Public Board of Directors papers 27.01.22

comparable with the national median (68). Our newly appointed R+I Director (commenced June 2021) is leading quality improvement work to enhance performance. In response to the recommendations of the review we can confirm that: • The reports referred to in the recommendations were appropriately considered when they were produced and were considered in full by the Board Directors on 25 th March 2021 • The BoD was satisfied that all currently relevant issues were being addressed through the R+I Action Plan in place at that time. • The BoD was involved in the appointment of a new R+I Director who is leading an engagement process as part of the development of a refreshed R+I strategy and quality improvement of the R+I service. Terms of Reference 2 - How the Trust handled the review into concerns about the R+I division in 2020, including whether the people that raised concerns suffered detriment as a result of speaking up The report confirms that The Trust’s arrangements for FTSU generally reflect good practice but also suggests areas in which the review team suggests that the response to the concerns raised in 2020 (corresponding to the first wave of the COVID pandemic) could have been improved. Unfortunately, the description of the sequence of events as described by the review team has some inaccuracies on the following issues: • The range of people consulted on and involved in the decision to ask a non-executive to review the concerns raised is inaccurate - this was smaller than described in the report in order to maintain confidentiality. • The incorrect suggestion that, had they not pre-empted it by further immediate escalation, those raising concerns would not have been offered opportunities to discuss with the executive directors by the FTSUG. • The incorrect suggestion that the mechanism for the review of HR issues, behaviours, leadership and culture was the investigation of a single grievance - A wide range of activities were involved as part of an overall comprehensive approach. • The incorrect suggestion that the letter of 3rd February 2021 was distributed to “all staff” and did not contain an offer for further discussion - the letter was sent only to Trust employees who had been involved in raising concerns and we regard this feedback and communication as good practice. Although specifically asked to draw a conclusion on whether the staff members raising concerns about the R+I Division had suffered detriment as a result, the review team merely reports that “some of them believe that they suffered detriment” and does not form a conclusion on this. Whilst the review team does not identify any breach of confidentiality two of those raising concerns have identified themselves through further emails and social media activity. These issues are currently the subject of proceedings in the Employment Tribunal. Although not included in the Terms of Reference the report makes comments about Freedom to Speak Up more generally using opinions received from a general invitation to all staff to comment and not confined to the R+I division. The Rapid Review report provides anonymous data from a self-selected sample that we are unable to validate. However, data from our 2020 national staff survey shows that 72% of our staff report feeling safe to speak up about anything that concerns them (compared to the national average for specialist Trusts of 69%). Our Freedom to Speak Up Index score of 81% (compared to a national average of 79%) also suggests that our staff can raise concerns when necessary. The “Rapid Review” team noted that the Trust’s FTSU policy was consistent with national guidance and that it had been further updated ahead of suggestions made by MIAA following an audit of the previous policy. The policy was discussed with staff side colleagues and approved at Staff Forum and Local Negotiating Committee (The forums for formal agreement with Trades Unions and Professional Representative Bodies).

19