Agenda item

The Committee had before it the Strategic Risk Register.

Alex Stephen (Chief Finance Officer, ACHSCP) advised that since the Committee’s last meeting, the Partnership had reduced the risk rating for risk 8 (Reputational Damage to the IJB) from High to Medium risk due to governance processes that had been in place and tested since the go live date; and the budget processes that had been put into effect to secure approval of the IJB’s second annual budget. He also informed the Committee that progress had been made in the negotiation of the National Care Home Contract in which rates were expected to increase by 3.39%.

Thereafter the Committee reviewed the risk register and the following points were highlighted:-

With reference to risk 2 (Financial Failure), members agreed that financial failure needed to be defined and requested that the Executive Team review the Partnership’s risk appetite for tolerating budgetary overspends. The Committee also requested that reference be made to the Medium-Term Financial Strategy within the mitigation section;

With reference to risk 3 (IJB Failure to Function), members requested that the risk narrative be updated to reflect the announced departure of the current Chief Officer;

With reference to risk 4 (Hosted Services Failure), members expressed concern that Pan-Grampian meetings between IJBs were not happening regularly to resolve hosted service issues and there were gaps in assurance particularly for mental health services and prescribing. The Committee requested that the Executive Team review this risk and add the development of the Regional Delivery Plan to the mitigation section;

With reference to risk 6 (Failure of ACC and NHSG Corporate Services to Deliver IJB Services), members requested that the impact of budget reductions on both partners be added to the risk narrative;

With reference to risk 7 (Performance Failure), members noted that the mitigation and assurance sections appeared to be reactive and requested that the Executive Team review these sections to develop more proactive measures. The Committee also highlighted that the Partnership must not lose sight of person centred care whilst devoting efforts to meeting performance targets;

With reference to risk 8 (Reputational Damage to IJB), members discussed the possible impact of negative social media comments and campaigns on the IJB/ Partnership’s reputation; and the Committee requested that the Executive Team review the wording of the risk description to reflect the complexity of decision making and the importance of quick and decisive responses;

With reference to risk 9 (Transformation Failure), members queried if the Partnership had been devoting sufficient time to supporting managers who were delivering transformational change at an operational level. Tom Cowan (Head of Operations, ACHSCP) confirmed that significant support was being provided on an ongoing basis and in response the Committee requested that this engagement with local managers be reflected within the risk narrative;

With reference to risk 10 (Failure to Maximise Locality Working Opportunities), members discussed the confusion caused by the statutory use of “Locality” terminology by both the IJB and Community Planning Aberdeen (CPA), particularly as their boundaries did not align. The Committee noted this was a risk to effective locality planning and requested the Chief Officer to discuss this risk with CPA partners; and

With reference to risk 11 (Workforce Planning Failure), members acknowledged that this was becoming a more prominent risk for the Partnership and discussed the likely impact of the National Health and Social Care Workforce Plan. The Committee requested that the Executive Team closely monitor this risk and consider a possible revision to its risk rating.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)           with reference to risk 2, to request that the Executive Team review the Partnership’s risk appetite for tolerating budgetary overspends;

(ii)          with reference to risk 2, to make reference to the Medium-Term Financial Strategy within the mitigation section;

(iii)         with reference to risk 3, to make reference to the announced departure of the Chief Officer within the risk narrative;

(iv)         with reference to risk 4, to request that the Executive Team review this risk and add the development of the Regional Delivery Plan to the mitigation section;

(v)          with reference to risk 6, to include the impact of budget reductions on both partners within the risk narrative;

(vi)         with reference to risk 7, to request that the Executive Team review the mitigation and assurance sections and develop more proactive measures;

(vii)       with reference to risk 8, to request the Executive Team to review the wording of the risk description to reflect the complexity of decision making and the importance of quick and decisive responses;

(viii)      with reference to risk 8, to revise the colour of the risk movement on page 30 from green to amber to reflect the medium risk rating;

(ix)         with reference to risk 9, to request that the engagement and support provided to local managers with regards to the Transformation Programme be reflected within the risk narrative;

(x)          with reference to risk 10, to request that the Chief Officer discuss the use of “Locality” terminology with CPA partners and to highlight the confusion it had caused for stakeholders and the public;

(xi)         with reference to risk 11, to request that the Executive Team closely monitor this risk and consider a possible revision to its risk rating;

(xii)       to recommend that the Strategic Risk Register be added to the IJB agenda on 27 March 2018 for further review;

(xiii)      to request that a session on risk management and risk appetite be delivered at the IJB’s developmental workshop on 24 April 2018; and

(xiv)      otherwise note the risk register.