Executive Summary
Transcript of Executive Summary
Appendix 1
(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
Amendment History:
Version Date Amendment HistoryV0.1 28 October 2005 First draft for review to Project Sponsor
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOC ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH
CREATED BY INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT.
Page 1 of 26
V2.0 13 February 2006 Second draft to Project sponsor for reviewV3.0 16th February Project Board membersV3.1 17th February 2006 Pagination correctionsV3.2 21st February 2006 Typo corrections.V3.3 5th March 2006 New finance modelling addedV3.4 9th March 2006 Typo correctionsV3.5 10th April 2006 Updated Financial modelFinal 11th April 2006
Reviewers:
This document must be reviewed by the following.
Name Signature Title Date of Issue Version
Brigid Musselwhite
Director of Planning and
Strategic Development
13th Feb 2006 V0.1
Approvals:
This document requires the following approvals.
Name Signature Title Date of Issue VersionPACS Project
BoardChair
RUH Trust Board
Chair
RNHRD Trust Board
Chair
AGW CfH Board
Chair
Document Location
This business case has been created using a template provided by the National Programme for Information and Technology (CfH) using a standard five case model.
This is a controlled document. The amendment history outlines the development of the document and those involved in the version amendment and approval process. The comments box makes it clear the version which is agreed as the final version.
On receipt of a new version, please destroy all previous versions.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 2 of 26
Related Documents
These documents will provide additional information.
Ref no Doc Reference Number Title Version
1 CFH-NPO-GEN-IP-0067 Glossary of Terms Consolidated.doc Latest
Glossary of Terms
List any new terms created in this document. Mail the librarian to have these included in the master glossary above [1].
Term Acronym Definition
Picture Archiving and Communication System
PACS
National Care Records Service
NCRS
Radiology Information System
RIS
Local Service Provider LSP
Connecting for Health CfH
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 3 of 26
Contents
1Executive Summary................................................................................................................51.1 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................51.2 Strategic Case Overview.................................................................................................8Economic Case Overview....................................................................................................10
There is an ongoing piece of work to gain clarity on an issue around the accounting treatment of the refreshed assets which could affect the impact on revenue funding during the first five years. Work with reference to National guidance on refreshing the assets may have a beneficial effect on the distribution of revenue payments across the whole life of the project. ................................................................................................................................................ 17
1.6 Financial Case Overview ..............................................................................................201.7 Management Case Overview......................................................................................221.9 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 26
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 4 of 26
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction and Purpose
This document is the Business Case to support the local investment in a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) to be procured for the Bath Clinical Area under the aegis of the Department of Heath Connecting for Health (CfH) programme. It is for approval by the Board of Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust (RUH NHS Trust), the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Foundation Trust (RNHRD), Bath and North East Somerset Primary Care Trust (BANES PCT), Kennet and North Wiltshire Primary Care Trust, West Wiltshire Primary Care Trust (Wiltshire PCTs) and Avon, Gloucester and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority (AGWSHA).
The implementation of PACS is now defined as a “core” part of the NHS Care Records Service (NCRS). Contracts are in place with Local Service Providers (LSP) to provide PACS services for Trusts in line with achieving the government target of all NHS Trusts to have PACS by March 2007. Implicit within this development is the requirement to ensure that compatible a Radiology Information System (RIS) exists at a local level which complements the implemented PACS solution. Radiology Information systems (RIS) services are likewise provided as part of the LSP Contracts.
Although the national procurement for an integrated NHS-wide PACS solution has achieved significant cost reductions on PACS equipment, local resources and funding in the form of cash savings and other funding sources will be required to implement it and to achieve the efficiency gains, across the health community, that PACS can bring for the benefit of patients. Detailed benefit appraisal and project objectives are described at 3.6 & 1.3
High level investment objectives are:
• To improve the patient experience by improving timeliness and accessibility of radiology reporting
• To improve the efficiency of radiology services
• To improve clinical safety through increased reporting and encouraging clinical/peer audit
• Contribute to the achievement of national access targets e.g. 18 weeks.
Approval is therefore required for a capital investment of £3.1m over the contract period until March 2017 (LSP contract ends June 2013). This represents the “undiscounted” cost for the provision of a full PACS option. Capital costs incurred for each Trust are detailed below:
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 5 of 26
RUH PACS Project Indicative Capital Costs
CfH Core Capital (40%)
SHA Core Capital (33%)
RUH Core Capital (27%)
RUH Additional
Capital (100%)
RNHRD Additional
Capital (100%)
No. of community modules
Community Additional
Capital (100%)
Service Revenue
Community Module (per module)
3£142,459.4
4£23,262.39
RNHRD
£44,907.32
£7,754.13
RUH Additional
£402,837.53 £57,393.78
RUH Core
£488,273.00
£561,114.07
SHA Core
£835,000.00
CfH Core £1,177,000.00
£488,273.0
0 £402,837.53
Total CfH £1,177,000.00
Total SHA£835,000.0
0
Total RUH £891,110.53
Total RNHRD£44,907.3
2
Total Community£142,459.4
4
Total service revenue £649,524.37
Total Project capital £3,090,477.29
Does not include building costs, networking costs or legacy system links.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 6 of 26
PACS will be available to other radiology service users but outside the scope of this project.
Costs exclude VAT and the future impact of inflation. Service charges will not apply until April 2007 but we will be required to pay the service charges for the project over a 9-year period.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 7 of 26
1.2 Strategic Case Overview
National Drivers
PACS is an important component of the National Care Records Service (NCRS). Recognising this, Connecting for Health (CfH) have separated PACS from the NCRS programme as an independent procurement stream to allow rapid implementation across England ahead and alongside of NCRS. It is planned to implement PACS in all Trusts in the Southern Cluster by end March 2007. The RUH timetabled go live date is November 2006.
The strategic case has been made at National level and has been mandated to the Trusts. The main strands of the Strategic case have taken into consideration the National context, local investment objectives, existing arrangements and future business needs.
1.3 Project Objectives
High Level Objective Overall Objective More Specific ‘SMART’ Objectives
To improve the patient experience by improving timeliness and accessibility of radiology reporting
Improved operational efficiency of Clinical Radiology
1. Report all activity next day. 2. Create spare capacity and income.3. Eliminate reporting waiting lists
Improved provision of images, clinical evaluations and reports
4. Provide images for out patients, in patients and MDT meetings on demand.
5. Provide images with minimum recall time.6. Provide one years worth of live image data.
More effective Clinical Radiology Services
7. Reduce use of hard copy images to < 3%8. 98% use of soft copy reporting9. Demonstrate improved Clinician satisfaction
Better service for Medico-legal and Access to Health Care Records enquiries
10. Faster turnaround of requests11. Cost effective and more useful provision of copies on
CD or DVD
To improve the efficiency of radiology services
Integration of Diagnostic Imaging Services
12. Integration of services to wider Health Care environment
13. Integration of services to NHS Care Record SystemTo ensure images are available wherever and whenever necessary
14. To reduce the time that junior doctors spend looking for and collating films by 90% within 12 months of implementation into clinical areas
15. Increase the number of images that are available for outpatient clinics to 95% 12 months after full rollout across community
16. To improve clinician satisfaction with the service provided by the Radiology Department following full implementation
To maximise the efficient use of available staffing resource 17. To reduce the amount of time that junior doctors
spend looking for and collating films by 90% within 12 months of implementation in clinical areas
18. Reduce the number of administrative staff needed within the Radiology Department by 25% within four years of full implementation at each site
19. Improve clinician satisfaction with the service provided by the Radiology Department following full implementation at each site
To reduce the need for storage space for images 20. Eliminate the need for film filing storage by 100%
following full implementation at each site
21. Reduce the number of hard copies by 95% immediately following full roll out
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 8 of 26
High Level Objective Overall Objective More Specific ‘SMART’ Objectives
To improve the quality of the service provided
22. Increase the incidence of reporting and verification of images to 100% by 2008
To improve clinical safety through increased reporting and encouraging clinical/peer audit
Governance 23. Reduced radiation exposure due to lower repeat films and incidence of “lost” films
24. Improved access to images thereby speeding up access to results
25. Increased availability of data for audit and teaching
26. More effective peer audit of scans through MDT meetings
Contribute to the achievement of national access targets e.g. 18 weeks.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 9 of 26
1.4 Project Benefits
Economic Case Overview
The preferred solution for PACS has been determined nationally. PACS will be in place across the NHS by March 2007 with services being delivered through the LSPs. The requirement for national integration with cluster storage and the NCRS has been determined at national level. Contracts have been put in place, within each cluster, for local delivery of the national PACS solution through the LSP. The decision to procure PACS as a core service through the LSP has been confirmed to the NHS by a DH letter of direction from Margaret Edwards.
This excludes the adoption of a Do Minimum option as a viable way forwards on the grounds that it non-strategic.
The economic case is intended to confirm the preferred option, to establish the preferred scope of the local option and to demonstrate Value for Money in terms of costs, risks and benefits. This Economic case appraises the relative costs, key quantifiable risks and key quantifiable benefits of local investment in a local health community wide PACS against a ‘Do Minimum’ scenario in order to provide a comparison of the quantified cash releasing and non-cash releasing benefits for the affordability analysis in the Financial Case and the Benefits Realisation Plan and Risk Register within the Management Case.
There is no requirement to demonstrate the value for money of the LSP PACS solution at local level. The case for the preferred way forward in terms of value for money of procuring, through the LSP, as opposed to a non-LSP route is made at national/cluster level.
CfH has signed a PACS contract for the Southern Cluster with Fujitsu Services as the Local Service Provider (LSP). The PACS solution being provided by Fujitsu is based extensively on the Centricity PACS product set from GE Healthcare. In specific Trusts within the cluster, including the RUH, the contract also includes deployment of a Radiology Information System (RIS) provided by Healthcare Software Systems (HSS). The RUH has undertaken an assessment of the need to implement the HSS system it is the recommendation of the Project Board that the Trust migrate from the existing RIS as a key element of this programme of work to ensure PACS requirement compatibility.
The cluster contract for deployment of PACS to the RUH includes the deployment charges for the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases (RNHRD) and that Trust has indicated it wishes to proceed with PACS as part of this initiative, but have elected not to proceed with the implementation of a replacement RIS.
1.5 Options
The Bath PACS procurement is based on a ‘medium sized Trust’ as determined by DoH and it is anticipated that this will finance a ‘core’ implementation. The Project Board has considered a number of deployment options:
Option A: Do Minimum
This is the status quo option and is included for baseline purposes. This option is characterised as continuation of the existing process with no implementation of PACS or replacement RIS (in RUH services). Each area in the Community continues to expand existing filing space (or contract additional external space to accommodate the projected increase in workload) and recruits additional filing and administrative staff to manage the projected increase in workload and increased capacity. Digital images provided to the patient on CD at other sites, will require laser printing with Bath Community providers. Increased levels of radiology staff, (radiologists and radiographers) will be required to maintain service levels.
Option B: Core PACS enablement only
This option will provide a partial PACS solution at RUH only. The funding model of a medium sized Trust will not fund any activity outside the Radiology Department and will provide a partial benefit to service users through increase reporting rates but limited accessibility to images. Digital images provided to the patient on CD at other sites, will require laser printing with Bath Community providers as in Option A
Option C: PACS enablement in RUH and RNHRD only
Option C extends the core service in Option B to the RNHRD and deploys the additional services identified within RUH. This option will enable wards and RUH OP clinics to benefit from PACS.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 10 of 26
Option D: PACS enablement in RUH Centre, RNHRD and 3 Community Hospitals only (one location in BANES and 2 locations in Wiltshire).
This option is a community wide solution as described above but provides for the potential rationalisation and longevity of the 10 community hospitals reducing to 3 sites (suggested estimation and not agreed or confirmed at this stage). Community sites are calculated as a unit cost and multiplied and no account is taken of site specific issues. It is recognised that no final decision has yet been reached on the provision of clinical services in Wiltshire. This PACS option will need to accommodate flexibility in future service provision.
Non – financial option appraisal (ranked)
Non Financial Comparison Option A Option B Option C Option D
Report all activity by next day. 4 3 2 1
Create spare capacity. 4 2 2 1
Eliminate reporting waiting lists 4 3 2 1
Provide images for out patients, in patients and MDT meetings on demand.
4 3 2 1
Increase the incidence of reporting and verification of images to 100% by 2008
4 3 2 1
Provide images with minimum recall time. 4 3 2 1
Provide one years worth of live image data. 4 1 1 1
Reduce use of hard copy images to < 3%
4 3 3 1
98% use of soft copy reporting 4 3 3 1
Demonstrate improved Clinician satisfaction 4 3 2 1
Faster turnaround of requests 4 3 2 1
Cost effective and more useful provision of copies on CD or DVD
4 2 1 1
Integration of services to wider Health Care environment
4 3 2 1
Integration of services to NHS Care Record System
4 2 2 1
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 11 of 26
To reduce the time that junior doctors spend looking for and collating films by 90% within 12 months of implementation into clinical areas
4 2 2 1
Non Financial Comparison Option A Option B Option C Option D
Increase the number of images that are available for outpatient clinics to 95% 12 months after full rollout across community
4 4 3 1
To improve clinician satisfaction with the service provided by the Radiology Department following full implementation
4 2 2 1
Reduce the number of administrative staff needed within the Radiology Department by 25% within four years of full implementation at each site
4 2 2 1
Eliminate the need for film filing storage by 100% following full implementation at each site
4 3 3 2
Reduce the number of hard copies by 95% immediately following full roll out
4 3 3 2
Reduced radiation exposure due to lower repeat films and incidence of “lost” films
4 2 2 1
Total 84 61 45 23
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 12 of 26
Financial Option appraisal
RUH PACS Business case summary
Option ADo
Minimum(with
growth)
Option BPACS
RUH core only
Option CPACS
RUH + RNHRD
Option DPACS
Community wide
Staff 0 -84,400 -646,400 -363,200
Non Pay 4,864,798 4,334,775 3,953,595 4,101,961
Project costs 0 122,958 122,958 122,958
Capital 255,000 647,423 1,095,165 1,237,624
Net Additional Cost 4,864,798 4,982,198 3,953,595 5,339,585
NPV 3,920,598 3,674,747 3,380,866 3,516,788
EAC 391,999 367,418 338,034 351,624
EAC including risk 392,169 371,124 342,147 356,155
Rank 4 3 1 2
Note: These options are ranked not scored.
On the basis of cost, benefit and risk analysis Option D is the preferred option. If the Bath Clinical area stakeholders do not wish to proceed with PACS solutions on the grounds of cost, Option C will fulfil the national contract and deliver most of the benefits to the RUH and RNHRD.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 13 of 26
RUH PACS Business case version 2 Option D - RUH Total + RNHRD + Community x 3 with increase in images but no increase in activity, income or staffing
Additional costs if do PACS
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 14 of 26
Year 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Staffing:
Radiologist - - - - - - - - - - -
Other med staff - - -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 -10,000
Radiographers snr - - - - - - - - - - -
Radiographers jnr - - - - 23,600 23,600 141,600 141,600 141,600 141,600 141,600
Nurses - - - - - - - - - - -
Filing clerks - - - -84,000 -84,000 -84,000 -112,000 -112,000 -112,000 -112,000 -112,000
secretaries - - - -54,000 -54,000 -54,000 -54,000 -54,000 -54,000 -54,000 -54,000
other admin - - 60,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
RDAs - - - - - - - - - - -
Travel - - -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 -5,000
- - 45,000 -133,000 -109,400 -109,400 -9,400 -9,400 -9,400 -9,400 -9,400
Non-pay :
Film & Processing costs 2,858 75,235 -474,382 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811
Storage - 22 - - - - - - - - -
2,858 75,257 -474,382 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811 -468,811
Project costs 35,000 87,958
Capital charges - 56,868 637,297
618,523
599,761
581,011
562,273
256,839
248,336 10,863 10,537
Service charge - - 649,524
649,524
649,524
649,524
649,524
649,524
649,524
649,524
649,524
Old Maintenance contracts - - -113,000 -113,000 -113,000 -113,000 -113,000 -113,000 -113,000 -113,000 -113,000
Total Costs 37,858 220,083 744,439
553,236
558,074
539,324
620,586
315,152
306,649 69,176 68,850
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 15 of 26
Total Additional Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Additional Cost of Option D £ 37,858 220,083 744,439 553,236 558,074 539,324 620,586 315,152 306,649 69,176 68,850
Discount Factor % 1.0000 0.9662 0.9335 0.9019 0.8714 0.8420 0.8135 0.7860 0.7594 0.7337 0.7089
NPV £ 37,858 212,641 694,942 498,987 486,329 454,097 504,847 247,707 232,873 50,756 48,809
EAC £ 351,624
CapitalReplacement of equipment :
PACS capital costs - 1,078,474 - - - - - - - - -
Associated costs - 159,150 - - - - - - - - -
Total Capital - 1,237,624 - - - - - - - - -
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 16 of 26
There is an ongoing piece of work to gain clarity on an issue around the accounting treatment of the refreshed assets which could affect the impact on revenue funding during the first five years. Work with reference to National guidance on refreshing the assets may have a beneficial effect on the distribution of revenue payments across the whole life of the project.
Financial Summary for preferred option ‘D’. Split of costs
RUH PACS Business case version 2 - Option D
Year Total Additional Wilts Banes RNHRD RUHYear
Staffing:Radiologist 0 - - - - Other med staff -100,000 - - - -100,000Radiographers snr 0 - - - -
Radiographers jnr 896,800 35,872 8,968 8,968 842,992
Nurses 0 - - - - Filing clerks -924,000 - - - -924,000secretaries -486,000 - - - -486,000
other admin 300,000 12,000 3,000 3,000 282,000
RDAs 0 - - - - Travel -50,000 - - - -50,000
-363,200 47,872 11,968 11,968 -435,008
Non-pay :Film & Processing costs -4,615,588 - - -140,722 -4,474,866Storage 22 22
-4,615,566 0 0 -140,722 -4,474,844
Project costs 122,958 4,918 1,230 1,230 115,581
Capital charges: PACS 3,592,529 104,943 52,472 49,622 3,265,037
Capital charges: associated 3,233 1,437 - 115,786
Service charge 6,495,240 155,080 77,540 77,540 6,185,080
Old Maintenance contracts -1,130,000 - - - -1,130,000
Total Costs 4,101,961 316,047 144,646 - 362 3,641,631
Total Additional Income - - - - -
Net Additional Cost of Option D £ 4,101,961
316,047 144,646 -362 3,641,631
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 17 of 26
Discount Factor % 10.0016
NPV £ 3,516,788 270,961 124,011 -311 3,122,127
EAC £ 351,624 27,092 12,399 -31 312,164
CapitalReplacement of equipment :
PACS capital costs 1,078,474 94,972 47,486 44,907 891,111
Associated costs: 159,150 DICOM Interface 4,272 1,899 - 36,980 Building - - - 106,000 Other - - - 10,000
Total Capital 1,237,624 99,244 49,385 44,907 1,044,091
1.5 Commercial Case Overview
The PACS and RIS service required will be sourced through Fujitsu Services who is the LSP for the Southern Cluster. The contractual arrangements are as specified between the LSP and the DH as the contracting Authority on behalf of the NHS. The contract will run until 30 June 2013, with an option for a one year extension, in line with the existing LSP contracts of which PACS and RIS is a component part. As part of the contracted LSP arrangements additional elements of PACS and RIS equipment and service can be purchased from the negotiated additional services catalogue.
The timetable for the acquisition of PACS by the local health community is as follows.
Activity Date
Determine Local Requirements Specification January 2006
Complete and Approve Outline PACS Business Case Mid February 2006
Initiate baseline measurements of anticipated benefits February 2006
Establish Final Local Requirements Specification and agree in detailed discussions with LSP
February 2006
Complete and approve PID [as part of Management Case] 30th April 2006
Agree central capital and other required funding 8th March 2006
Complete and gain approval of Full PACS Business Case with all relevant Authorities – at Board level where required
10th April 2006
Complete Purchase Requisition and any Additional Services Request Form for additional items. This form must be countersigned by RID. NB This is a key event that triggers many activities including ordering
May 2006
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 18 of 26
Activity Date
equipment.
Order any associated upgrades May 2006
Confirm timetable slot for local PACS with Cluster & SHA April 2006
Commence RIS and PACS Implementation April 2006
Complete installation of RIS September 2006
Complete installation of PAS January 2007
Completion of Acceptance Testing and issue of Milestone Achievement Certificate
January 2007
Review Benefits Ongoing after go live
No Transfer Undertakings for the Protection of Employment (TUPE) implications have been identified as there will be no transfer of existing staff to a new employer as a result of the implementation of PACS.
On completion of the milestone achievement certificate the Trust will become liable for the deployment charge payment. This payment, approximately 30% of the contract cost will be capitalised and will appear on the balance sheet of the Trust being depreciated over the remaining lifetime of the contract. Additional elements and other capital costs will also appear on the Trust balance sheet and be treated accordingly. The refresh of additional elements will be either included as part of the service or will be subject to further capital investment as shown within the financial case The most significant risk within this project relates to the local health community financing within AGWSHA. Within 2006/07 there must be no revenue pressure as a consequence of this project. Such pressures would jeopardise SHA approval, the consequences on the contractual commitments with Fujitsu have to be determined.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 19 of 26
1.6 Financial Case Overview
In the Financial Case the affordability of the preferred option, D has been explored, taking into account both the expenditure and anticipated funding. The results are summarised in the table below.
RUH PACS Business case version 2 - Summary
No PACS PACS models
Option A Option B Option C Option D
Do Nothing RUH core only RUH Total + RNHRD Community wide
Increase Images (modality) Increase Images (modality) Increase Images (modality)
No increase in activity or income
No increase in activity or income
No increase in activity or income
Total Net Additional Cost
4,864,798
4,334,775 3,953,595 4,101,961
NPV 3,920,598
3,674,747 3,380,866 3,516,788
EAC 391,999
367,418 338,034 351,624
EAC including risk 392,169
371,124 342,147 356,155
Rank 4 3 1 2
The total expenditure (comprising hardware, software and support costs plus the cost of extra local area networking and peripherals to support PACS) over ten years will cost £6.37m.
The Capital cost is being funded by a combination of CfH and Strategic Health Authority capital with an allocation from Trust block capital for 2007/08. This will split as follows.
The Director of Finance has confirmed that funding is available for the period in which funding is known (3 years) and that it will be accommodated in future years.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 20 of 26
Plans are in place to ensure delivery of the benefits across the Trust/Community
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 21 of 26
1.7 Management Case Overview
The project, to acquire and implement PACS, is being managed according to PRINCE2 with the following management structure
JOINT PACS PROJECT BOARD
JOINT PACS PROJECT STEERING GROUP
Orthopaedics
Comms
Community Radiology TrainingMDM/
Education
A&E RNHRD ITUResp/
Medicine
RNHRD BANES PCT WILTS PCTSRUH
Stakeholder Boards
Operational Groups One member of each group
PACS PROJECT STRUCTURE
BATH & WILTSHIRE CfH BOARD
The membership of the PACS Project Board
Member Job Title and OrganisationSpecific Project / Assurance
Role
Brigid MusselwhiteDirector of Planning and Strategic Development
Project Champion / Chair
John Williams Director of Finance Financial Governance
Richard Smale Head of IT IT and Comms Governance
John Travers Specialty Divisional Manager Implementation Assistance
David GlewConsultant Radiologist – Clinical Director Radiology
Clinical Lead and champion
Diane Fuller Director of Patient Access Operational Governance
Steven Haynes Director of Finance RNHRD rep
Hazel BraundDirector of Service Improvement and Delivery
BANES rep
Jenny Barker Director of Operations Wilts rep
Steve Boxall PACS Project ManagerReporting to Project Board for delivery
The Project Board will have:
• Joint strategic oversight for PACS Programme• Ownership by all participating organisations of Joint PACS Programme• Control of PACS investment
The terms of reference are as follows:
• Act as a decision making forum for all matters related to the Joint PACS Programme
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 22 of 26
• Account to the respective Trust Boards (or their delegated authorities such as NHSCRS Programme Board) to whom its Minutes will be sent
• Be chaired by one of the Board-level members agreed to by the JPPB members or an agreed combined-Board chair
• Ensure that the respective Trust Boards or their delegated authorities are kept fully briefed on all relevant matters and that an agreed schedule of specific decisions are referred to the Trust Boards for determination by them
• Consider issues related to the impact of the Programme on clinical objectives and operational activities of the participating organisations and advise accordingly
• Approve the Programme Plan and monitor overall progress on achieving the Plan• Take responsibility for the agreed financial framework, including sources and
applications for the Programme, and monitor the progress of the Programme to ensure financial targets are met to agreed timescales
• Monitor the commitment of central finance for the Programme to ensure that it is expended as intended and that the SHA and cluster receive adequate financial briefing
• Receive regular reports on the progress of the Programme from the Joint PACS Programme Steering Group (JPPS)
The Membership of the PACS Project Steering Group
Member Job Title and OrganisationSpecific Project / Assurance
Role
John Travers Specialty Divisional Manager Operation Lead
Steve Boxall Project ManagerProject Management and Coordination
Craig ForsterManager of RUH Radiology Services
Specialty input and Service redesign
Terence Gregory Superintendent RadiographerSpecialty input and Service redesign
Stephen Hayward, Dominic Fay and Graham Robinson
Consultant RadiologistSpecialty input and Service redesign
Derek Harland IT IT input
Sara WellingsSpecialty Divisional Accountant
Finance Input
Rachel IngramSpecialty Division HR Manager
HR Input, role redesign
Ian Orpen GP , BathRepresent GP interests and pathway development
Nigel Harris Represent RNHRD interest
The PACS Steering Group will have responsibility for:
• Financial management of PACS Programme• Programme plan monitoring and management• Communication with staff of participating organisations & public• Delivery of project against objectives to time, cost and quality.
They will:
• Act as a steering group for the PACS Programme ensuring that Programme implementation plans are viable and monitoring progress against those plans
• Account to the Joint PACS Programme Board (JPPB) or appropriate combined-Board to which its Minutes will be sent, for the delivery of the Project.
• Be chaired by one of the clinical representatives agreed to by the JPPS members
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 23 of 26
• Consider change management issues related to clinical processes or operations generated by or impacting on the Programme advise accordingly
• Monitor detailed progress on achieving the Programme Plan and agree detailed amendments
• Commission communication about the objectives of the PACS Programme and its progress against the anticipated timetable to staff of the participating organisations and the public
• Monitor detailed financial expenditure and commitments within the agreed financial framework, to agreed timescales
• Receive regular reports on the progress of the Programme from the PACS Operational Groups.
• Regularly review Project risks and issues and determine appropriate management actions as necessary, including escalation of major issues to Project Board for approval and/or decision.
Operational Groups will be set up by the Project Steering Group and receive work packages from the Project plan. They will consist of:
Communications
Clinical users
Emergency Medicine
ITU
Orthopaedics/theatres
Respiratory Medicine
Urology
RNHRD
Community pathways
Radiology
Nuclear Med
Breast Unit
Ultrasound
Training and Workforce
Registration on spine
Smart cards
RIS training
PACS training
Role review and redesign (including KSF development).
MDM/Education
IT
Estates
The following milestones have been identified. More detail can be found in the Project Implementation Plan (appendix 12).
Milestone Date
LSR complete February 2nd 2006
Financial Model complete February 10th 2006
Draft Business case complete w/e February 11th 2006
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 24 of 26
Milestone Date
Project Board approves draft Business case March 2006
Business Case to Trust Boards for sign off April 2006
Business Case to stakeholder Boards April 2006
Installation configuration Completed April 2006
PACS / RIS Order May 2006 – Week 1 of Project
Additional PACS / RIS Order (clinician/theatres workstations and enhanced RIS features)
May 2006
Agreed RIS/PACS Implementation Plan April 2006
RIS Installation and Delivery June 2006
PACS Installation and Delivery November 2006
Master Training Completed RIS July 2006; PACS November 2006
Data Migration Completed RIS July 2006; PACS November 2006
Testing Completed RIS August2006; PACS December 2006
Go Live RIS September 2006
Go Live PACS January 2007
PACS Deployment Key Milestone Certificate January 2007
Hand off to Service January 2007
Project Closure February 2007
The following people have been consulted in the development of this business case:
Local Health Community
Royal United Hospital Bath NHS TrustRoyal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Foundation TrustBath and North East Somerset PCTKennet and North Wiltshire PCTWest Wiltshire PCTMendip PCTBath and Wiltshire CfH Programme BoardPACS Programme BoardRadiology Dept RUHOrthopaedic Dept RUHCardiology Dept RUHNuclear MedicineITUFinanceIM&THR Dept RUH
External
SHA - Avon, Gloucester and Wiltshire SHACfH PACS implementation AdviserLSP – Fujitsu Services and associated contract suppliersEarly Adopter sites
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 25 of 26
1.8 Risks
The table below outlines the possible placement of risk under the LSP contract structure for PACS.
Risk CategoryPotential allocation
Community LSP Shared
1. Design Risk
2. Construction & Development Risk
3. Transition & Implementation Risk
4. Availability and Performance Risk
5. Operating risk
6. Variability of Revenue Risks
7. Termination Risks
8. Technology & Obsolescence Risks
9. Control Risks
10. Residual Value Risks
11. Financing Risks
12. Legislative Risks
13. Other Project Risks
1.9 Conclusion
The local health community will gain significant advantages by being an adopter of the PACS programme.
PACS will provide considerable benefits in terms of improved workflow, for all those using medical images that will have benefits right across the local health community leading to efficiencies in many areas and contributing to central targets such as eighteen week targets from referral to treatment, four hour waiting in A&E departments, diagnostic services and reduced working hours for junior doctors.
EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY1995.DOCROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH Page 26 of 26