Agenda item

An Update on the Redevelopment of the Royal Berkshire Hospital

A presentation by the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust providing the Committee with an update on the Redevelopment of the Royal Berkshire Hospital.

Minutes:

Nicky Lloyd, Acting Chief Executive of the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, introduced John Underwood, Communications and Engagement Lead, Freshwater Communications, who gave a presentation on the redevelopment of the Royal Berkshire Hospital, and Andrew Statham, Director of Strategy Transformation and Partnership, who answered questions raised by the Committee.  She also thanked the Council for setting up beds in the Holiday Inn for patients who were recovering from Covid-19 and were unable to return home, this had had a huge impact on the flow of patients in the hospital and on staff.  The support and goodwill had been hugely appreciated and, although the hospital was under a lot of pressure, everyone who had an appointment at the hospital was being asked to attend.

The presentation explained that the Government’s Health Infrastructure Plan (HIP) had provided funding for new hospital projects over the next ten years and the Royal Berkshire Foundation Trust was one of 21 Trusts to receive funding to develop ideas for new hospital facilities.  A Strategic Outline Case had been developed for the Treasury and all redevelopment possibilities were being considered, this was seen as a major opportunity for the NHS and for the local community to improve services, patient experience and the environment.  The case for change had been based on the 5 C’s: Condition, Capacity, Capability, Climate and Catalyst and six possible scenarios had been developed as follows:

·         Do Nothing - Only the most high risk backlog maintenance would be addressed;

·         Do the Minimum – Address more backlog maintenance;

·         New Emergency Care Block – Expanded A&E, new ICU and new theatres;

·         New Emergency Care Block plus new Elective Care Block and new women’s and children’s facility – Grow clinical services, better address developing local needs;

·         Substantially new hospital on the current site – To support growing demand, greater integration of health and care services, medical school and research centre;

·         Completely new hospital on a greenfield site – Could address all local needs and provide the blank canvas for a zero carbon health facility.

The pros and cons of the redevelopment were being considered in the following terms:

·         Adjacencies – Ensuring the services that needed to be near each other were co-located;

·         Environment – Developing an environment which was green and low carbon;

·         Economy – Developing a hospital which supported the local economy and created jobs;

·         Compliance – Considering which scenario ensured the greatest compliance with modern safety guidelines;

·         Cost – Developing the most cost-effective scenario;

·         Convenience – Considering which scenario could be easily and conveniently delivered.

Critical features of the case included the Thames Valley being home to one of the world’s largest life sciences clusters, crucial in the fight against coronavirus and future pandemics, and the hospital being an anchor institution.

The next steps in the process had seen the Strategic Outline Case being submitted to the Treasury in December 2020, continuing engagement with stakeholders, the production of an Outline Business Case and then finally submitting a Full Business Case to the Treasury for approval.

The Committee asked a number of questions and made a number of points including the following:

·         Having submitted the Strategic Outline Case to the Treasury in December 2020, it was assumed that the next stage would take between 12 and 18 months, depending on how long the Government took to respond.  The build phase was constricted by timings in the Treasury with funding for the project being in the next spending review, therefore it had been estimated that the hospital would be in some or all of the new facilities by 2025;

·         Plans were being aligned with the Health and Care system in Berkshire West, work was also being carried out with the primary care networks in terms of care through digital channels and it was hoped that this would affect the footfall and reduce some of the demand on the site;

·         One of the prime concerns was the impact on services, this would be easier if the hospital moved to a greenfield site, but if it remained on the current site then development would take place in phases with services moving into new buildings and then the old ones being demolished;

·         The catchment area of the hospital went beyond the Borough’s boundaries and there was a need to be more strategic.  There was an aging population with more challenging life styles and health needs and it was suggested that all options up to option four would not meet the growth or ambition of the hospital; (Richard – this bit I didn’t understand)

·         It was also suggested that in addition to the 5 C’s, Community and Congestion be added.  It had been suggested in the plans that deliveries be made to the hospital at night but, this would not be welcomed by local residents and, in terms of parking, if the current site were expanded parking issues would only get worse;

·         In terms of a regional approach, and for the hospital to obtain university status, a greenfield site might be the better option as had happened elsewhere, for example, in Oxford and Swindon;

·         The development of the current site would not see any building taller than the tallest building currently onsite;

·         The hospital had a Travel and Transport Policy and was investing heavily in updating storage and changing facilities so that staff would be encouraged to cycle to work, the hospital was also working with Reading Buses;

·         One of the design requirements of the HIP was to be carbon neutral and the use of more sustainable methods of construction was at the heart of the project’s thinking, as was community;

·         Congestion would be addressed in the new designs and the hospital was committed to a sustainable solution;

·         The hospital had a catchment area of a district hospital and provided services at other sites which it rented such as the University, the Bracknell Healthspace, Townlands Hospital in Henley and the West Berkshire Community Hospital.  Work was being carried out to see which services could be moved off-site nearer to where people lived.  The vision for the future was to have a combination of face-to-face and phone consultations.  Patients were also being monitored remotely saving them having to come into the hospital;

·         At the heart of the project was the absolute commitment to engage with stakeholders and to design a facility for staff and patients for years to come.

Resolved –    That the presentation be noted and Nicky Lloyd, John Underwood and Andrew Statham be thanked for taking part in the meeting.