Agenda Item 2


Minutes of the Meeting of the Queen Mary’s Project Board held on 19th January 2005

Report of:

Project Assistant, Support Services Partnership


Christine Read


19 January 2005


Minutes of the Meeting of the Queen Mary’s Project Board Held on 19th January 2005 at 9am in Conference Room QMH

Present: Tony Lennard (TL) Tony Griffiths (TG) Stuart Reeves (SR) Karen Byers Dr Andy Neil (AN) Godfrey Shocket (GS) Andrew Simpson (AS) Anthony Brewer (AB) Philip Scott (PS) Richard Bailey (RB) - Director of Finance (Chair) Wandsworth PCT - Director of Major Capital Projects, SSP (Project Director) - Associate Director of Rehab and QMH - Project Officer, SSP - Medical Director, Wandsworth PCT - Non-Executive Director, Wandsworth PCT - Director of Planning, SWL & St G’s - Director of IM & T, Kingston NHS Trust - Associate Director IM & T, Wandsworth PCT - Health Strategy Consultant, Strategic Health Authority, SWLSHA


Apologies for Absence Ian Brown Ian Maxwell Paul Webster Paul Mitchell Helen Walley Minutes of the Meeting of 14th December 2004 The minutes of the meeting were agreed Matters Arising Ward Naming KB advised that these issues have been actioned and information forwarded to Catalyst.



3.0 3.1


Review of BLL 1:50 Design changes, of 847 original unapproved changes to the drawings most have been approved. Of the matters outstanding: (i) The assisted bathrooms are being re-designed to incorporate the Arjo baths. One room needed to be enlarged at the detriment of the adjacent room. The impact is that there will need to be a smaller sofa bed purchased. The project team are approaching BLL to fund this, as it is a direct result of the change. All other issues are minor. The project team are still awaiting a response from Catalyst identifying a process to ensure against future breaches of contract with regard to design development.



TG stated that, many compromises have been made, and that these changes have required a lot of attention from both IB and KB, and that external advisory support had been required. TL asked whether there have been any significant costs incurred due to these changes? KB answered no apart from receiving advisory input. Further input may be required to assess re-design proposals. It was agreed that the project team should calculate the cost of reviewing these changes so that this could be used as a negotiating tool later in the process. AN noted that clinicians had raised concerns that they have signed off generic rooms to find that similar rooms have not been designed entirely the same. TG noted that the project team will in future raise specific queries in relation to this, if being asked to approve generic rooms. 4.0 Land Disposal TG advised that work is on schedule with a disposal date of July 2006. Letters have been issued to all land occupiers. Chelsea and Westminster have said the Skin Bank will be off site by Dec 2005. Marketing of the land begins in September 2005.  The biggest risk is slippage in construction, in the event of this; it may be possible to, recoup costs from Bovis; and the Skin Bank. The issue is being pursued with Chelsea and Westminster weekly and discussions have taken place with SHA/NHS Estates.


GS asked what is happening with Roehampton House? TG responded that the PCT are looking for suitable accommodation for 300-350 people. First draft searches are currently being completed. PS stated that IT and the location of the servers make the timing of decisions about the disposal of Roehampton House difficult. TG said to have a “win win” situation we need to be out of Roehampton House this year. SR asked, if Roehampton House were still being used at the end of the year, where would the access be? TG noted that the car park would be limited to 30 cars and access will be through the Park Gate Entrance. Construction access would need to be negotiated. SR asked whether letters to services i.e. Bader foundation etc, had been sent? TG stated this would be checked. TG advised that the surplus land should be off the books by July 2006; a more detailed strategy will be presented at the next Board.




5.0 5.1

Commissioning Commissioning Progress Report Full Commissioning Programme (FCP) This is a contractual obligation. The Trust is to draft the FCP by – 7months pre handover date, i.e. May 05. There is a significant amount of work for the Trust leading up to this. KB noted that Catalyst have identified a 6 week construction delay. BLL are increasing hours of work and are planning to reduce the delay by Easter. This will mean that the Trust will be required to respond to design issues in the contractual defined timescales; previously there has been agreed flexibility. This could create pressure of clinical leads. KB pressed the importance of being vigilant in not breaking any contract requirements as Catalyst may be looking to mitigate their risks by Trust delay events with regard to Reviewable Design Data. SR noted that the Trust often did not understand what was being presented to them, KB stated that a new procedure was being implemented with Catalyst to address this. It is important however that Trust staff do not wait until the end of the 10-day response period if information is misleading and not clear. TG also noted that Queen Mary’s Hospital is not the only scheme having problems with RDD and KB has joined a working group with other Private Finance Initiative schemes and the Private Finance Unit, which may lead to re-drafting of the Standard Form contract. Public Relations PR has had a lack of available support but a meeting has been arranged for 28 January to see how this can be improved in the future. Human Resources There has been a lack of HR input as Dolores Taylor is now focusing on her role as Project Manager for Agenda For Change. Chris Bulford has started the recruitment process. KB stressed the critical timing with regard to FM service transfer and the TUPE & ROE Staff Transfers. Without HR support we are in danger of not meeting our commitments. IT AB stated that he was surprised at the “green” performance under IT, as information received by him indicated a difficult situation with all streams of work. PS explained that there was no project plan, as work is dependent on the constraints of the National Programme for IT (NPfIT). SR noted that document management is the major risk to the clinical leads, who had not seen a contingency plan. PS noted that discussions had been held between Xerox, a potential supplier of document management services and Medical Records.



AN stated that there needs to be more involvement from the service and clinical leads. GS asked that the Board receive contingency plans next time. TG stated that a worst-case contingency was required so that this could be factored into the PCT’s overall budget as document management costs were excluded from the commissioning budgets. The IT and commissioning team should be comfortable with the contingency plan by the next Project Board. 5.2 Commissioning Budget TG said that we still have a gap between the £6 million costs and £4 million available funds, and that steps are being taken to address this. We are identifying all financial work streams and will be allocating leads in the financial directorate to manage them. TG noted the high risks associated with the commissioning work and proposed the recruitment process was commenced for the identified posts. Contracts would be on an extendable fixed term basis of between 9 and 12 months commencing in April 2005. TG suggested that current SSP underspend supports recruitment for the HR post with immediate effect. This was agreed and the processes would be initiated. TG noted that the replacement of “fair” equipment would be the balancing budget figure but that work currently scheduled would define the need for this more precisely. A more robust budget was planned to be issued at the next Board. A regular financial report will be included on the agenda for the Board. A paper was tabled showing example reports.  Commissioning Budget  Unitary Payment Changes  Benefits Realisation (financial)  Adviser Fees AS stated, that changes to the UP in the current financial climate would be difficult and needed to be advised as soon as possible. TL pointed out that there is a potential gap when moving into the hospital with regards to Benefits Realisation. GS stated that PFI fees/management costs were identified in the minutes from the last Project Board. David Avis was unable to identify some of the costs and had requested extra funding to meet the costs at 6%. TG noted that the Trust had received up to a maximum of 2.5% of costs, all the money available from the previous Region. He did not think any additional money was available. RB supported this view. TG noted for information, current changes to unitary payment, and





the need to update these for RPI and other changes on a regular basis. From the £9.7 million start point at the financial close the unitary payment was increased to £10.5 million at 2005/06 price levels. 5.3 Commissioning Workshop KB confirmed the date of the workshop as 20 April. TG proposed that the structure of the workshop be as interactive as possible. It was agreed that key leads should provide a walk through from day minus 10 to day plus 5. It would also then be possible to give Sodexho an opportunity to talk about what they’ll need etc. KB added that if people wanted discuss particular topics, please could they advise her. KB AS suggested that it be given practical emphasis, to focus peoples minds. A draft agenda was to be issued. Variations Update KB mentioned that the MRI docking station now requires a phone and data link, but we need Board approval to proceed to variation enquiry. This was approved to proceed to a Trust Variation Enquiry. The IT patient flow change request was discussed. The proposal was rejected on the grounds that a hard-wired solution may cause a delay event. PS was asked to find a low-tech solution, which would have no impact to the construction programme. 7.0 Independent Testers Report KB noted the three key points from the Independent Testers Report: - There is a six-week delay. - Concrete Cube test results remain outstanding. - Bovis have stated that any damage caused by water will be replaced once the building is watertight. PS



BLL Construction Report KB advised the Board that this document was not amended as requested to reflect an accurate account. KB advised that some RDD information has not been provided to the Trust. KB stressed again the impact to the Trust of the recovery plan to reduce the 6-week construction delay. SR asked how BLL are being challenged, as it appears that they are putting costs back onto the Trust. TG said that the report is misleading and Catalyst need address this, and it will be raised at the Liaison Committee Meeting on 28 January 2005 and he would write to Catalyst. GS said he understood that one day’s delay would cost us £30,000 and if the delay is because of Bovis/Catalyst, it shouldn’t cost the Trust. TG advised that it would only cost the Trust if the delay was the




Trust’s fault or the slippage affects the sale of the surplus land. Although he noted it may be possible to claim back some of these costs. GS stated that if the deadline on the 23 Dec 2005 were missed, this would increase costs substantially. TG agreed, saying that one days delay may trigger increased service costs. KB said the Trust needs to ensure that all deadlines are met, including RDD and Commissioning. TG added that the Trust had agreed it would not be issuing any more variations as these may delay construction. 8.0 CRS ICT Report PS tabled the ICT report. AB advised the Board that CRS (PAS) implementation has been changed from October to late November. PS stated that it would be a challenge to implement so close to the handover date due to the volume of training required. The Board supported this view. AB noted that there would be impact to Kingston if there were a delay in implementation. PACS PS indicated PACS could go live in Qtr 3, 2005; there was a need to liaise with Kingston over an upgrade to the Radiology Information System (RIS). AB felt that the implementation date is optimistic. There is currently a £2.5m funding gap both for PACS at Kingston; and a lack of information from CCA to determine the most appropriate RIS upgrade path. PS noted the contingency of linking to St George’s PAS system. TG requested a drop-dead date for implementing any contingency plans by the next Board (16 February). X Ray Storage - Clinicians have reduced their storage requirement and felt the existing space was sufficient. KB noted that any change with the room use in the new hospital would need to be progressed through the change process. Document Management: There are two key issues:  The development of an affordable business case for a deliverable solution and to establish short/medium term storage solutions. Any business case would need to be integrated with the overall CCA approach which did cause some timing difficulties.  Storage; there are 6 or 7 options. GS commented that the portacabins could be considered as an option, but the Bradu Building along with Roehampton House are the preferred options. TL asked for a report to be presented at the management team meeting. AS said there’s a need to be concerned as the risk log is showing green risks. KB asked whether it was worth progressing with Roehampton House options. GS requested that in future the ICT report is provided prior to the PS





Board Meeting to allow proper review. AB noted that there are a lot of clinical risks associated with data migration. These need to be reviewed, possibly by clinical governance leads. 9.0 Any Other Business: TG said that Land Disposal strategy will be discussed, with the Advisers next time followed immediately by ICT. GS asked whether there was still going to be a report at next weeks Trust Board Meeting. TG advised the agreed process was Project Board minutes supported by the Chairman’s verbal update. AS asked if a short report could be done for the Mental Health Trust Board. This was agreed. 10.0 Date of Next Meeting 9am, 16 February 2005 Conference Room, Roehampton House



To top