafter.

Parity of esteem funding is assumed to increase drug costs by 0.4% in 2019/20, 0.9% in 2020/21 and 0.6% thereafter.

Other expenses (general supplies, establishment costs, premises and plant costs and other costs) are assumed to fall slightly from £27.1m in 2016/17 to £27.4m in 2017/18 and in each year thereafter (before CIP and inflation).

Other expenditure CIPs are assumed to be achieved recurrently at £2.2m in 2017/18, with a further £0.8m assumed recurrently each year thereafter.

Investment case

The investment is assumed to reduce other expenses by £0.8m in 2020/21 and around £3.5m per year thereafter. This is the result of three CIP schemes:

o £1.8m from the reduced operating costs of the new building;

o £1.5m from reducing the length of stay (LOS) resulting from the improved therapeutic environment; and

o £0.4m from reduced energy costs of the new building.

Cost improvement plans

Baseline and investment case

The assumptions underlying the pay and non-pay CIPs are set out in the relevant sections above.

All CIPs are assumed to be recurrent.

No income CIPs are assumed.

CIPs are assumed at, as a percentage of operating expenditure:

o 4.1% for 2017/18

o 1.8% from 2018/19 to 2019/20

o 1.7% from 2020/21 to 2023/24

o 1.6% from 2024/25 to 2025/26

Investment case

The investment is assumed to generate pay cost savings of £1.8m by 2022/23, as set out in the pay costs section above.

Other expenses CIPs are assumed at £3.5m from 2021/22, as set out in the non-pay costs section above.

Interest expense

Baseline case

No interest costs are included in the baseline case.

Investment case

Interest costs under the investment case are assumed to be 2.9%.

Page 176: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Area Assumption

Inflation Baseline and investment case

Inflation has been assumed at the following rates:

2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23+

Income 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Pay costs 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Drug costs 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%

Other expenses 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Capex 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

The above inflation rates are consistent with the Trust’s Sustainability & Transformation Plan (STP) assumptions

Note, in addition to the inflation rates above, the Trust has assumed a 1.2% AfC increase that whilst not technically inflation will compound with the inflation rates above to increase wages in cash terms.

Transitional support

The Trust has not assumed that it will receive any transitional support funding as part of its affordability assessment. Funding for the clinical transformation and estates strategy will be from land sales and internally generated reserves. As described above, due to the timing of the major cash flows (construction cost and land purchases coming before land sales), the Trust has assumed a bridging loan to ensure that it can maintain sufficient working capital over the LTFM period.

Page 177: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 19 Baseline income and expenditure

Page 178: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 20 Baseline statement of financial position

Page 179: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 21 Baseline cash flow statement

Page 180: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 22 Trust FSRR scores for the investment and baseline cases

The financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) is NHSI’s view of the level of financial risk a trust is

exposed to and is a therefore key metric to consider for this transaction. The FSRR is a

combination of the following four metrics:

Liquidity: days of operating costs held in cash or cash equivalents

Capital servicing capacity: the degree to which the organisation’s generated income

covers its interest and debt repayments. Note that this may exclude repayment of

bridging debt at NHSI’s discretion (discussed further below).

Income and expenditure (I&E) margin: the degree to which the organisation is

operating a surplus/deficit with respect to its total operating and non-operating income.

Surplus/(deficit) is calculated before impairments and gains/losses on asset disposal.

Variance from plan in relation to I&E margin: the variance between a trust’s planned

and actual I&E margin.

Each of the metrics yields a score between 1 (greatest risk) and 4 (least risk). An overall FSRR

score is calculated from the average of the four metrics, although this is capped at 2 if one of the

metrics is a 1. Trusts that score a 1 or 2 may be subject to an investigation by NHSI.

The details of the FSRR calculations criteria are shown in Table F1 below.

Table F1: FSRR criteria

Notes:

The metrics are weighted equally (i.e. averaged), then rounded to produce a single FSRR

If the trust scores 1 on any metric, the overall rating will be capped at a 2.

The FSRR scores for the investment and baseline cases are set out in Tables F2 to F4 below.

The FSRR calculation performed by the LTFM yield a capital service cover risk rating of 1 for the

investment case, as the bridge loan repayments are included in the debt service total. This

significantly distorts the position as the Trust has sufficient cash to make these repayments as

1 2 3 4

Balance sheet

sustainabilityCapital service capacity (times) <1.25 1.25-1.75 1.75-2.5 >2.5

Liquidity Liquidity (days) <(14) (14)-(7) (7)-0 >0

Underlying

performanceI&E margin (%) <(1) (1)-0 0-1 >1

Variance from planVariance in I&E margin as % of

income<(2) (2)-(1) (1)-0 >0

Risk categoriesMetricFinancial criteria

Page 181: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

shown in the tables above. The LTFM itself provides an area where adjustments can be made to

reverse out the impact of bridge loan financing from the FSRR analysis and that is deemed

appropriate here. These repayments are excluded for bridge loans and the impact of this is

shown in Table F3 below.

Table F2: FSRR scores for the investment case (unadjusted)

As noted above, the inclusion of the bridge debt repayments as debt service in the capital service

capacity calculation causes this metric to become 1. Table F3 below presents the FSRR scores

after these payments have been excluded from the calculation.

Table F3: FSRR scores for the investment case (adjusted for debt repayments)

The adjusted FSRR shows an I&E margin rating of 2 in 2020/21, as the projections show a small

net deficit in this year of £(0.1)m. The overall rating remains at 3 for this year and at 4 for all

other years.

Table F4: FSRR scores for the baseline case

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Capital service capacity 3 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

Liquidity 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

I&E margin 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 4

Variance in I&E margin n/a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Overall FSRR n/a 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

Risk score

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Capital service capacity 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Liquidity 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

I&E margin 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2

Variance in I&E margin n/a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Overall FSRR n/a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Risk score

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Outturn Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Capital service capacity 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4

Liquidity 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

I&E margin 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 4

Variance in I&E margin n/a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Overall FSRR n/a 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4

Risk score

Page 182: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Under the baseline case, the FSRR remains at 4 throughout, although the declining net surplus

position causes the I&E margin score to fall to a 2 by 2025/26.

The sensitivities set out in the previous section each have minimal or no impact on the forecast

FSRR score when considered individually. A combined downside case will be considered in the

FBC along with the impact on the FSRR.

Page 183: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 23 Letter of support from the Trust’s Director of Nursing

Page 184: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 24 Bed modelling benchmarking

On the graphs below, the Trust is identified as M11.

Adults

Page 185: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Acute

Page 186: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Length of Stay

2015/16 2017/18

Length of stay MPICU 55 89

Length of stay WPICU 36

Length of stay Acute 49 67

Length of stay Older Adult 135 118

Length of stay Rehab 1103 721

Page 187: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

Appendix 25 – Bed occupancy

Bed Occupancy

• Acute: Reduction approx. 3% • R&R: Reduction approx. 2% • SAMH:33% reduction in usage

Number of Out of Area Placements

(OAPs)

Page 188: Pre-Consultation Business Case for the Redevelopment of ... · 9.4 Impact on financial sustainability risk rating (FSRR) 101 9.5 Sensitivities 101 9.6 Conclusions 102 10 Implementation

TRANSFORMING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

34 35

• Reduction in ECR

• 5th April zero ECR bed