Attendees and apologies
- Alan Morrison (Chair) (AM)
- Alison Bell (AB)
- Graeme Cook (GC)
- Ruth Paterson (RP)
- Michael Healy (MH)
- Frances Mackay (FM)
- Marie Murray (Secretariat) (MM)
NHS NSS National Procurement
- Gordon Beattie (GB)
- Matt Thomas (MT)
- Emma Nycz (EN)
Items and actions
Welcome and open the meeting
Alan Morrison welcomed members to the meeting. There were no requests to add any extra items to the agenda.
Minutes from 30 May 2022 and actions outstanding
Previous minutes were discussed and approved, and it was noted that all previous actions were complete.
RP opened with updates from all five workstreams. Main points mentioned were:
- data and finance – Work so far has focussed on potential user groups, costing models and distribution limitations depending on the volume of small scale users included. The workstream propose to consider a tiered approach to service delivery, costing out various options based on expected demand volumes. Their next meeting is scheduled to take place on 20 June 2022
- queries and complaints received in relation to NSS supply to Primary and Social Care during the pandemic to provide information for their Options Appraisal Paper. Whereas this was due to be provided to the project team in late June 2022, instead there will be an initial scoping paper followed by an Options Appraisal at a later date
- surge capacity – The Surge Capacity paper was shared with the Board along with other papers for the meeting. The paper detailed four options and the potential demand volumes anticipated for the first 24 weeks of a new Pandemic/Health emergency based on information gathered during the Covid-19 pandemic
- inbound stock rotation – This paper is currently in draft. It will be reviewed by SG workstream members before being shared with the Board. It was highlighted that current NSS have a framework with a supplier which can be called from if need be over the next two years
- stakeholder engagement – The first meeting of the Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG), was held on 9 June with a large amount of participation from a wide range of stakeholders. Discussions were constructive and the stability of future PPE supply was identified as the primary concern of the group
The Board noted the work updates and agreed that stakeholder engagement was a vital part of the project.
It was requested that instead of work updates, the focus should be on project risks being reported to the Board. It was agreed that the project risk register would be updated by workstreams and shared with the Board prior to the next meeting.
Action: PPEU to share the Risk Register with the IPB
An update on the Consultation on the future supply of pandemic PPE in Scotland responses was given, with an undertaking that a further update would be provided when the full analysis is available. Board members highlighted the importance of learning from responses received and advised that they would like to consider further when the consultation analysis is received.
- the action from the previous meeting to amend aim 12 in the IPB remit was discussed. The proposed alteration to the text was accepted. It now reads: To close down the project in March/April 2023, ensuring appropriate handover of responsibilities, including a Service Level Agreement between SG and NSS, a strategy for ongoing engagement with wider PIPP countermeasures work and transfer of responsibility for any lessons learned not addressed within the new supply arrangement
Proposed timelines update
Paper 1 – Revised timeline document
Action: PPEU to share the proposed updated timeline with the Board once updates from workstream leads are received. The Board were invited to comment on the upated timeline once it was received.
The Board discussed the timelines being challenging, especially given the concentration of activities in July and August. They agreed that it needs to be fully considered and revised as necessary The timeline for submission to Ministers currently remains unchanged as November 2022.
Paper 2 – Surge Capacity
The Surge Capacity paper was discussed. Points raised included
- surge capacity is currently envisaged to be 24 weeks of stock at peak use levels
- ranking of suppliers could be problematic due to the need to bring them up to speed during a pandemic
- the need for flexibility to change the types of PPE in scope was noted. Resource to run the preferred option was highlighted as a potential concern. It was noted that as this approach is similar to the current day to day running of the supply chain framework, this should not prove to be a substantial risk
- access to the surge capacity by the other Four Nation countries was raised as a point to be resolved
- the opportunity for the preferred option to provide consistency of product was welcomed
- it was unanimously agreed that a single supplier framework (Option three in the paper) was the preferred option. It was highlighted that Health Finance colleagues would need to be sighted on any plans in relation to this to ensure that it was deliverable
Action: Surge Capacity workstream team to progress towards a full Options Appraisal. Project team to consider Face Fit Testing in relation to Inbound Supply and Surge Capacity and report back to the Project Board.
Paper 3 – Lessons Learned Progress Report
A summary of the Lessons Learned Progress Report was given providing detail of work already done as well as work still to be taken forward.
Minutes publication discussion
The IPB agreed that the minutes of Board meetings should be published once agreed by the Board.
Date of next meeting
11 July 2022
Any other business
A point was raised for consideration by the Board as to whether non-Executive Departmental Public Bodies could or shoud be included within the collaborative buying/surge capacity model.
It was observed that those bodies with a large business as usual need for PPE should be prioritised for consideration. Thought would need to be given in terms of risk in relation to Subsidy Control. With regards to the service delivery side, one thing to flag is that the large bodies will be included in the collaboration looking into what can be done for smaller bodies. This needs to be thought of in terms of Risk of Subsidy Control.
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback