26.05.2014 Views

Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

Agenda and supporting papers - Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!