Monitor: regulating NHS Foundation Trusts - Public Accounts Committee Contents



1  Monitor's regulation of NHS foundation trusts

1. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department of Health (the Department) and Monitor about Monitor's performance in regulating NHS foundation trusts, and how it is responding to the new challenges it faces.[1]

2. Monitor was created in 2004 as the independent regulator for NHS foundation trusts. It assesses NHS trusts for foundation trust status, and authorises those that meet the required standards to become foundation trusts. It regulates the 147 trusts that have achieved foundation status, and intervenes where they breach their regulatory conditions to help them improve. Monitor is an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department. It is independent of government, in terms of its regulatory decisions, but is accountable to Parliament and the Department for its performance and value for money. In regulating NHS foundation trusts, Monitor has to work with other bodies including the Care Quality Commission (which regulates the quality and safety of healthcare), the NHS Trust Development Authority (which oversees the performance of the remaining NHS trusts), NHS England and local clinical commissioning groups (which commission healthcare from trusts).[2]

3. To earn the greater financial and operational freedoms that foundation trust status brings, NHS trusts have to demonstrate to Monitor that they are financially sustainable, well-led and locally accountable. Despite this, at 31 December 2013, 25 NHS foundation trusts (one in six) were in breach of their regulatory conditions, an all-time high. One trust was in breach on financial grounds, nine on governance grounds, and 15 on both financial and governance grounds. At the time of our hearing Monitor estimated that 39 of 147 NHS foundation trusts (some 26%) would be in deficit by the end of 2013-14.[3]

4. Monitor told us that there were four main reasons why trusts were in difficulty after gaining foundation trust status. Firstly, key members of the leadership teams of some trusts had changed over time and the new leadership was not as strong. Secondly, the financial environment in which trusts were currently operating was much more challenging than when many trusts were authorised. Thirdly, the standards Monitor expected in relation to care quality had become more demanding, following the failings in patient care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. And lastly, Monitor had on occasion made the wrong decision in granting foundation trust status to trusts that were not strong enough.[4]

5. When NHS foundation trusts are in breach of their regulatory conditions, Monitor intervenes to help them improve. For example, it may require them to change their Chair or Chief Executive, employ turnaround directors, or commission external consultancy support. Despite this, some trusts have been in breach of their regulatory conditions for a long time—three of the 25 trusts in breach at 31 December 2013 had been in this position for over four years.[5]

6. Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust is one of the three trusts which have been in breach of their regulatory conditions since 2009. By 31 December 2013, it had been in breach for reasons of care quality for 49 months, since 2009. Monitor failed to give appropriate challenge until local MPs declared they has lost confidence in the Trust's leadership. Local Members of Parliament declared that they had lost confidence in the Trust's leadership. Monitor acknowledged that it should have moved much more quickly to replace senior staff at the Trust. It believed that the new leadership team were now turning things around, but it accepted that reaching this point had taken far too long. It agreed that it should have been prepared to intervene more strongly when the Trust did not sort itself out within a fixed time period. In addition, Monitor noted that, prior to the Care Quality Commission's new inspection regime, neither Monitor nor the Trust itself had had sufficient insight into the underlying causes of the problems.[6]

7. Monitor admitted that it had been slow to improve the leadership at Heatherwood and Wexham Park NHS Foundation Trust. At 31 December 2013, the Trust had been in breach for 53 months, despite Monitor's interventions. Monitor told us that it had decided that replacing a few key people was insufficient to turn the Trust around, and that it needed to strengthen the whole leadership team. It had also become clear to Monitor that the Trust would not be able to return to a position in which it was clinically and financially sustainable in its own right. With Monitor's support, the Trust was now pursuing a merger with nearby Frimley Park NHS Foundation Trust.[7]

8. The Department acknowledged that there was a shortage of good leaders across the NHS. In particular, in contrast to some other countries, not enough clinicians were involved in running trusts. The Department told us that it was taking steps to attract and develop more high-calibre leaders. It had approved the first 50 people, including 35 clinicians, to attend an accelerated course at Harvard Business School, and it had asked Sir Stuart Rose to work with it, to improve the calibre of NHS leaders.[8]

9. For a growing number of NHS foundation trusts in difficulty, the underlying causes are not necessarily about leadership, or other matters internal to the trust, but are rooted in the wider local health economy, such as local commissioners being in financial difficulty. Monitor told us that the ability of trusts to fix problems on their own had become increasingly limited. In some cases, managing the trust well was not enough and more fundamental structural change was required. In these circumstances, Monitor needed to work with other bodies, including the NHS Trust Development Authority and NHS England, to develop a plan for the local health economy as a whole. While this was now happening in relation to Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust and Bedford NHS Trust, Monitor acknowledged that Milton Keynes had been in trouble for some time before it realised this was the right approach. Monitor told us that it was now seeking to step in sooner in similar cases, such as at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in King's Lynn. Monitor noted that it was now responsible for the failure regime. This responsibility gave it the power to appoint a special administrator, if it became clear that an NHS foundation trust was not sustainable in its existing form, and helped Monitor take appropriate action sooner.[9]

10. The proportion of NHS foundation trusts in breach of their regulatory conditions has increased significantly in recent years. At 31 December 2013, 17% of trusts were in breach, up from 11% two years previously. Monitor told us that it expected the number of trusts in breach to continue to rise. Coping with this increase would be challenging for Monitor, as intervening in trusts in difficulty was resource intensive, particularly in terms of the demands on its senior staff. Monitor noted that it was working with the NHS Trust Development Authority and NHS England and, as a result, they had identified 11 local health economies which they considered would benefit from early support.[10]

11. The Department confirmed that it was still the Government's policy intention that all trusts should become foundation trusts, but it had not set a target date for this to be achieved. However, just two NHS trusts gained foundation trust status in 2012-13 and, as at 31 December 2013, 98 NHS trusts remained.[11]


1   C&AG's Report, Monitor: Regulating NHS foundation trusts, Session 2013-14, HC 1071, 26 February 2014 Back

2   C&AG's Report, paras 1, 2, 4, 1.5 Back

3   Qq 1, 12, 131-132; C&AG's Report, paras 2.2,3.14 Back

4   Qq 2-3, 5-8, 12 Back

5   Qq 3, 4; C&AG's report, paras 3.26-3.27, Figure 11 Back

6   Qq 17-21, 23; C&AG's report, Figure 11 Back

7   Qq 13, 15, 53; C&AG's report, Figure 11 Back

8   Q 117 Back

9 9   Qq 24, 26, 52-54; C&AG's Report, paras 18, 3.28 Back

10   Qq 62, 70, 105; C&AG's Report, paras 3.30-3.31, Figure 16 Back

11   Qq 101-102, 138; C&AG's Report, para 12 Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 4 July 2014