Tuesday, 26 February 2008

BLPT Trust Board and Money...

Saving money. Apparently the Strategic Health Authority (bless their little cotton socks) have now told the Trust that cost reductions based on efficiency savings (CRES) must be increased from the 1.5% currently included in the programmes to 3%. The minutes note that,
"Members identified that increasing the CRES beyond that which had been agreed to date, would impact significantly on service provision and service user experience, as well as increase risk, and therefore the matter required more discussion."
They also state that, "this issue would be discussed in greater detail, with proper consideration of possible scenarios, at the development sessions. " I don't seem to be able to find any record of similar decisions from development sessions; I hope these are recorded and accountable. As the Board suggest, the potential impact on service provision is major.

"Lower priority" work in the Capital Programme may have to be delayed, the Finance officer stated. Geoff Keats made an appeal for services to service users to be prioritised. I wonder which is of higher priority - the new cafe at Luton HQ or improving the dreadful conditions at Weller Wing?

A Non-Excutive Director made the suggestion that departments should bid for funds, with the most convincing bid winning the prize; the Finance Director pointed out that for this to happen other departments would have to lose money.

The Trust's Finance Director himself is leaving BLPT for "an extended period" to take up a "long term secondment to the Strategic Health Authority". Senior staff seem to be departing this ship in droves at the moment - this will be the second Executive Director to disappear within six months; major roles remain unfilled (the Trust were unable to appoint to the position of "Director of Professional Leadership and Practice Standards") or filled on a temporary basis, and there is comment on redundancies with the restructuring in Middle management, with posts not being filled in order to provide opportunities for those staff who would otherwise have to be made redundant. I may be misunderstanding here, but could there be opportunity for cost savings by not filling some of these management positions?

Instead, savings seem largely to come from reducing services to those people who most need them. Luton is to "delete" 7 posts in WAMH (saving an estimated £120,000) and Bedford is to delete "a range" of vacant posts, with a predicted saving of £217,000. At what cost to the service user, I have to wonder?


The Shrink said...

Very very grim.

Much badness.

Disillusioned said...

Agreed, Shrink.

The Trust itself admits it has inadequate provision for talking therapies. Their argument for not providing me with support when I was incrisis was lack of staff. The main inpatient "facility" in my area is more grim than grim. And yet they are appointing new Directors all over the place, piling money into Foundation Trust status and building a new cafe at Trust HQ.

MMP said...

Foundation Trusts are something I have a deep distrust of. In order to prove and justify, tick the right boxes and fill in the right forms......everything spins down the drains and we all rush around being busy. Then being ill. Then leaving.

jaundiced? moi? never....

mandy lifeboats appeal said...

The leaner and meaner stragetic health authorities are little hitlers in drawers. Another bunch of penny pinching shisters doing their master's bidding.

I thought the Tories were bad, and they were, but Labour are even worse because they are natzi's in red boxer shorts (g strings for the ladies).

I hear that the mammothly ineffectual NIMHE/CSIP/hash up are going to be absorbed into these SHA's. So everyone at NIMHE HQ is sucking up to the SHA suits big time.

Oh the games these people play.

And the Trust seniority..well they will be sucking up to anyone who will give them a bottle of plonk for their Crimbo party.

Jaundiced MMP? I look like smoked haddock here!!!

Disillusioned said...

MMP - I can understand your suspicions. From what I have seen it is all about boxes and forms and not about people (and I include staff in that).

Mandy, I haven't looked much at SHA, but what i am seeing I don't like.