Nottinghamshire Healthcare's FTe application
As you are already aware our trust made an application for
Foundation Trust (FT) status but was turned down because of our High
Secure services at Rampton Hospital. Since then our trust has been
busy working (with two other similar trusts) to establish a new type
of Trust status; Foundation Trust Equivalent (FTe).
A different kind of Foundation Trust, so different in fact are FTes;
that we think it would have been best practice, more open,
transparent and accountable, if our Trust board had begun its new
application for FTe status by clearly defining the differences
between the two types of Trusts
Related resources:
Another failing Foundation Trust |
Failing Foundation Trust |
5 questions - Te feedback form |
FTes have no
private patient cap |
FTe governors |
FTs in / or have been in breach |
Foundation trusts |
Foundation trust watch | Mental health foundation trusts
& FTes
| Mid-Staffs Foundation Trust
| 300 Nurses to lose pay; NHS Foundation Trust
| Hospitals granted foundation status; despite failings
|
DERBYSHIRE Mental Health Services NHS Trust; application for FT status turned down.
|
FT Health bosses; awarding themselves massive pay rises
Why we think the consultation phase was flawed.
Reading this document (page 1 - item 2 - NHS FTe consultation) leaves you to believe that consultation took place around the subject of FTe. This wasn't the case.
The consultation of staff and the public was conducted using information about Foundation Trust status (FT) and not Foundation Trust Equivalent status (FTe). There was no attempt to define the differences, not even the key differences.
- Here is one of the presentations used to brief staff and the public, right up to the last public consultation event, in Nottingham.
- When asked at the same meeting, on open mic; what a FTe's freedoms/differences are - even at this late stage in the consultation process; an answer could not be given.
This wouldn't be so significant if the differences between FT and FTe were slight.
- However, the differences between FT and FTe are, in fact, so
considerable; we think that our trust should not have begun
consulting the public or its staff without being able to carry-out
that consultation from the context of FTe.
- We are struggling to understand how accountability will take
place, for all parties involved, if only the Board of Directors
know how this 'FTe' Trust will operate.
-
We also wonder how anyone can make an informed decision about supporting FTe status or becoming a member; without having access to ALL of the facts; for instance:
-
Why haven't we been told about FTes having no private patient cap, unlike their FT counterparts.
-
Why haven't we been told that FTe 'governors' don't have a statutory role, unlike their FT counterparts.
-
Why have nearly 6000 staff been made FTe members without their consent or consultation.
-
Why haven't questions, raised at staff FT briefings, been answered.
-
Why have only 1169 individuals been consulted; the trust has nearly 6000 staff and many more patients and carers.
-
We also think that you, the Trust's staff, should
have been given the same rights, to join (become a member) as the
public have been given; NOT made a member without their consent. This,
we think, would have demonstrated, fairness, equality
and accountability.
Equally, we think; that if you (the staff) currently choose to
'opt-out' of being a member then you shouldn't be
disadvantaged by being made to wait until the
trust becomes a FTe before you will be allowed to 'opt-out'.
After
all, you didn't have to wait to become a member, that was done by
default without your consent; a decision made by our board of
directors, without proper consultation or permission.
FTs & FTes are supposed to bring about greater levels of local accountability and better patient care.
- How will accountability be achieved if you don't include staff, patients and the public in a full and frank consultation; explaining ALL aspects and differences of FT & FTe status.
- How will accountability be achieved; FTe governors don't have a statutory role and some governors are appointed.
- We can't find any evidence that FTs bring about better patient care; we can however find evidence that many FTs are struggling to meet their obligations laid down by Monitor and some like Mid-Staffs & Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust are failing with deadly consequences. See our related resources above.
This is why your branch has begun to tackle this very important
issue.
We want to know:
- Why FTe's don't have a private patient cap, unlike their FT counterparts.
- Why staff have been made members by default and have not been properly consulted.
- Why any opt-out; can only be completed after FTe status is approved.
- Why FTe governors have no statutory role, unlike their FT counterparts.
- Why FTe directors have no statutory duty to their governors; unlike their FT counterparts.
These are the questions we have presented to the
Chair of the Board and have asked the Board of Directors to supply
answers to. You can
download the complete list here.
We would like your help. Please take 3-5 minutes to complete our FTe feedback form