Public Board of Directors papers 27.01.22

The Christie NHS Foundation Trust Rapid Review

1. Background In August 2020 a number of members of staff employed by the Christie NHS Foundation Trust (The Christie) contacted anexternal party to seek help in raising concerns about theResearchand Innovation (R&I)Division. They had initially contacted theFreedomtoSpeak Up Guardian (FTSUG) of TheChristie inFebruary 2020and had been dissatisfiedwith the response they had received inAugust 2020 f ollowing the completionof an internal review process. Also, in August 2020 a member of staf f contacted the Chairman copying the email to all members of the Medical Staff Committee. This repeated the matters raised with the FTSUG in February and made some f urther comments about the roleof the “ExecutiveBoard”. A f urther email was sent to theChairman by the same person in October 2020, which enclosed a document which summarised a range of concerns, “accused parties” and describedhowthese concerns werebeing addressed. The same external party who had been approached by staff members contacted the Regional Director of NHS England and NHS Improvement (NHSEI) for the North West who, decided that an independent rapid reviewof the issues raised should beundertaken. A team was appointed toundertake the review: AngelaSchof ield, Chairmanof anNHS FoundationTrust (lead investigator) Sally Baines, f ormerNHS HumanResources Director Sheena Bedi, GP, Non-ExecutiveDirector of anNHS FoundationTrust, member of theNorthWest BAME Assembly StephenFalk, Consultant Oncologist, Bristol, formerClinical ResearchNetworkClinical DirectorWest of England Terms of Ref erence f or the review were agreed by NHSEI, which related to the issues raised: 1. How theTrust responded to the reviewconductedbyWendy Fisher, whichhighlighted issues in management and culturewithin the R&IDivision in2018. 2. How theTrust handled the review into concerns raised about theR&IDivision in2020. Including whether the people that raised concerns suffereddetriment as result of speakingup. 3. How theTrust handled allegationsconcerning the sharing of patient datawith commercial partners inand around 2018-date. Including whether the people that raised concerns suffered detriment as result of speaking up. 4. Whether there was a f ailureof theTrust to engagewith clinicians in relation to commercial partnerships, to ensure that: a. the scopeand benef itswere clear; b. the decisionmaking, includingprocurement was transparent; and c. the risks had been identifiedand mitigatedbeforeany agreement was signed.

5. The appropriateness of recruitment decisionswithin theR&IDivisionduring this period. 6. In the context of these issues considerwhat learning theTrust should consider and make recommendations in that respect.

The Programme Management Office (PMO) established by NHSEI circulated information about the review, including the Terms of Ref erence, to staff of the Christie and organised a confidential inbox for anyone who wished to provide information to the review. In total 40 people contacted the inbox. Some just left their name and contact details, others provided information to the review. All respondents were given the option f or their identity to be protected. All were invited to meet the review team whether the issues they reported appeared to be related to theTerms of Ref erenceor not. Ninepeopledecided that they did notwish to meet membersof the review team. Of the31 peoplewho contacted the inbox and who met the team, nineexpressedgeneral views or

1

42