BEXLEY CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP FORMAL MEETING – 6th September 2012
AQP Update
Action Required - For information BCCC is asked to
1) NOTE the contents of the attached CCG Briefing provided by the AQP Steering Group, specifically Paragraph 1.1.1 sub-section 1 and 2.
2) NOTE progress being made for three services areas which are to be subjected to the AQP process in Bexley, namely Adult Hearing, Anti-coagulation and Termination of Pregnancies .
Executive Summary Commissioners from Bexley BSU in response to the Department of Health mandate for each BSU to deliver 3 service commissioned under the Any Qualified Provider programme are working alongside colleagues from 1. NHS SE London on the procurement of the Adult Hearing services 2. BBG on the procurement of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Anti-coagulation services, and 3. London-wide on the procurement of Abortion services
The attached papers from the AQP Steering Group on which Bexley BSU is represented is intended to provide CCGs with an update of progress towards the delivery of AQP services across SE London. Following the submission of the Chair’s Action paper in June 2012, Bexley BSU alongside Greenwich BSU, took a decision not to proceed with the commissioning of the Continence service via AQP, as NHS SE London were unable to provide a robust financial modeling of the impact of the service and tariff on which CCG approval was contingent. NHS SE London therefore suggested that Bexley BSU should participate in the London-wide Abortion Services AQP.
Consideration by Other Committees/Groups
Organisational implications
Financial Yes
Equality and Diversity
Risk (governance and/or clinical)
Yes - Governance
Patient impact
NHS constitution
Which objective does this paper support? Improve the health of children and young people
Insert Tick )
Improve choice and access to integrated health services for Bexley patients
Reduce the level of health inequalities across Bexley
Improve care for patients with long term conditions & increase the range of services offered within the community
Improving the health & wellbeing for people in Bexley
Maximizing the opportunities of joint working (A Picture of Health, Joint Strategy Needs Assessment, Wellness agenda etc)
Using our resources in the most efficient & effective manner (organisational & financial)
Author : Alan Luke Contact Details 0208-298-6138
Executive Sponsor Pam Creaven
Date 27th July 2012
ENCLOSURE: E Agenda Item: 121/12
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912)/E(ii)
1
Any Qualified Provider (AQP) Steering Group Brief: 26 July 2012
1. General
1.1 CCG Briefing
1.1.1 Following the last AQP Steering Group the following recommendations were made within the CCG Briefing:
1. The steering group recommends that each CCG flags up AQP within the proposed Commissioning Support Service (CSS) and BSU structures to ensure that the current implementation of AQP is successfully delivered, awarded contracts are managed effectively and that future appropriate use of AQP as a procurement framework can be utilised by CCGs.
2. The steering group recommends that CCGs nominate a clinician that can represent a local clinical view with no conflict of interest in the provision of adult hearing services on the Local Assessment Team.
3. The Steering Group recommends that CCGs confirm agreement to the Continence Specification and Tariff.
4. The steering group recommend that South East London adopts the nationally delayed timeframe for the Wheelchair AQP project. This will enable further local work to better understand activity and pricing in wheelchair services.
1.1.2 Action: Feedback is sought on the CCG Briefing from CCGs via their BSU
representative
1.2 Risk Register
1.2.1 Action: The Steering Group is asked to discuss and agree the mitigating actions to the risk register (attached)
1.3 Communication and Engagement Strategy/Plan
1.3.1 Action: The Steering Group is asked to review the AQP Communication and
Engagement Strategy/Plan (attached)
2. Adult Hearing Update
2.1 Evidence of CCG sign off/agreement
2.1.1 Evidence of CCG sign off received from Bexley, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark. Evidence still to come from Bromley and Greenwich.
2.1.2 Action: Bromley and Greenwich steering group representatives are asked to provide evidence of CCG sign off for the Hearing AQP.
2.2 Local Assessment Team
2.2.1 The Local Assessment Team for SE London has been confirmed:
Any Qualified Provider: Steering Group Brief
2
Lead Assessor Marco Inzani
Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Lead Debbie Andrews
Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich Lead Jill Prescott
Acute Commissioning Neil Stevenson
Clinician Dr Chrisanthan Ferdinand
Finance Kim Mazzanti
Contract/Estates Sonia Ennals
2.2.2 There have been 18 applications to provide the Hearing AQP service. Applications
will be assessed between 23 July to 3 August 2012 via the ‘Supply 2 Health’ website.
3. Adult Continence Update
3.1 Specification/Tariff 3.1.1 The cluster variations to the national specification were agreed across London.
3.1.2 London clusters agreed to use the national tariff for the continence AQP. SE
London agreed a different tariff based on an average SE London Market Forces Factor:
Adults Level 2 Face to Face: £158.48 (compared to national tariff £129.42)
3.1.3 Action: Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Steering Group representatives are asked to provide evidence that their CCGs have agreed the Continence Specification and Tariff.
3.2 Local Assessment Team
3.2.1 The Local Assessment Team for Continence across SE London needs to be
agreed:
Lead Assessor Marco Inzani
Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Lead
Clinician
Finance
Contract/Estates
3.2.2 The dates of Assessment are 20 August to 31 August 2012.
3.2.3 Action: The Steering Group is asked to consider nominations for the Continence
Local Assessment Team
4. Children’s Wheelchairs Update
4.1 Change to Timeframe
Any Qualified Provider: Steering Group Brief
3
4.1.1 The DH have verbally confirmed that the Wheelchairs AQP will not be completed in this financial year but will be deferred to next financial year. There will not be a request to pick another AQP service line for this financial year. PCTs are being asked to feed into the national scheme of work in order to develop a more robust commissioning package. A letter to Chief Executives should follow shortly.
5. Anti-Coagulation Update
5.1 Project Plan
5.1.1 A draft project plan with assigned leads has been identified for Anti-coagulation. An updated briefing was circulated to the Project Board. Bromley have taken the business case to the CCG Board who have agreed to the Tier 1 and 2 procurement of Anti-coagulation. The next stage is to consider some clinical and mobilisation issues before the service advert is loaded to Supply 2 Health.
6. Termination of Pregnancies
6.1 6.1 Working Group
6.1.1 Bexley have now joined the London Termination of Pregnancies (ToPs) AQP working group. The working group are currently consulting on the specification, modelling the tariff and are working on a market analysis.
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / ENC E(iii)
Page 1 of 7
Project ANY QUALIFIED PROVIDER STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
AQP Project Sponsor Tony Read
AQP Programme Lead Marco Inzani
Version: 0.2 Date: 16/07/2012
Communication and Engagement Lead
Marco Inzani
Version Date Reviewed by Comment
0.1 27/06/12 Created
0.2 16/07/12 Comms, Eng and BSU leads
Remove 4.3.8; add to 5.1 Stakeholder map; change 7.0; amend 8.1.3; add to 9.0; add new Section 10 Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan; amend 11.1
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2
2. AQP Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................... 2
3. AQP Communication and Engagement Aims and Objectives ..................................... 2
4. Local context ............................................................................................................... 3
5. Stakeholder Mapping .................................................................................................. 3
6. Communication and Engagement Strategy Implementation ....................................... 5
7. Communication and Engagement Messages .............................................................. 5
8. Communication and Engagement Medium ................................................................. 6
9. Communication and Engagement Noise ..................................................................... 6
10. Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan ................................................ 6
11. Resources ................................................................................................................ 7
12. Governance ............................................................................................................. 7
13. Risk .......................................................................................................................... 7
AQP Stakeholder Communication And Engagement Strategy
2
1. Introduction
1.1. In 2010, the Government reaffirmed a commitment to increase choice and personalisation in NHS-funded services. Choice for patients can be about the way care is provided, or the ability to control budgets and self-manage conditions. The government has specifically committed to extending patient choice of Any Qualified Provider (AQP) for appropriate services.
1.2. AQP is being implemented following a national listening exercise and is based on
introducing competition in specific services based on quality not price. AQP is intended to improve choice for patients. Patients referred to the new services made available under AQP will be able to choose from a list of ‘qualified’ providers who meet agreed service quality requirements, through a locally agreed specification.
1.3. This document supports the work of NHS South East London (SEL) to engage
stakeholders in the development and implementation of AQP. This is set within the context of national and London wide stakeholder engagement for AQP. This strategy has been developed in consultation with the six Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) that make up South East London (Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark).
1.4. The initial introduction of AQP nationally must be delivered by April 2013.
2. AQP Aims and Objectives 2.1. The strategic aims of AQP are to:
2.1.1. Increase choice and access of health service providers for patients 2.1.2. Improve quality and outcomes of health services 2.1.3. Drive innovation and efficiency of health services
2.2. The strategic objectives to deliver the aims are to:
2.2.1. Develop local service specifications and tariffs for AQP services 2.2.2. Qualify and register providers as fit to provide NHS services for AQP 2.2.3. Develop local clinical pathways and referral protocols for AQP 2.2.4. Referring clinicians offer patients a choice of qualified provider 2.2.5. Competition for patients is based on quality not price
3. AQP Communication and Engagement Aims and Objectives 3.1. The strategic aims of effective communication and engagement for AQP are to:
3.1.1. Increase awareness of AQP, service lines and decisions 3.1.2. Increase understanding of AQP, its benefits and how to use it 3.1.3. Increase the empowerment of patients in exercising choice
3.2. The strategic objectives to deliver the aims are to:
3.2.1. Provide leadership and co-ordination of AQP across SE London 3.2.2. Identify local priorities for the delivery and linkage of AQP 3.2.3. Engage stakeholders in the development of AQP service specifications 3.2.4. Address issues and concerns with the development and implementation of
AQP Stakeholder Communication And Engagement Strategy
3
AQP 3.2.5. Develop appropriate referral pathways into AQP
4. Local context 4.1. Following an engagement process with Clinicians and stakeholders, five service
lines across South East London were selected: Hearing Services for adults; Level 2 (Specialist) Continence services for adults; Assessment of Complex/Non-complex Wheelchair services for children; Anti-coagulation services; and Termination of Pregnancies. The services that each CCG has chosen across SE London are as follows:
CCG Service Lines No.
Bexley Adult Hearing Termination Of Pregnancy Anti-Coagulation 3
Bromley Adult Hearing Wheelchairs Anti-Coagulation 3
Greenwich Adult Hearing Wheelchairs Anti-Coagulation 3
Lambeth Adult Hearing Wheelchairs Continence 3
Lewisham Adult Hearing Wheelchairs Continence 3
Southwark Adult Hearing Wheelchairs Continence 3
4.2. A recent ‘Temperature Check’ diagnostic with local BSUs identified the following
priorities: 4.2.1. QIPP 4.2.2. Saving money 4.2.3. Improving quality 4.2.4. Reducing admissions 4.2.5. Long Term Conditions 4.2.6. Urgent care 4.2.7. CCG authorisation 4.2.8. CSS/BSU transition
4.3. AQP has the potential to link to CCG priorities by:
4.3.1. Defining what good service delivery and care looks like for specific services 4.3.2. Improving data collection and analysis on services that have been difficult
to measure 4.3.3. Chipping away at block contracts to focus attention on specific services and
provide opportunities to improve quality 4.3.4. Decrease inappropriate admissions by improving service delivery to prevent
problems occurring 4.3.5. Meeting local unmet needs 4.3.6. Improving patient experience 4.3.7. Educate and empower patients/carers to take control of their own health 4.3.8. Providing commissioners with a new set of tools for commissioning
5. Stakeholder Mapping 5.1. The following broad groups of stakeholders have been identified:
Category Stakeholder
Public (Service Use) LINk/Health Watch
AQP Stakeholder Communication And Engagement Strategy
4
Category Stakeholder
Patient Groups/Forums Public
Partner (Service Development) CCG CSS/BSUs – Non-Executive/Executive and staff NHS London QCE/DoH GPs - Practice Staff Dentists/Optometrists/Pharmacists Local Authority – Social Services
Provider (Service Provision) Acute Community Health Primary Care Mental Health Private Social Enterprise Voluntary/Community
Opinion Former (Service Influence) Local Pressure Groups MPs Councillors Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) Media
Care Group (Special Attention) Disability Groups Deaf/Hard of Hearing Groups Older People Groups Children and Young People Groups Parents/Parent Forums Carers/Carer Forums BME Groups Women’s Groups Pregnant Women Groups Men’s Groups LGBT Groups Religious Groups
5.2. The current position of stakeholders (figure 1) needs to be maintained in order to
facilitate the implementation of AQP. Figure 1: Impact/Interest Analysis of Stakeholders in AQP
AQP Stakeholder Communication And Engagement Strategy
5
6. Communication and Engagement Strategy Implementation 6.1. The Project Management Institute, Body of Knowledge describes considering
stakeholder positions in a project in relation to the: 6.1.1. Message: what you want to communicate
6.1.2. Medium: the way you send the message; and
6.1.3. Noise: things that interfere with comprehension
7. Communication and Engagement Messages
7.1. Key messages within the AQP process are aligned to sections of The Engagement Cycle (2009, Patient and Public Empowerment Division, Department of Health):
Category Purpose/Message
1. Raise awareness of AQP
What is AQP and why is it being done? What will it mean for existing/new patients? Raise issues and concerns with AQP
2. Identify local priorities for AQP
What is the decision making process? What are local health priorities based on local plans and patient feedback? Get information on activity/price of current services
3. Influence AQP service design
Develop service specification Develop referral pathway/process Serve decommissioning notices
4. Influence AQP procurement and contracting
Develop standards/indicators based on local data Apply for AQP services Select AQP providers
5. Mobilise new AQP services
Agree implementation of AQP services Repatriate existing patients into new services
6. Performance management of AQP
Monitor according to standards/indicators Receive feedback on chosen providers
Q2 High Impact/ Low Interest
Opinion Formers
Q1 High Impact/ High Interest
Care Groups
Partners
Providers
Q4 Low Impact/ Low Interest
Public
Q3 Low Impact/ High Interest
AQP Stakeholder Communication And Engagement Strategy
6
Category Purpose/Message
contract
8. Communication and Engagement Medium
8.1. At the ‘temperature check’ diagnostic the following engagement and communication methods were highlighted as useful:
8.1.1. Teleconferences 8.1.2. Small, focused face to face meetings 8.1.3. Website - Inter/intranet 8.1.4. Briefings/bulletins/newsletters 8.1.5. Provider events 8.1.6. Patient forums 8.1.7. Existing forums and networks 8.1.8. Referral Management System updates
8.2. These methods will be built on and supplemented, where appropriate, with: 8.2.1. Community Outreach 8.2.2. Service Assessments 8.2.3. Road Shows 8.2.4. Surveys 8.2.5. Publications – leaflets/posters 8.2.6. Media – press releases
9. Communication and Engagement Noise 9.1. Current issues that may interfere with the comprehension of AQP are: 9.2. Political Messages – AQP may be viewed by some stakeholders as the
privatisation of the NHS and create an antagonistic environment for implementation. Careful management of messages will be needed which clearly state the aims and objectives for AQP to avoid any confusion.
9.3. NHS Reform – Changes to the local health landscape may impact on the local implementation of AQP. If plans are underway to review and re-commission services in SE London, outside of AQP, any responses to these have the potential to influence responses to AQP. There will need to be awareness of any local changes in areas where AQP is being implemented.
9.4. Conflict of Interest – There is the potential for issues between various stakeholders to surface due to the involvement of clinicians in various parts of the commissioning cycle. If these clinicians are also providers, or aligned in some way to applying providers, there will be a conflict of interest in them becoming involved. Adherence to the NHS SE London Conflict of Interest policy is vital.
10. Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
10.1. A Stakeholder Plan is attached that aligns different messages to different stakeholders utilising a variety of mediums.
AQP Stakeholder Communication And Engagement Strategy
7
11. Resources 11.1. There is no dedicated resource for the communication and engagement of
AQP. Existing communication and engagement resources will need to be used.
12. Governance
12.1. Communication and Engagement will be overseen by the monthly AQP Steering Group and will provide regular updates to the SE London Stakeholder Reference Group.
13. Risk
13.1. All communication and engagement risks will be flagged up as part of the overarching risk register for AQP.
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(iv)
1
Any Qualified Provider – Steering Group Action Notes
Date: Thursday 28 June 2012
Time: 10.00-11.15
Venue: Room 118, 1st Floor, 1 Lower Marsh
Chair: Tony Read
Present: Chris Gadney; Marco Inzani; Tamsin Hooton; Moira McGrath;
Geraldine Englard
Apologies: Richard Chapman; Yee Cho; Alan Luke
No. Item Due Date
Lead
1. General
2. 1.1 Action ID: 1.36/1.43 The AQP stakeholder communication and engagement plan will be developed for SE London, in collaboration with NHS London with regards to certain elements e.g. referral forms and mobilisation letters. Action: Ask NHS London for due date for mobilisation letter and referral forms.
06/07/12 MI
3. 1.2 Action ID: 1.41 Service lines have been discussed with all acute commissioners. There may be a cross over between Level 2 community continence services and acute urology/gynaecology services. Data is needed to get a clearer picture. Action: Ask acute providers for data on Level 2 services.
26/07/12 MM/ TH
4. 1.3 Action ID: 1.51 – 1.56 Review risk register and ensure risks feed Board Assurance Framework and CCG risk registers.
26/07/12 MI/TR
5. 1.4 6. Action ID: 1.2.3 The steering group considered the AQP temperature check actions. The steering group agreed to give clear recommendations and rationales which will be recorded in concise and clear briefings for CCGs. Each BSU/CCG will be asked to feed in their thoughts on the future management of AQP in current restructure discussions.
7. Action: Ensure CCG briefing includes statement on the future of AQP
8. 06/07/12 9. MI
1.5 Action: Circulate list of contacts for AQP 06/07/12 MI
1.6 Action ID: 1.3.3 The steering group considered the AQP stock take. Action: GSTT to be split across acute and community contracts. Kings information to be completed. New service line to be completed
06/07/12 MI
1.7 Action 1.4.2 The Steering group agreed the structure of the AQP steering group/working group. Further thought is
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(iv)
2
No. Item Due Date
Lead
needed on AQP programme management going forward e.g. would this fit into the BSU Project Management Office functions?
2. Adult Hearing Update
2.1 MI informed the group that London had made a decision to reinstate the aftercare tariff of £23 for existing patients, to reduce the need to re-refer onto an AQP pathway.
2.2 Action 2.1.2 Lambeth have existing CCG governance arrangements including delegated responsibilities. Action: Provide evidence of Lambeth governance arrangements
26/07/12 MM
2.3 Action: Follow up Bromley and Greenwich sign off of Hearing AQP
26/07/12 MI
2.4 Action 2.2.4 The Steering Group considered the nominations for the Local Assessment Teams. Debbie Andrews was nominated as the delegated lead from Lambeth and Southwark. Action: Determine a BSU delegated lead for Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich
20/07/12 MI
2.5 Action: Determine a clinical lead with specialist interest in ENT.
20/07/12 CG
2.6 Action: Determine a governance lead 20/07/12 TR
3. Adult Continence Update
3.1 Action 3.2.3 The steering group considered the specification and tariff. Action: Determine the London position on Market Forces Factor and transport cost uplift based on Hearing tariff.
28/06/12 MI
3.2 Action: Achieve CCG sign off of specification and tariff 29/06/12 CG/ MM/ TH/
4. Children’s Wheelchairs Update
4.1 Action 4.1.2 The steering group considered the position on Children’s Wheelchairs and agreed to delay progress until there is a clearer steer from the Department of Health. Work will still progress regarding a review of activity and pricing.
5. Date of Next Meeting
5.1 3.30p.m. Thursday 26 July 2012, Harding Room 5, 5th Floor, Oasis Centre, Westminster Bridge Road
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(iv)
3
AQP Steering Group Action List Review: 26 July 2012
ID Assign Date
Service Line
Action Lead Due Date Status Comments
1.1 28/06/2012 All
Ask NHS London for due date for mobilisation letter and referral forms.
MI 06/07/2012 Partial
Complete Communications meeting at NHS London 24 July 2012
1.2 28/06/2012 All
Ask acute providers for data on Level 2 services
MM/TH 26/07/2012 Incomplete
TBC
1.3 28/06/2012 All
Review risk register and feed risks into CCG risk registers
MI/TR 26/07/2012 Partial
Complete Risk Register reviewed and amended 16 July 2012
1.4 28/06/2012 All
Ensure CCG briefing includes statement on the future of AQP
MI 06/07/2012
Complete
Circulated 02 July 2012
1.5 28/06/2012 All
Circulate list of contacts for AQP
MI 06/07/2012 Complete
Circulated 10 July 2012
1.6 28/06/2012 All
GSTT to be split across acute and community contracts. Kings information to be completed. New service line to be completed
MI 06/07/2012
Partial Complete
Summary amended
2.2 28/06/2012 Hearing
Provide evidence of Lambeth governance arrangements
MM 26/07/2012
Incomplete
TBC
2.3 28/06/2012 Hearing
Follow up Bromley and Greenwich sign off of Hearing AQP
MI 26/07/2012 Partial
Complete Email sent 16 July 2012
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(iv)
4
ID Assign Date
Service Line
Action Lead Due Date Status Comments
2.4 28/06/2012 Hearing
Determine a BSU delegated lead for Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich
MI 20/07/2012
Complete Jill Prescott (Greenwich) agreed as BBG lead.
2.5 28/06/2012 Hearing
Determine a clinical lead with specialist interest in ENT.
CG 20/07/2012
Complete Dr Ferdinand Chrisanthan approached
2.6 28/06/2012 Hearing
Determine a governance lead
TR 20/07/2012 Incomplete
TBC
3.1 28/06/2012 Continence
Determine the London position on Market Forces Factor and transport cost uplift based on Hearing tariff.
MI 28/06/2012
Complete SEL decided to opt for a SEL tariff with an average SEL MFF and no transport uplift
3.2 28/06/2012 Continence
Achieve CCG sign off of specification and tariff
CG/MM/TH
29/06/2012 Partial
Complete Signed off in principle. Still need evidence of signature.
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(v)
Risk Register AQP Corporate Objectives 1. Improve health, quality and maintain safety of local NHS services. Appendix A
Directorate Strategy 2. Sustain an effective grip on finance, performance and QIPP
Accountable Officer Tony Read 3. Proactively manage the transition to the new commissioning system. Date Created 16/01/12
Last Review Date 16/07/12 v0.7
Risk Identification Risk Description and Assessment Action Plan & Target Status
So
urc
e R
ef
Dir
ec
tora
te
Corporate Objective Work Stream Date RaisedRisk
Category
Risk
Owner
Risk Description
(There is a risk that…caused
by......leading to........)
Inh
ere
nt
Lik
elih
oo
d
Inh
ere
nt
imp
ac
t
Inh
ere
nt
Ris
k EXISTING CONTROLS
ie. actions implemented
where this is evidenced/documented
note evidence of risk being controlled
Re
sid
ua
l L
ike
lih
oo
d
Re
sid
ua
l Im
pa
ct
Cu
rren
t R
esid
ual
Ris
k Acceptance
Decision
Control Gap
What still needs to be put in place
Action Plan Summary
(Ongoing/Planned)
Ta
rge
t L
ike
lih
oo
d
Ta
rge
t Im
pa
ct
Ta
rge
t R
es
idu
al R
isk
Review
Date
Movement
(Point)Status
1.01 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 16/01/2012 Financial BSU MDs
There is a risk that Service lines
being implemented result in cost
pressures to BSUs due to the
need to extract exisiting service
prices from block contracts
LikelyModera
te12
For each service line tariffs are being developed
which represent value for money. Notice to be
served in relation to decommissioned services.
Contract values to be identified.
LikelyModerat
e12
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Lack of robust information will hinder
this process. BSU staff are
endeavouring to gather robust
information from existing providers so
that this can be modelled
BSUs to gather robust information
where possible. Information from
across London to be shared to
minimise the gaps in information
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
1.02 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 16/01/2012 Operations Tony
Read
There is a risk that the AQP
process does not identify
sufficient accredited providers to
generate choice
Possib
leMajor 12
Engagement with providers has been undertaken
through BSU leads. Existing providers are unlikely to
want to lose business altogether. Providers can also
apply to be provider outside of normal area. Tariff
set at competitive market rate.
Unlikely Major 8 Accept
Op
en
1.03 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 16/01/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk that patient
choices are restricted by clinical
referral behaviour
Possib
leMinor 6 Engagement plan for GPs to be developed. Unlikely Minor 4 Accept
Op
en
1.04 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 16/01/2012
Information
Management
and
Technology
IG Lead
There is a risk that information
exchange between suppliers is
not secure, leading to IG issues
Unlikel
yMajor 8
This is addressed within each national specification.
Information Governance Statement of Compliance
mandatory requirement from providers.
Unlikely Major 8 Accept
Op
en
1.05 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 16/01/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk that no providers
bid due to the service line only
being a small part of overall
delivery leading to a gap in
provision
Possib
leMajor 12
Provision currently occurs in all service lines/CCGs
reducing the risk of a gap in provision. Market
analysis will scope the potential for new providers,
where possible.
Unlikely Major 8 Accept
Op
en
1.06 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 16/01/2012 Operations
CCGs
There is a risk of a conflict of
interest for those making
decisions on service lines and
specifications caused by the
same people being able to bid
for service delivery leading to
reduced choice for patients
LikelyModera
te12
QCE are coordinating the procurement process for a
large number of the service lines and will ensure a
balanced panel mitigates against unfair advantage
over decisions. Premise of AQP is to extend choice.
Query Conflict of Interest Policy adhered to in local
decision making.
PossibleModerat
e9 Accept
Op
en
1.07 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 25/01/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk relating to the
number of applicants for the
programme being very high
which will result in increased
requirement for resources to
manage contracts and monitor
quality
Possib
le
Modera
te9
A three stage procurement process should reduce
the number of aplicants to a managable number.Possible
Moderat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Market assessment to assess size of
market. Provider workshops may
manage the number of providers who
apply.
Market assessment completed for
Hearing. Other service lines to be
confirmed.
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
1.08 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 14/02/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk of cost pressures
due to undetermined go live
dates leading to
decommissioning notices not
being issued to existing
providers
Possib
le
Modera
te9
Dates to be supplied by QCEs. Go live dates and
related contract variation dates will be able to be
calculated
PossibleModerat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
CCGs and the Steering Group to
determine appropriate dates for the
variation of contracts to commence
CCGs and the Steering Group to
determine appropriate dates for the
variation of contracts to commence
Unlikely Moderate 6 23/08/12
Op
en
1.09 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 14/02/2012 StrategicTony
Read
There is a risk that deadlines are
unachievable in August caused
by decisions not made during
July/August caused by lack of
resources being available during
the Olympic period
LikelyModera
te12
Processes are planned around these dates with
some being web based facilitating remote working.Unlikely
Moderat
e6 Accept
Op
en
1.10 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 05/04/2012 Operations
Lambeth
and
Southwar
k CCGs
There is a risk in Lambeth and
Southwark that contracts cannot
be terminated before the
commencement of the AQP
contracts due to a 12 month
notice period required for
services over £250k per annum
in GSTT community contract.
Possib
leMajor 12
Modelling completed for all but one service line
which has confirmed likely contract variations to be
less than £250k per annum.
Unlikely Major 8Mitigate (See
action plan)
Commence AQP arrangements to
coincide wih block contract termination
Accredit AQP providers and defer
contract start date Unlikely Major 8 23/08/12
Op
en
1.11 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 20/04/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk that the QCEs will
undertake the initial work on
AQP and then not exist to
undertake future refreshes.
Possib
le
Modera
te9
DH and NHS London are developing a response to
this.Possible
Moderat
e9 Accept
Out of Cluster control. DH and QCE to
agree
Clo
se
d
1.12 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 20/04/2012 People BSU MDs
There is a risk of market failure
due to the destabilisation of a
lack of guaranteed contracted
activity leading to provider
withdrawal, provider
restructuring costs, provider
reductons in quality and
reducing choice.
Possib
leMajor 12
Response from the DH is "Any Qualified Provider is
about encouraging an increase in the choices for
patients from a wider range of providers delivering
services. We would not expect to see current
providers simply replaced by new providers, as this
would not lead to an increase in choice for patients.
Whilst each possible TUPE situation has to be
considered on a case by case basis, current legal
advice suggests that there will be no “transfer of
undertaking” to a new provider where referral
patterns change because of the use of the Any
Qualified Provider approach.
Rather than redundancies or TUPE, it is more likely
that staff movement between providers will be in
response to job adverts and recruitment processes."
Unlikely Major 8Mitigate (See
action plan)
Providers should consider their
responses and how to mitigate against
this for their business model. Cluster to
organise provider engagement events
Hold provider engagement events Unlikely Major 8 23/08/12
Op
en
Filename: ENC E(v) - AQP Risk Register v0.7
Version: 1.00
RESTRICTED
1 of 2
Risk Identification Risk Description and Assessment Action Plan & Target Status
So
urc
e R
ef
Dir
ec
tora
te
Corporate Objective Work Stream Date RaisedRisk
Category
Risk
Owner
Risk Description
(There is a risk that…caused
by......leading to........)
Inh
ere
nt
Lik
elih
oo
d
Inh
ere
nt
imp
ac
t
Inh
ere
nt
Ris
k EXISTING CONTROLS
ie. actions implemented
where this is evidenced/documented
note evidence of risk being controlled
Re
sid
ua
l L
ike
lih
oo
d
Re
sid
ua
l Im
pa
ct
Cu
rren
t R
esid
ual
Ris
k Acceptance
Decision
Control Gap
What still needs to be put in place
Action Plan Summary
(Ongoing/Planned)
Ta
rge
t L
ike
lih
oo
d
Ta
rge
t Im
pa
ct
Ta
rge
t R
es
idu
al R
isk
Review
Date
Movement
(Point)Status
1.13 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 20/04/2012 Strategic BSU MDs
There is a risk that the future
monitoring of contracts is not
defined either by CCGs or by
CSS, thereby leaving a gap post
implementation
Possib
le
Modera
te9 BSU leads requested to discuss with BSU MDs Unlikely
Moderat
e6
Mitigate (See
action plan)
CCGs (and their agents e.g. CSS)
need to understand the implications of
AQP and agree how this will be
monitored and taken forward in the
future. Legacy document will be
developed. Comments on proposed
structures have been made.
CCGs to decide the appropriate place
for contract management to sitUnlikely Moderate 6 23/08/12
Op
en
1.14 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 26/04/2012 PeopleTony
Read
There is a risk that key staff will
be lost caused by restructuring
leading to a lack of AQP
programme and project
management
Possib
le
Modera
te9 Resources determined and interim appointed. Unlikely
Moderat
e6 Accept
Op
en
1.15 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP 14/05/2012 Financial BSU MDs
There is a risk that an increase in
tariff costs caused by the
inclusion of transport costs will
lead to double payments for
patient transport
Possib
le
Modera
te9
Patient transport cost applied to tariff where
appropriate. Patient transport can be monitored and
the potential for linkage with existing system and sub-
contracting of patient transport with corresponding
reduction in contract payment. Projected numbers
are very small.
Possible Minor 6Mitigate (See
action plan)
Current patient transport specification
requires the identification of service for
each patient transported. AQP should
be able to be flagged and reduce the
risk of double payments.
Confirm that AQP service line could
be flagged in patient transport contract
monitoring.
Unlikely Minor 4 23/08/12
Op
en
Filename: ENC E(v) - AQP Risk Register v0.7
Version: 1.00
RESTRICTED
2 of 2
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(v)
Risk Register AQP Hearing Corporate Objectives 1. Improve health, quality and maintain safety of local NHS services. Appendix A
Directorate Strategy 2. Sustain an effective grip on finance, performance and QIPP
Accountable Officer Tony Read 3. Proactively manage the transition to the new commissioning system. Date Created 16/01/12
Last Review Date 16/07/12 v0.7
Risk Identification Risk Description and Assessment Action Plan & Target Status
So
urc
e R
ef
Dir
ec
tora
te
Corporate Objective Work Stream Date RaisedRisk
Category
Risk
Owner
Risk Description
(There is a risk that…caused
by......leading to........)
Inh
ere
nt
Lik
elih
oo
d
Inh
ere
nt
imp
ac
t
Inh
ere
nt
Ris
k EXISTING CONTROLS
ie. actions implemented
where this is evidenced/documented
note evidence of risk being controlled
Re
sid
ua
l L
ike
lih
oo
d
Re
sid
ua
l Im
pa
ct
Cu
rren
t R
esid
ual
Ris
k Acceptance
Decision
Control Gap
What still needs to be put in place
Action Plan Summary
(Ongoing/Planned)
Ta
rge
t L
ike
lih
oo
d
Ta
rge
t Im
pa
ct
Ta
rge
t R
es
idu
al R
isk
Review
Date
Movement
(Point)Status
2.01 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP Hearing 16/01/2012 Financial BSU MDs
There is a risk that the Hearing
AQP results in cost pressures to
BSUs due to the need to extract
exisiting service prices from
block contracts
LikelyModera
te12
The Hearing tariff was developed to represent value
for money. Notice was served in relation to
decommissioned services. Cost pressures were
identified in one BSU.
LikelyModerat
e12
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Implementation of the service line will
need to be carefully monitored to
reduce the risk of significant cost
pressure.
Review first quarter activity for Hearing
to flag actions to reduce cost
pressures.
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
2.02 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP Hearing 25/01/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk relating to the
number of applicants for Hearing
AQP being very high which will
result in increased requirement
for resources to manage
contracts and monitor quality
Possib
le
Modera
te9
17 providers currently applied which may be reduced
by the three stage procurement processPossible
Moderat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Simplified contract management may
be needed if the number of applicants
remains high
Develop abbreviated monitoring
process to manage by exception if
number of providers reaches a
specified threshold.
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
2.03 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP Hearing 14/02/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk of cost pressures
due to undetermined go live
dates leading to
decommissioning notices not
being issued to existing
providers
Possib
le
Modera
te9
Hearing Go Live date is 30 September 2012.
Current Hearing providers all issued with
decommissioning notices with planned Go Live Date.
UnlikelyModerat
e6 Accept 23/08/12
Clo
se
d
2.04 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP Hearing 05/04/2012 Operations
Lambeth
and
Southwar
k CCGs
There is a risk in Lambeth and
Southwark that contracts cannot
be terminated before the
commencement of the Hearing
AQP contracts due to a 12
month notice period required for
services over £250k per annum
in GSTT community contract.
Possib
leMajor 12
Modelling completed for Hearing which has
confirmed likely contract variations to be less than
£250k per annum.
Unlikely Major 8 Accept 23/08/12
Clo
se
d
Filename: ENC E(v) - AQP Risk Register v0.7
Version: 1.00
RESTRICTED
1 of 1
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(v)
Risk RegisterCorporate Objectives 1. Improve health, quality and maintain safety of local NHS services. Appendix A
Directorate Strategy 2. Sustain an effective grip on finance, performance and QIPP
Accountable Officer Tony Read 3. Proactively manage the transition to the new commissioning system. Date Created 16/01/12
Last Review Date 16/07/12 v0.7
Risk Identification Risk Description and Assessment Action Plan & Target Status
So
urc
e R
ef
Dir
ec
tora
te
Corporate Objective Work Stream Date RaisedRisk
Category
Risk
Owner
Risk Description
(There is a risk that…caused
by......leading to........)
Inh
ere
nt
Lik
elih
oo
d
Inh
ere
nt
imp
ac
t
Inh
ere
nt
Ris
k EXISTING CONTROLS
ie. actions implemented
where this is evidenced/documented
note evidence of risk being controlled
Re
sid
ua
l L
ike
lih
oo
d
Re
sid
ua
l Im
pa
ct
Cu
rren
t R
esid
ual
Ris
k Acceptance
Decision
Control Gap
What still needs to be put in place
Action Plan Summary
(Ongoing/Planned)
Ta
rge
t L
ike
lih
oo
d
Ta
rge
t Im
pa
ct
Ta
rge
t R
es
idu
al R
isk
Review
Date
Movement
(Point)Status
3.01 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP
Continence16/01/2012 Financial BSU MDs
There is a risk that the
Continence AQP will result in
cost pressures to BSUs due to
the need to extract exisiting
service prices from block
contracts
LikelyModera
te12
The Continence tariff was developed to represent
value for money. Notice was served in relation to
decommissioned community services. No cost
pressures were identified.
PossibleModerat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Implications for acute service activity still
needs to be identified. Implementation
of the service line will need to be
carefully monitored to reduce the risk of
significant cost pressure.
Serve notice on relevant acute
services. Review first quarter activity
for Continence to flag actions to
reduce cost pressures.
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
3.02 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP
Continence25/01/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk relating to the
number of applicants for
Continence AQP being very high
which will result in increased
requirement for resources to
manage contracts and monitor
quality
Possib
le
Modera
te9
A three stage procurement process should reduce
the number of aplicants to a managable number.
Continence advert currently open.
PossibleModerat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Simplified contract management may
be needed if the number of applicants
remains high
Develop abbreviated monitoring
process to manage by exception if
number of providers reaches a
specified threshold.
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
3.03 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP
Continence14/02/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk of cost pressures
due to undetermined go live
dates leading to
decommissioning notices not
being issued to existing
providers
Possib
le
Modera
te9
Continence Go Live date identified as 1 October
2012. Current Continence service providers issued
with notices of 30 September 2012 for LHT and 1
Dec 2012 for GSTT and so there will be some
overlap.
PossibleModerat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Contract start date for GSTT to
coincide with end date of notice period.
Amend Go Live date for Adult
ContinenceUnlikely Moderate 6 23/08/12
Op
en
3.04 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP
Continence05/04/2012 Operations
Lambeth
and
Southwar
k CCGs
There is a risk in Lambeth and
Southwark that contracts cannot
be terminated before the
commencement of the
Continence AQP contracts due
to a 12 month notice period
required for services over £250k
per annum in GSTT community
contract.
Possib
leMajor 12
Modelling completed for continence with likely
contract value to be less than £250k per annum.Unlikely Major 8 Accept 23/08/12
Clo
se
d
AQP Continence
Filename: ENC E(v) - AQP Risk Register v0.7
Version: 1.00
RESTRICTED
1 of 1
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(v)
Risk RegisterCorporate Objectives 1. Improve health, quality and maintain safety of local NHS services. Appendix A
Directorate Strategy 2. Sustain an effective grip on finance, performance and QIPP
Accountable Officer Tony Read 3. Proactively manage the transition to the new commissioning system. Date Created 16/01/12
Last Review Date 16/07/12 v0.7
Risk Identification Risk Description and Assessment Action Plan & Target Status
So
urc
e R
ef
Dir
ec
tora
te
Corporate Objective Work Stream Date RaisedRisk
Category
Risk
Owner
Risk Description
(There is a risk that…caused
by......leading to........)
Inh
ere
nt
Lik
elih
oo
d
Inh
ere
nt
imp
ac
t
Inh
ere
nt
Ris
k EXISTING CONTROLS
ie. actions implemented
where this is evidenced/documented
note evidence of risk being controlled
Re
sid
ua
l L
ike
lih
oo
d
Re
sid
ua
l Im
pa
ct
Cu
rren
t R
esid
ual
Ris
k Acceptance
Decision
Control Gap
What still needs to be put in place
Action Plan Summary
(Ongoing/Planned)
Ta
rge
t L
ike
lih
oo
d
Ta
rge
t Im
pa
ct
Ta
rge
t R
es
idu
al R
isk
Review
Date
Movement
(Point)Status
4.01 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP
Wheelchairs16/01/2012 Financial BSU MDs
There is a risk that the
Wheelchairs AQP will result in
cost pressures to BSUs due to
the need to extract exisiting
service prices from block
contracts
LikelyModera
te12
The Wheelchairs tariff is being developed to
represent value for money. Notice to be served in
relation to decommissioned services. Contract
values to be identified.
LikelyModerat
e12
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Lack of robust information will hinder
this process. BSU staff are
endeavouring to gather robust
information from existing providers so
that this can be modelled
BSUs to gather robust information
where possible. Information from
across London to be shared to
minimise the gaps in information
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
4.02 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP
Wheelchairs25/01/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk relating to the
number of applicants for
Wheelchairs AQP being very
high which will result in
increased requirement for
resources to manage contracts
and monitor quality
Possib
le
Modera
te9
A three stage procurement process should reduce
the number of applicants to a managable number.Possible
Moderat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Market assessment to assess size of
market. Provider workshops may
manage the number of providers who
apply.
Market assessment completed for
Hearing. Other service lines to be
confirmed.
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
4.03 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP
Wheelchairs14/02/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk of cost pressures
due to undetermined go live
dates leading to
decommissioning notices not
being issued to existing
providers
Possib
le
Modera
te9
Dates to be supplied by DoH following national
review of Wheelchairs AQP. Go live dates and
related contract variation dates will be able to be
calculated
PossibleModerat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
CCGs and the Steering Group to
determine appropriate dates for the
variation of contracts to commence
CCGs and the Steering Group to
determine appropriate dates for the
variation of contracts to commence
Unlikely Moderate 6 23/08/12
Op
en
4.04 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP
Wheelchairs05/04/2012 Operations
Lambeth
and
Southwar
k CCGs
There is a risk in Lambeth and
Southwark that contracts cannot
be terminated before the
commencement of the
Wheelchairs AQP contracts due
to a 12 month notice period
required for services over £250k
per annum in GSTT community
contract.
Possib
leMajor 12
Modelling needed to confirm whether contract
variations will be less than £250k per annum.Unlikely Major 8
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Commence AQP arrangements to
coincide wih block contract termination
Accredit AQP providers and defer
contract start date Unlikely Major 8 23/08/12
Op
en
AQP Wheelchairs
Filename: ENC E(v) - 4. AQP Risk Register v0.7 - Wheel12
Version: 1.00
RESTRICTED
1 of 1
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(v)
Risk RegisterCorporate Objectives 1. Improve health, quality and maintain safety of local NHS services. Appendix A
Directorate Strategy 2. Sustain an effective grip on finance, performance and QIPP
Accountable Officer Tony Read 3. Proactively manage the transition to the new commissioning system. Date Created 16/01/12
Last Review Date 16/07/12 v0.7
Risk Identification Risk Description and Assessment Action Plan & Target Status
So
urc
e R
ef
Dir
ec
tora
te
Corporate Objective Work Stream Date RaisedRisk
Category
Risk
Owner
Risk Description
(There is a risk that…caused
by......leading to........)
Inh
ere
nt
Lik
elih
oo
d
Inh
ere
nt
imp
ac
t
Inh
ere
nt
Ris
k EXISTING CONTROLS
ie. actions implemented
where this is evidenced/documented
note evidence of risk being controlled
Re
sid
ua
l L
ike
lih
oo
d
Re
sid
ua
l Im
pa
ct
Cu
rren
t R
esid
ual
Ris
k Acceptance
Decision
Control Gap
What still needs to be put in place
Action Plan Summary
(Ongoing/Planned)
Ta
rge
t L
ike
lih
oo
d
Ta
rge
t Im
pa
ct
Ta
rge
t R
es
idu
al R
isk
Review
Date
Movement
(Point)Status
5.01 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP Anti-
coagulation16/01/2012 Financial BSU MDs
There is a risk that Anti-coag
AQP will result in cost pressures
to BSUs due to the need to
extract exisiting service prices
from block contracts
LikelyModera
te12
The anticoag tariff was developed to represent value
for money. Notice served to SLHT in relation to
decommissioned services. Contract values to be
identified.
LikelyModerat
e12
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Cost pressures need to be identified
and notice served to remaining
providers of anti-coag.
Model tariff across BBG and serve
notice to remianing providersPossible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
5.02 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP Anti-
coagulation25/01/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk relating to the
number of applicants for the Anti-
coag AQP being very high which
will result in increased
requirement for resources to
manage contracts and monitor
quality
Possib
le
Modera
te9
A three stage procurement process should reduce
the number of aplicants to a managable number.Possible
Moderat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Market assessment to assess size of
market. Provider workshops may
manage the number of providers who
apply.
Market assessment completed for
Hearing. Other service lines to be
confirmed.
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
5.03 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP Anti-
coagulation14/02/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk of cost pressures
for Anti-coag AQP due to
undetermined go live dates
leading to decommissioning
notices not being issued to
existing providers
Possib
le
Modera
te9
Anti-coag Go live date is 1 Nov 2012. SLHT notice
did not specify Go Live Date.Possible
Moderat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Amended notice letter to be issued to
SLHT. Remaining providers to be
issued with notice letters.
Issue notice letters to current anti-
coag providers.Unlikely Moderate 6 23/08/12
Op
en
5.05 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP Anti-
coagulation29/05/2012 Operations
Tony
Read
There is a risk that the Anti-coag
AQP accreditation process is too
complex and onerous for small
providers leading to a lack of
providers and reduced choice
LikelyModera
te12
Provider events will explain the process to all
providers and offer additional support in order to
make the process as easy as possible.
UnlikelyModerat
e6
Mitigate (See
action plan)
As part of practice/provider
development plans in each BSU review
whether providers require minimal or
intense support and balance the need
within the service line to stimulate the
market.
Explore possibility of providing extra
provider/market development Unlikely Moderate 6 23/08/12
Op
en
AQP Anti-coagulation
Filename: ENC E(v) - AQP Risk Register v0.7 Wheel12
Version: 1.00
RESTRICTED
1 of 1
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(v)
Risk Register AQP ToPs Corporate Objectives 1. Improve health, quality and maintain safety of local NHS services. Appendix A
Directorate Strategy 2. Sustain an effective grip on finance, performance and QIPP
Accountable Officer Tony Read 3. Proactively manage the transition to the new commissioning system. Date Created 16/01/12
Last Review Date 16/07/12 v0.7
Risk Identification Risk Description and Assessment Action Plan & Target Status
So
urc
e R
ef
Dir
ec
tora
te
Corporate Objective Work Stream Date RaisedRisk
Category
Risk
Owner
Risk Description
(There is a risk that…caused
by......leading to........)
Inh
ere
nt
Lik
elih
oo
d
Inh
ere
nt
imp
ac
t
Inh
ere
nt
Ris
k EXISTING CONTROLS
ie. actions implemented
where this is evidenced/documented
note evidence of risk being controlled
Re
sid
ua
l L
ike
lih
oo
d
Re
sid
ua
l Im
pa
ct
Cu
rren
t R
esid
ual
Ris
k Acceptance
Decision
Control Gap
What still needs to be put in place
Action Plan Summary
(Ongoing/Planned)
Ta
rge
t L
ike
lih
oo
d
Ta
rge
t Im
pa
ct
Ta
rge
t R
es
idu
al R
isk
Review
Date
Movement
(Point)Status
6.01 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP ToPs 16/01/2012 Financial BSU MDs
There is a risk that ToPs AQP
will result in cost pressures to
BSUs due to the need to extract
exisiting service prices from
block contracts
LikelyModera
te12
The ToPs tariff is being developed to represent value
for money. Notice to be served in relation to
decommissioned services. Contract values to be
identified.
LikelyModerat
e12
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Lack of robust information will hinder
this process. BSU staff are
endeavouring to gather robust
information from existing providers so
that this can be modelled
BSUs to gather robust information
where possible. Information from
across London to be shared to
minimise the gaps in information
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
6.02 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP ToPs 25/01/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk relating to the
number of applicants for ToPs
AQP being very high which will
result in increased requirement
for resources to manage
contracts and monitor quality
Possib
le
Modera
te9
A three stage procurement process should reduce
the number of aplicants to a managable number.Possible
Moderat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
Market assessment to assess size of
market. Provider workshops may
manage the number of providers who
apply.
Market assessment completed for
Hearing. Other service lines to be
confirmed.
Possible Moderate 9 23/08/12
Op
en
6.03 Strategy
1. Improve health, quality
and maintain safety of local
NHS services.
AQP ToPs 14/02/2012 Operations BSU MDs
There is a risk of cost pressures
due to undetermined go live
dates for ToPs AQP leading to
decommissioning notices not
being issued to existing
providers
Possib
le
Modera
te9
Dates to be supplied by NHS London. Go live dates
and related contract variation dates will be able to be
calculated
PossibleModerat
e9
Mitigate (See
action plan)
CCGs and the Steering Group to
determine appropriate dates for the
variation of contracts to commence
CCGs and the Steering Group to
determine appropriate dates for the
variation of contracts to commence
Unlikely Moderate 6 23/08/12
Op
en
Filename: ENC E(v) - AQP Risk Register v0.7 Wheel12
Version: 1.00
RESTRICTED
1 of 1
Contents hyperlinked in this TAB
Corporate Objectives
Directorate Objectives
World Class Commissioning
Name of Directorate
Risk Category
Impact Categories
Likelihood Risk Scoring
Adequacy of Existing Controls
Trends
Escalation
DEFINITIONS
TABLE 1
Corporate Objectives1. Improve health, quality and maintain safety of local NHS services.
2. Sustain an effective grip on finance, performance and QIPP
3. Proactively manage the transition to the new commissioning system.
TABLE 4Name of Directorate
Development
Operations
Finance
Performance
Acute Contracting
QIPP & Strategy
Primary Care
Medical Director
Workforce
Lambeth BSU
Southwark BSU
Lewisham BSU
Bromley BSU
Bexley BSU
Greenwich BSU
TABLE 5
Risk Category
Change
Financial
Governance
Legal & Compliance
Operations
Information Management and
Technology
People
These concern risks that programmes and projects do not deliver agreed benefits on
time and within agreed budget and or/introduce new or changed risks that are not
effectively identified and managed.
These concern the effective management and control of the finances of the Trust. The
risk events can range from insufficient funding, poor budget management, mismanage
assets and liabilities and failure to collect due revenues
These concern the day to day issues NHS SEL is confronted with as it strives to deliver
its strategic objectives. They can be anything from loss of data to failure of a key IT
system. It covers risk events such as technological breakdown, loss of hard or soft
copy data, failure by 3rd party vendor to deliver service, breakdown in partnership with
These concern insufficient human capital (capacity and capability), inappropriate staff
behaviour. These risks can have a significant impact to the performance and reputation
of NHS SEL.
These concern the establishment of an effective organisational structure with clear lines
of authorities and accountabilities. The risk events can include inappropriate decision
making and delegation of authorities, lack of appropriate tone set by leadership and
lack of Board cohesiveness. All can result in sub optimal performance and losses for
NHS SEL.
These concern such as H&S, consumer protection, data protection, employment
practices, failing to comply with employment legislation or industrial action, claims
against PCTs or Care Trusts in SEL and regulatory issues
These concern the day to day concerns NHS SEL is confronted with as it strives to
deliver its strategic objectives. They can be anything from loss of key staff to process
failure It covers risk events such as failure by 3rd party vendor to deliver service for the
operation, breakdown in partnership with 3rd party,, failure to manage internal change
etc. Operational risks are largely short to medium term horizon where frequency is
high/medium likelihood and low to high impact.
Strategic
Clinical
TABLE 6 Impact Score ( Severity Levels)
Impact Categories 1 2 3 4 5
Categories Negligible Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Business Objectives/Projects
Insignificant cost increase/schedule
slippage.
Barely noticeable reduction in scope or
quality
<5 % over project budget.
Schedule slippage or
minor reduction in
quality/scope
5-10% over project budget.
Schedule slippage or
reduction in scope or
quality
Non-compliance with
national 10-25% over project
budget.
Schdule slippage.
Key objective not met.
Incident leading >25%
over project budget.
Schedule slippage.
Key objectves not met.
Injury (Physical/Psychological)
Minor injury not requiring first aid or no
apparent injury.
No time off work
Minor injury or illness, first
aid treatment needed.
Requriring time off work
for >3 days
Increase in length of
hospital stay by 1-3 days
Moderate injury requiring
professional intervention.
Requiring time off work for
4-14 days
Increase in length of
hospital stay by 4-15 days
RIDDOR/Agency
reportable
An event which impacts on
a small number of patients
Major injury leading to long
term incapacity/disability
Requiring time off work for
>14 days
Increase in length of
hospital stay by >15 days
Mismanagement of patient
care with long term effects
Incident leading to death.
Multiple permanent
injuries irreversible health
effects
An event which impacts
on a large number of
patients
Service/Business Interruption
Loss interruption of >1 hour
Minimal or no impact on the
environment
Loss interruption of >8
hours
Minor impact on
environment
Loss interruption of >1 day
Moderate impact on
environment
Loss interruption of >1 week
Major impact on
environment
Permanent loss of service
or facility
Catastrophic impact on
environment
Adverse publicity/reputation
Rumours
Potential for public concern
Local media coverage -
short term reduction in
public confidence
Elements of public
expectation not being met
Local media coverage -
long term reduction in
public confidence
National media coverage
with <3 days service well
below reasonable public
expectation
National media coverage
with >3 days service well
below reasonable public
expectation. MP
concerned (questions in
House)
Total loss of public
confidence
Complaints/Claims
Locally resolved complaint
Risk of claim remote
Justified complaint
peripheral to clinical care
Claim less than £10k
Below excess claim.
Justified complaint
involving lack of
appropriate care
Claim(s) between £10k
and £100k
Claim above excess level.
Claim(s) between £100k and
£1 million
Multiple justified complaints
Multiple claims or single
major claim >£1 million
Inspection/Audit
Minor recommendations.
Minor non-compliance with standards
Recommendations
givens.
Non-compliance with
standards
Reduced performance
rating if unresolved
Reduced rating.
Challenging
recommendations.
Non-compliance with core
standards
Enforcement Action. Low
rating.
Critical report. Major non-
compliance with core
standards
Improvement notices
Prosecution. Zero Rating.
Severely critical report.
Complete systems change
required.
HR/Organisational Development
Staffing and Competence
Short term low staffing level that
temporarily reduces service quality (<1
day )
Low staffing level that
reduces the service
quality
Late delivery of key
objective/service due to
lack of staff
Unsafe staffing level or
competence (>1 day)
Low staff morale
Poor staff attendence for
mandatory/key training
Uncertain delivery of key
objective/service due to lack
of staff
Unsafe staffing level or
competence (>5 days)
Loss of key staff
Very low staff morale
No staff attending
mandatory/key training
Non -delivery of key
objective/service due to
lack of staff.
Ongoing unsafe staffing
levels or competence.
Loss of several key staff.
No staff attending
mandatory training/key
training on an ongoing
basis
These concern the long term strategic objectives of the Trust. They can be affected by
external factors such as the economy, changes in the political environment,
technological changes, changes in customer behaviour or needs, legal and regulatory
changes, missing opportunities and mismanagement by the Senior Management Team.
The strategic risks are mainly significant risks that can potentially impact the whole
Trust. They are also in a lot of cases cross cutting risks that impact across the Trust
rather than just one area.
These concern risks that arise directly from the provision and delivery of healthcare to
patients. This includes clinical errors and negligence, healthcare associated infection
and failure to obtain consent.
Financial
Small loss Loss >0.1% of budget Loss >0.25% of budget Loss >0.5% of budget Loss >1% of budget
Loss of contract/payment
by results
TABLE 7a
Risk Matrix ImpactLikelihood Negligible Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Rare 1 2 3 4 5
Almost Certain (5) (>80%) - Will undoubtedly
happen/recur, possibly frequently Unlikely 2 4 6 8 10
Likely (4) (61-80%) - Will probably happen/recur,
but is not a persisting
issue/circumstance Possible 3 6 9 12 15
Possible (3) (41-60%) - Might happen or recur
occasionally Likely 4 8 12 16 20
Unlikely (2) (20-40%) - Do not expect it to
happen/recur but it is possible Almost Certain 5 10 15 20 25
Rare (1) (<20%) - This will probably never
happen/recur TOLERANCE THRESHOLD
TABLE 7b TABLE 7c
Key Levels of Risk Management Actions
1-3 Low Risk Low Risk
To be brought to the
attention of the
department/team leader.
4-6 Moderate Risk Moderate Risk
8-12 Significant Risk Significant Risk
15-25 High Risk High Risk
Adequate
Minor weaknesses exist in the
control.
Effective
The control never fails, and achieves
its intended management objectives.
Excessive
The design or operation of the
control is over-engineered / too
resource intensive / too expensive in
relation to the actual risk exposed.
Deficient
The control / mitigation activity has a
fundamental flaw, and does not
achieve the management objectives
intended. In terms of the control
environment there is a control
missing.
Accept Some risks may be minimal or unavoidable and retention acceptable
Mitigate (See action plan) Reducing or controlling the likelihood and consequence of the occurrence
Avoid Not proceeding with the activity to generate the risk
Transfer (See action plan) Arranging for another party to bear or share some part of the risk, through contracts, partnerships, joint ventures, etc
↑ Risk is worsening
↓ Risk is improving
↔ Risk is static
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
Immediate action required by Executive Director, Heads of Department or Nominated Professional Leads. To be brought to the attention
of the PCT Board and Risk Committee/Clinical Governance Committee. Carry out root cause analysis - review risk assessment. A
Director must be informed and he/she will take responsibility for immediately planning action
Line Manager - immediate control measures in place - review risk assessment - inform Heads of Department and Nominated Professional
Lead. Specific responsibility for risk assessment and action planning must be allocated to a named person. Deadline for completion will
usually be within 6 to 12 months and will depend on the availability of resources.
Urgent attention required. To be brought to the attention of the responsible Director, Heads of Department, Nominated Professional
Lead, Line Manager - immediate control measures in place - review risk assessment - action plan devised. Within one month of
identification appropriate action must be agreed. The deadline for implementation and reassessment will normally be no later than 6
months from identification.
Trends
Adequacy of Existing Controls
Risk Decisions
Qualitative Assessment for
Probability /LikelihoodProbability / Likelihood
Probability/Likelihood scores
TABLE 7
Likelihood Categories
↑ Escalated upwards to next level
↓ De-escalated downwards
↔ Managed at current level
R Poor progress being made
G Completed or on target to achieve by due date
A Target date will not be met but good progress being made
DEFINITIONS NOTES
Risk ID
Unique reference number starting with 3
letter abbreviation for directorate + risk id
number
Directorate - Governance;
Risk ID number is 3 e.g.
GOV/R3. If the risk has been
escalated to the Corporate
Risk Register than it will be
CPT/R4 (GOV/R3). The risk
ID in bracket will indicate its
original location
Business Objective
Underlying corporate/directorate objectives
Identify your key objectives
before identifying your key
risks (See table 5
Ratings_Bandings)
Corporate / Directorate / Service
/ Activity / Process Name of business area/function
Date Raised Date the risk was identified
Risk Category Risks grouped into common themes
See table 4 - Risk
Categories
Risk Assessor Name of person conducting the risk assessment
Risk OwnerName of person responsible for ensuring the management of the risk
Each risk must have an
accountable person
Risk Description
(There is a risk that…caused
by......leading to........)
Risk statement
Describe the condition that
could result in a potential
impact to the Trust and its
objectives. Identify possible
causes that may give rise to
this risk occurring.
Impact Category Overall impact to the Trust See table 7 - Impact
Inherent Likelihood
Likelihood of the risk occurring without any controls
Assess the chance of a risk
occurring if there were no
controls or actions in place
(See table 6 - Likelihood)
Inherent impact
Impact to the Trust if the risk occurs
Assess the potential impact
if the risk materialises
without any controls in place
(See table 6 - Impact)
Inherent RiskInherent Likelihood x Inherent Impact =
Inherent Risk - the exposure arising from a
specific risk without any controls or before
any action has been taken to manage it.
See table 1 to 3 - Risk
Matrix to plot the risk against
likelihood and impact and
establish what level of action
is required based on the
matrix
Existing controls in place/actions
implemented
Controls/Actions currently in place to mitigate the risk in question
Describe the controls/actions
currently in place to mitigate
the risk. Consider only
those controls that address
the causes.
Adequacy of Existing Control
Are the controls both design and operationally effective?
Do the controls mitigate the
risk? Are they the right
controls? Are they been
performed as designed?
(See table 7 - Control
Evaluation)
Assurances on Controls
Where can we gain evidence that our
controls/systems on which we placing
reliance are effective?
e.g.Management checks, Internal Audit,
Clinical
Audit, Commission for Health Improvement,
External Audit, Local Counter Fraud
Services,
NHS Litigation Authority, other reviews
What evidence do we have
the controls/actions in place
are in operation and
operating effectively?
Positive AssuranceList evidence that shows we are reasonably
managing our risks and our objectives are
being delivered?
How do we know that the
controls/actions are
mititgating the risks and we
are meeting our objectives?
Action RAG
TABLE 12
Escalation
TABLE 11
Control GapWhere are we failing to put controls/systems
in place? Where are we failing in making
them effective?
If the controls are not
designed or operating
effectively then where are
the weaknesses?
Gaps in Assurance
Where are we failing to gain evidence that
our controls/systems, on which we place
reliance, are effective?
Highlight the gaps in
evidence
Residual Likelihood Likelihood of the risk occurring with existing
controls/actions in place
Assess the chance of a risk
occurring given the existing
controls or actions in place
Residual ImpactImpact to the Trust if the risk occurs given
the existing controls/actions in place
Assess the potential impact
if the risk materialises given
the existing controls in place
Current Residual Risk
Residual Likelihood x Residual Impact =
Residual risk - the exposure arising from a
specific risk after implementing existing
controls and actions have been taken to
manage it.
Acceptance DecisionBased on the residual score, is the risk
acceptable or requires further mitigation? A
score of 9 or above is unacceptable
If the risk requires further
mitigation, describe the
proposed actions under
Action Plan. See table 11
and 12 Ratings_Bandings to
help you decide how the risk
should be treated.
Target LikelihoodLikelihood of the risk occurring with
proposed controls/actions in place
Target ImpactImpact to the Trust if the risk occurs given
the proposed controls/actions in place
Target Residual Risk
Target Residual Likelihood x Target
Residual Impact = Target Residual risk - the
estimated exposure arising from a specific
risk after implementing the proposed
controls and actions
Where do we want the risk
to be once the proposed
actions are in place?
Target Reduction DateEstimated completion date to achieve
Target Residual Risk score
Review Date Date the risk is to be next reviewed
Date removed from register Upon closure the risk is removed from risk register
Status Open or close risk
Monthly Trend Movement To what extent is the exposure been
reduced each month to an acceptable level?
See table 9 - Risk
Monitoring
Escalation
Can the risk be managed at the current or
does it require escalation up the
management chain?
See table 9 - Risk
Monitoring
R
A
G
Likelihood Negligible Minor Moderate Major CatastrophicRare 1 2 3 4 5
Unlikely 2 4 6 8 10
Possible 3 6 9 12 15
Likely 4 8 12 16 20
Almost Certain 5 10 15 20 25
Key Levels of Risk
1-3 Low Risk
4-6 Moderate Risk
8-12 Significant Risk
15-25 High Risk
TOLERANCE THRESHOLD
Risk Matrix Consequence
Formal Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group (060912) / Enc E(vi)
Stakeholder Communication and Engagement PlanSUMMARY
Version 0.2
Date 16/07/2012
Ref. Message Category Medium Stakeholder Start Date End Date Lead
SCE1 1. Raise awareness of AQP Website
Public press release
LINk/HealthWatch
AQP Poster
Patient Participation Groups
GP Briefing
Referral Management System
Briefing
Provider Briefing
Supply 2 Health
OSC
Care Group Contacts
Public
Partner
Provider
Opinion Former
Care Group
01/09/2012 31/03/2013 MI
SCE2 2. Identify local priorities for
AQP
AQP Event
CCG Boards
Care Group Meetings
Provider Correspondence
Partner
Care Group
Provider
01/10/2011 30/12/2011 0
SCE3 3. Influence AQP service
design
National Service Specification
CCG Boards
Care Group Meetings
Decommissioning Notices
Partner
Care Group
Provider
01/04/2012 30/09/2012 0
SCE4 4. Influence AQP procurement
and contracting
Load Advert on Supply 2 Health
Local Assessment Team
Partner
Care Group
Provider
25/05/2012 30/10/2012 0
SCE5 5. Mobilise new AQP services Provider Meetings Provider 30/09/2012 31/12/2012 0
SCE6 6. Performance management
of AQP contract
Quarterly Monitoring Meeting
CCG Board
Care Group Feedback
Provider
Partner
Care Group
01/02/2013 01/05/2012 0
Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
Version 0.2
Date 16/07/2012
Ref. Message Medium Stakeholder Start Date End Date Lead
SCE1 1. Raise awareness of AQP:
What is AQP and why is it being done?
What will it mean for existing/new patients?
Raise issues and concerns with AQP
Website
Public press release
LINk/HealthWatch
AQP Poster
Patient Participation Groups
GP Briefing
Referral Management System Briefing
Provider Briefing
Supply 2 Health
OSC
Care Group Contacts
Public
Partner
Provider
Opinion Former
Care Group
01/09/2012 31/03/2013 MI
Ref. Medium Task Start Date End Date Lead
1.01 Website Develop content for web-page
Post content on relevant websites
Create links to relevant information
1.02 Public press release Write content for public press release
Develop list of relevant publications
Send press release to relevant publications
Publish content in in-house publications
1.03 LINk/HealthWatch Develop a LINk Briefing
Book slots on LINK Meeting
Collate feedback from LINk
Write a 'You Said, We Did' Report
1.04 AQP Poster Write content for AQP poster
Design AQP poster
Sign off proofs
Print AQP Poster
Develop list of appropriate venues
Distribute to venues
1.05 Patient Participation Groups Develop brief AQP presentation
Book slots in PPG agenda
Collate feedback from PPGs
Write a 'You Said, We Did' Report
All
Public
1.06 GP Briefing Develop consistent correspondence for GPs
Follow up correspondence with brief call or
visit
1.07 Referral Management System Briefing Develop consistent correspondence for RMS
Follow up correspondence with brief call or
visit
1.08 Provider Briefing Develop AQP provider briefing
Develop list of main commissioning contact
for relevant providers
Deliver AQP provider briefing
1.09 Supply 2 Health Post AQP provider briefing on Supply to
Health
1.1 OSC Develop brief AQP presentation
Book slots in OSC agenda
Collate feedback from OSCs
Write a 'You Said, We Did' Report
1.11 Care Group Contacts Develop an AQP Care Group briefing
Develop a list of care group contacts
Deliver AQP Care Group Briefing to care
group contacts
Care Group
Partner
Provider
Opinion Former
Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
Version 0.2
Date 16/07/2012
Ref. Message Medium Stakeholder Start Date End Date Lead
SCE2 2. Identify local priorities for AQP
What is the decision making process?
What are local health priorities based on local
plans and patient feedback?
Get information on activity/price of current
services
AQP Event
CCG Boards
Care Group Meetings
Provider Correspondence
Partner
Care Group
Provider
01/10/2011 30/12/2011
Ref. Medium Task Start Date End Date Lead
2.01 AQP Event Develop agenda for AQP Event
Identify Date and Venue
Identify speakers
Develop presentations
Hold Event
Collate Feedback
Write a 'You Said, We Did' Report
2.02 CCG Boards Develop a CCG Presentation
Deliver CCG Presentation
Collate feedback from CCGs
Write a 'You Said, We Did' Report
2.03 Care Group Meetings Develop a Care Group Presentation
Deliver Care Group Presentation
Collate feedback from Care Groups
All
Partner
Care Group
Write a 'You Said, We Did' Report
2.04 Provider Correspondence Write to providers for relevant activity
and price of services
Collate Information
Provider
Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
Version 0.2
Date 16/07/2012
Ref. Message Medium Stakeholder Start Date End Date Lead
SCE3 3. Influence AQP service design
Develop service specification/Indicators/Tariff
Develop referral pathway/process
Serve decommissioning notices
National Service Specification
CCG Boards
Care Group Meetings
Decommissioning Notices
Partner
Care Group
Provider
01/04/2012 30/09/2012
Ref. Medium Task Start Date End Date Lead
3.01 National Service Specification Email National Service
Specification/indicators/tariff
Collate Feedback
Consider and amend service
specification
3.02 CCG Boards Develop a CCG Presentation
Deliver CCG Presentation
Collate feedback from CCGs
Write a 'You Said, We Did' Report
3.03 Care Group Meetings Develop a Care Group Presentation
Deliver Care Group Presentation
Collate feedback from Care Groups
Write a 'You Said, We Did' Report
All
Partner
Care Group
Provider
3.04 Decommissioning Notices Determine an appropriate Go Live
date
Develop a provider
decommissioning notice
Deliver provider decommissioning
notice
Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
Version 0.2
Date 16/07/2012
Ref. Message Medium Stakeholder Start Date End Date Lead
SCE4 4. Influence AQP procurement and
contracting
Advertise AQP Offer
Apply for AQP services
Select AQP providers
Load Advert on Supply 2 Health
Local Assessment Team
Partner
Care Group
Provider
25/05/2012 30/10/2012
Ref. Medium Task Start Date End Date Lead
4.01 Load Advert on Supply 2 Health Determine dates for AQP service line
Develop advert for AQP Service Line
Load advert on Supply 2 Health
4.02 Local Assessment Team Nominate appropriate partners for
LAT
Develop briefing for LAT
Train LAT on e-procurement
Assess applications
Hold consensus meeting
Load final decisions on Supply 2
Health
Providers
Partner/Care Group
Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
Version 0.2
Date 16/07/2012
Ref. Message Medium Stakeholder Start Date End Date Lead
SCE5 5. Mobilise new AQP services
Agree implementation of AQP services
Repatriate existing patients into new services
Provider Meetings Provider 30/09/2012 31/12/2012
Ref. Medium Task Start Date End Date Lead
5.01 Provider Meetings Develop mobilisation plan
Hold mobilisation meetings with
provider
Agree implementation of AQP
contract
Provider
Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
Version 0.2
Date 16/07/2012
Ref. Message Medium Stakeholder Start Date End Date Lead
SCE6 6. Performance management of AQP
contract
Monitor according to standards/indicators
Receive feedback on chosen providers
Quarterly Monitoring Meeting
CCG Board
Care Group Feedback
Provider
Partner
Care Group
01/02/2013 01/05/2012
Ref. Medium Task Start Date End Date Lead
6.01 Quarterly Monitoring Meeting Alert providers to Monitoring Meeting
Hold Monitoring meeting
Agree improvement plan
6.02 CCG Board Book slot on CCG Boards
Collate Feedback regarding AQP
services
Feed recommendations into
improvement plan
6.03 Care Group Feedback Book slot on Care Groups
Collate Feedback regarding AQP
services
Feed recommendations into
improvement plan
Provider
Partner
Care Group