Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Item 3<br />
• Noted the financial position of the <strong>Trust</strong> as at 30 April<br />
2013.<br />
• Approved a deficit budget of £13m for 2013/14.<br />
There was a break between 1.05 pm <strong>and</strong> 1.10 pm.<br />
D<br />
Mr Teape’s report set out the proposed capital programme for<br />
2013/14. The programme had been subject to extensive review by<br />
the Investment Panel, the Capital Steering Group <strong>and</strong> the FPIC, all of<br />
which included clinical representation. Mr Teape stated that it would<br />
be unwise to approve<br />
R<br />
individual elements of the programme at the<br />
expense of others <strong>and</strong> recommended that the Board approved the full<br />
plan with the expectation that cash flow would be tightly managed.<br />
The <strong>Trust</strong>’s Scheme of Delegation defined those individual elements<br />
within the overall plan that must come back to the Board for approval.<br />
Progress with the capital plan delivery was reported monthly to the<br />
Board <strong>and</strong> was subject<br />
A<br />
to FPIC oversight.<br />
112/13 Capital Budget Report 2013/14<br />
Mr Budge noted the Medical Equipment Rolling Replacement<br />
Programme budget of £1.7m <strong>and</strong> queried the criteria used to assess<br />
the risks <strong>and</strong> whether the Board could be assured that equipment for<br />
patients would not fail. Dr Mayor explained the risk assessment<br />
employed by the Medical<br />
F<br />
Devices Strategy Group <strong>and</strong> expressed his<br />
confidence in their decision making process.<br />
Mr Teape referred the Board to section 6 of the report which set out<br />
where capital spend would be focused if additional resources were<br />
available. After reviewing the details the Board took the view that it<br />
was not for Board members<br />
T<br />
to second guess others’ best informed<br />
decisions. They should instead seek assurance of the integrity of the<br />
process in bringing forward these recommendations <strong>and</strong> that the<br />
investments proposed were strategically <strong>and</strong> clinically important. Mr<br />
Douglas stated that FPIC had reviewed the proposed programme<br />
twice. There were risks associated with it but there was also<br />
contingency <strong>and</strong> FPIC supported the programme proposed.<br />
Dr Williams queried the degree to which leasing arrangements were<br />
available. Mr Teape stated that FPIC had previously reviewed this but<br />
it would be picked up as part of the longer term procurement strategy.<br />
Echoing earlier discussions, the Board noted that:<br />
• Linking the capital plan with the site development plan to be<br />
developed as part of the strategy implementation would be<br />
welcome.<br />
13