SaHF DMBC Volume 1 Edition 1.1.pdf - Shaping a healthier future

to deliver the options showed Options 5 and 6 were stronger and that Options 3, 4, 7 and 8
were weaker. Thirdly, we analysed co-dependencies with other strategies – previous Major
Trauma designation, previous stroke designation, national initiatives, broader London
initiatives and local strategies in place or in development. This identified that Options 5 and 6
were stronger and Options 3 and 4 were weaker against this sub-criterion. These
evaluations were reviewed post consultation with no change to the results of the evaluation.
For Research & Education, we considered disruption and support current and developing
research and education delivery. Our evaluation of both sub-criteria was reviewed and
updated post-consultation. Options 6 and 8 were stronger and Options 1 and 3 were weaker
against the disruption sub-criterion. For the second sub-criterion, Options 5 and 7 were
stronger followed by Options 6 and 8 followed by the remaining options.
Stage 7 – Sensitivity analysis
At the end of stage 6, we concluded that overall options 5, 6 and 7 were the strongest.
Sensitivity analysis was used to test the options to establish whether the ranking changed
under testing. Sensitivity analysis supports the conclusion that option 5 is the preferred
financial option both before and after consultation. However, as highlighted in the PCBC the
programme needs to mitigate against the risk of a number of downside sensitivities
happening simultaneously if the overall financial benefits are to be realised.
The proposed future configuration of hospitals in NW London
The evaluation was brought together and a summary is shown below. Note that Options 5, 6
and 7 were renamed as Options A, B and C for public consultation.
Executive summary
xii