Common use of Service Change Proposals Clause in Contracts

Service Change Proposals. In recognition of a developing business case relating to proposed investment in services and facilities in the Kincardine area, a non-financial option appraisal exercise was conducted through a series of workshops held in the locality during November 2016 and January 2017 to determine the preferred site option. This process has been conducted in line with the latest capital planning and business case guidance issued by the Scottish Government. The Process Employed The formal non-financial option appraisal process employed was discussed and agreed with participants at the outset. It involved them working through a series of questions that attempted to apply a consistent and rational approach to the challenge of identifying the best solution to the identified problems all things (less finance) considered. Benefits Criteria Facility associated challenges identified by the wider planning team were used as the initial basis for the development of suitable benefit criteria themes, with discussion and debate at project planning sessions and the option appraisal events used to refine this draft list of benefits criteria into an agreed list based on global stakeholder opinion. Importantly, this list was also developed with the support of the stakeholder group reviewing options related to a similar business case being developed for Lochgelly in order to ensure that both projects, which have similar objectives and timescales, were able to benefit from each other’s work through the development of an agreed list of benefits criteria that were weighted independently. In summary, the benefits criteria eventually agreed reflected the ability of each identified option to:  Deliver an optimal physical environment  Be readily accessible  Support flexibility and sustainability  Support local and national service strategies  Deliver wider community & public benefits A brief description of these benefits criteria can be found in the complete Option Appraisal report if required. Relative “Weighting” of the Identified Benefits Criteria Overall the groups concluded that:  The extent to which an option delivers an optimal physical environment is the most important criteria with an agreed weighting factor of 39 points  This leading criteria is followed by a second group that reflect the extent to which an option is accessible and flexible / sustainable, with 24 and 21 points respectively  The overall lowest weighted criteria was that related to the delivery of wider benefits, with an agreed weighting of only 6 points  The rationale for the overall weighting agreed was understood by the stakeholder groups and explainable through the discussions / debate undertaken and scoring process adopted  Whilst the overall weighting did not represent the opinions of any one single stakeholder group, it did represent the overall opinions of those individual groups identified who had broadly agreed on the relative priority of most criteria

Service Change Proposals. In recognition of a developing business case relating to proposed investment in services and facilities in the Kincardine area, a non-financial option appraisal exercise was conducted through a series of workshops held in the locality during November 2016 and January 2017 to determine the preferred site option. These sessions were independently facilitated by Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx from Higher Ground Health + Care Planning Ltd (HGHCP) – part of the East Central Hubco team - and included representatives from a wide range of stakeholder groups (Appendix 2). The objectives of the exercise were:  To provide a background to the on-going project  To present an overview of the existing Kincardine Health Centre  To understand the challenge the existing facility / service model faces  To agree and evaluate those benefits criteria that are likely to define a successful outcome to the project  To agree a range of possible future (facility) options that could potentially address these challenges in the longer term (the long list of options)  To identify which of these options appear feasible and are therefore worthy of more detailed consideration  To support the more detailed evaluation of this agreed range of short-listed options in order to identify which appear most capable of realising the benefits criteria identified  To determine which of the available options appears to be best overall through formal option appraisal and why this appears to be the case  To understand any additional work that may be required to support the on-going review process  To stimulate evidence-based discussion and objective debate  To appropriately widen stakeholder involvement in the process  To inform and relate to the wider plans of the local authority and broader range of stakeholders This process has been conducted in line with the latest capital planning and business case guidance issued by the Scottish Government. The Process Employed The formal non-financial option appraisal process employed was discussed and agreed with participants at NHS Fife has summarised the outsetneed for change in / around the facilities in Kincardine under a number of defined headings within the IAD. It involved them working through a series of questions These are:  Service capacity related issues that attempted to apply a consistent and rational approach to predicate the challenge of identifying the best solution to the identified problems all things (less finance) considered. Benefits Criteria Facility associated challenges identified by the wider planning team were used as the initial basis need for the development of suitable benefit criteria themes, with discussion and debate at project planning sessions and the option appraisal events used to refine this draft list of benefits criteria into an agreed list change based on global stakeholder opinion. Importantly, this list was also developed with a lack of available physical capacity across the support of service delivery model that will only be additionally challenged by proposals to increase local service delivery in the stakeholder group reviewing options related to a similar business case being developed for Lochgelly in order to ensure that both projects, Kincardine area  Clinical functionality (capacity) issues which have similar objectives been identified as those problems associated with a lack of local space (area) that is essential for safe, effective and timescalesappropriately compliant service delivery, were able to benefit from each other’s work through the development e.g., a lack of an agreed list of benefits criteria clinical support, administrative support, group, sanitary, teaching and specialist areas  Clinical functionality (configuration) issues that were weighted independently. In summary, the benefits criteria eventually agreed reflected the ability of each identified option to:  Deliver an optimal physical environment  Be readily accessible  Support flexibility and sustainability  Support local and national service strategies  Deliver wider community & public benefits A brief description of these benefits criteria can be found in the complete Option Appraisal report if required. Relative “Weighting” of the Identified Benefits Criteria Overall the groups concluded that:  The extent to which an option delivers an optimal physical environment is the most important criteria with an agreed weighting factor of 39 points  This leading criteria is followed by a second group that reflect the extent to which an option is accessible and flexible / sustainable, with 24 and 21 points respectively  The overall lowest weighted criteria was that related to seriously challenge the delivery of wider benefitssafe and effective modern services, with an agreed weighting of only 6 points e.g., access issues, room design, sound attenuation, security, patient flow, etc  The rationale for Building and fabric issues including overall condition, suitability, statutory compliance issues and backlog maintenance These can be seen as the overall weighting agreed was understood by key challenges that the stakeholder groups and explainable through the discussions / debate undertaken and scoring process adopted  Whilst the overall weighting did not represent the opinions facility element of any one single stakeholder group, it did represent the overall opinions of those individual groups identified who had broadly agreed on the relative priority of most criterianew service model needs to address.

Service Change Proposals. In recognition of a developing business case relating to proposed investment in services and facilities in the Kincardine Lochgelly area, a non-financial option appraisal exercise was conducted through a series of workshops held in the locality during November 2016 and January 2017 to determine the preferred site option. This process has been conducted in line with the latest capital planning and business case guidance issued by the Scottish Government. The Process Employed The formal non-financial option appraisal process employed was discussed and agreed with participants at the outset. It involved them working through a series of questions that attempted to apply a consistent and rational approach to the challenge of identifying the best solution to the identified problems all things (less finance) considered. Benefits Criteria Facility associated challenges identified by the wider planning team were used as the initial basis for the development of suitable benefit criteria “themes”, with discussion and debate at project planning sessions and the option appraisal events used to refine this draft list of benefits criteria into an agreed list based on global stakeholder opinion. Importantly, this list was also developed with the support of the stakeholder group reviewing options related to a similar business case being developed for Lochgelly in order to ensure that both projects, which have similar objectives and timescales, were able to benefit from each other’s work through the development of an agreed list of benefits criteria that were weighted independently. In summary, the benefits criteria eventually agreed reflected the ability of each identified option to:  Deliver an optimal physical environment  Be readily accessible  Support flexibility and sustainability  Support local and national service strategies  Deliver wider community & public benefits A brief description of these benefits criteria can be found in the complete Option Appraisal report if required. Relative “Weighting” of the Identified Benefits Criteria Overall the groups concluded that:  The extent to which an option delivers an optimal physical environment that is both flexible and sustainable were the most important criteria with an agreed weighting factor of 39 32 and 33 points respectively  This leading group of criteria is was followed by a second group that reflect reflected the extent need to which an option is accessible support local & national strategies and flexible / sustainable, overall accessibility with 24 agreed weightings of 13 and 21 14 points respectively  The overall lowest weighted criteria was that related to the delivery of wider benefits, with an agreed weighting of only 6 8 points  The rationale for the overall weighting agreed was understood by the stakeholder groups and explainable through the discussions / debate undertaken and scoring process adopted  Whilst the overall weighting did not represent the opinions of any one single stakeholder group, it did represent the overall opinions of those individual groups identified who had broadly agreed on the relative priority of most criteria.

Service Change Proposals. In recognition of a developing business case relating to proposed investment in services and facilities in the Kincardine Lochgelly area, a non-financial option appraisal exercise was conducted through a series of workshops held in the locality during November 2016 and January 2017 to determine the preferred site option. These sessions were independently facilitated by Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx from Higher Ground Health + Care Planning Ltd (HGHCP) – part of the East Central Hubco team - and included representatives from a wide range of stakeholder groups (Appendix 2). The objectives of the exercise were:  To provide a background to the on-going project  To present an overview of the existing Lochgelly Health Centre  To understand the challenge the existing facility / service model faces  To agree and evaluate those benefits criteria that are likely to define a successful outcome to the project  To agree a range of possible future (facility) options that could potentially address these challenges in the longer term (The long list of options)  To identify which of these options appear feasible and are therefore worthy of more detailed consideration  To support the more detailed evaluation of this agreed range of short-listed options in order to identify which appear most capable of realising the benefits criteria identified  To determine which of the available options appears to be best overall through formal option appraisal and why this appears to be the case  To understand any additional work that may be required to support the on-going review process  To stimulate evidence-based discussion and objective debate  To appropriately widen stakeholder involvement in the process  To inform and relate to the wider plans of the local authority and broader range of stakeholders This process has been conducted in line with the latest capital planning and business case guidance issued by the Scottish Government. The Process Employed The formal non-financial option appraisal process employed was discussed and agreed with participants at NHS Fife has summarised the outsetneed for change in / around the facilities in Lochgelly under a number of defined headings within the Initial Agreement Document. It involved them working through These are:  Service redesign enablement issues, which have been identified as those areas where a series of questions that attempted to apply a consistent and rational approach to the challenge of identifying the best solution to the identified problems all things (less finance) considered. Benefits Criteria Facility associated challenges identified by the wider planning team were used as the initial basis for the development of suitable benefit criteria themes, with discussion and debate at project planning sessions and the option appraisal events used to refine this draft list of benefits criteria into an agreed list based on global stakeholder opinion. Importantly, this list was also developed with the support of the stakeholder group reviewing options related to a similar business case being developed for Lochgelly fundamental change is required in local health & social care delivery models in order to ensure meet essential future needs and realise strategic direction of travel.  Service capacity related issues that both projects, predicate the need for change based on a lack of available physical capacity across the service delivery model that will only be additionally challenged by proposals to increase local service delivery in the Lochgelly area.  Clinical functionality (capacity) issues which have similar objectives been identified as those problems associated with a lack of local space (area) that is essential for safe, effective and timescalesappropriately compliant service delivery, were able to benefit from each other’s work through the development e.g., a lack of an agreed list of benefits criteria clinical support, administrative support, group, sanitary, teaching and specialist areas  Clinical functionality (configuration) issues that were weighted independently. In summary, the benefits criteria eventually agreed reflected the ability of each identified option to:  Deliver an optimal physical environment  Be readily accessible  Support flexibility and sustainability  Support local and national service strategies  Deliver wider community & public benefits A brief description of these benefits criteria can be found in the complete Option Appraisal report if required. Relative “Weighting” of the Identified Benefits Criteria Overall the groups concluded that:  The extent to which an option delivers an optimal physical environment is the most important criteria with an agreed weighting factor of 39 points  This leading criteria is followed by a second group that reflect the extent to which an option is accessible and flexible / sustainable, with 24 and 21 points respectively  The overall lowest weighted criteria was that related to seriously challenge the delivery of wider benefitssafe and effective modern services, with an agreed weighting e.g., access issues, room design, sound attenuation, security, patient flow, etc.  Clinical functionality (fabric and infrastructure) issues that prevent service model development due to 100% physical capacity utilisation of only 6 points the building  The rationale for Building and fabric issues including overall condition, suitability, statutory compliance issues and backlog maintenance. These can be seen as the overall weighting agreed was understood by key challenges that the stakeholder groups and explainable through the discussions / debate undertaken and scoring process adopted  Whilst the overall weighting did not represent the opinions facility element of any one single stakeholder group, it did represent the overall opinions of those individual groups identified who had broadly agreed on the relative priority of most criterianew service model needs to address.