external audit annual audit letter 2005 06 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
External Audit: Annual Audit Letter 2005-06 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
External Audit: Annual Audit Letter 2005-06

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 11

External Audit: Annual Audit Letter 2005-06 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT AND HEALTHCARE. External Audit: Annual Audit Letter 2005-06. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust 7 September 2006. AUDIT. Content. The contacts at KPMG in connection with this report are:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'External Audit: Annual Audit Letter 2005-06' - dacian

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
external audit annual audit letter 2005 06


External Audit: Annual Audit Letter 2005-06

Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust

7 September 2006



The contacts at KPMG in connection with this report are:

Will CarrPartner KPMG LLP (UK)Tel: 0121 232 3308


Helen DempseySeniorManagerKPMG LLP (UK)Tel: 0121 232 3901helen.dempsey@kpmg.co.uk

Simon Stanyer

Assistant ManagerKPMG LLP (UK)Tel: 0121 232 3694simon.stanyer@kpmg.co.uk

This report is addressed to the Trust and has been prepared for the sole use of the Trust. We take no responsibility to any member of staff acting in their individual capacities, or to third parties. The Audit Commission has issued a document entitled Statement of Responsibilities of Auditors and Audited Bodies. This summarises where the responsibilities of auditors begin and end and what is expected from the audited body. We draw your attention to this document.

External auditors do not act as a substitute for the audited body’s own responsibility for putting in place proper arrangements to ensure that public business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards, and that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for, and used economically, efficiently and effectively.

If you have any concerns or are dissatisfied with any part of KPMG’s work, in the first instance you should contact Will Carr who is the appointed auditor to the Trust, telephone 0121 232 3308, email will.carr@kpmg.co.uk who will try to resolve your complaint. If you are dissatisfied with your response please contact Trevor Rees on 0161 236 4000, email trevor.rees@kpmg.co.uk, who is the national contact partner for all of KPMG’s work with the Audit CommissionAfter this, if you still dissatisfied with how your complaint has been handled you can access the Audit Commission’s complaints procedure. Put your complaint in writing to the Complaints Team, Nicholson House, Lime Kiln Close, Stoke Gifford, Bristol, BS34 8SU or by e mail to: complaints@audit-commission.gov.uk. Their telephone number is 020 7166 2349, textphone (minicom) 020 7630 0421.

section one purpose of this letter
Section OnePurpose of this letter
  • Purpose of this letter
  • The purpose of this Annual Audit Letter (the letter) is to summarise the key issues arising from the work that we have carried out during 2005-06 at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust.
  • Although this letter is addressed to the directors of Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust (‘you’), it is also intended to communicate those key issues to key external stakeholders, including members of the public. The letter will be published on the Audit Commission website at www.audit-commission.gov.uk and on the Trust website at www.sath.nhs.uk.
  • Responsibilities of the auditor and the Trust
  • We have been appointed by the Audit Commission as your independent external auditor. The Audit Commission is the body responsible for appointing auditors to local public bodies in England, including NHS bodies.
  • The Audit Commission has issued a document entitled Statement of Responsibilities of Auditors and Audited Bodies which is available from www.audit-commission.gov.uk. This summarises where the responsibilities of auditors begin and end and what is expected from you as the audited body. External auditors do not act as a substitute for the audited body’s own responsibility for putting in place proper arrangements to ensure that public business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards, and that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for, and used economically, efficiently and effectively.
  • The scope of our work
  • The statutory responsibilities and powers of appointed auditors are set out in the Audit Commission Act 1998. Our main responsibility is to carry out an audit that meets the requirements of the Audit Commission’s Code of Audit Practice (the Code). Under the Code we are required to review and report on:
  • the use of resources - that is whether you have made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness (‘value for money’) in your use of resources
  • the accounts – that is the financial statements and the Statement on Internal Control.
  • This letter summarises the significant issues arising from both these areas of work and highlights the key areas we think you should address to improve performance in Appendix 1. The issues summarised in this letter have previously been reported to you and a list of all reports issued to you in relation to the 2005-06 audit is provided in Appendix 2.
section two key issues arising from use of resources work
Section TwoKey issues arising from use of resources work
  • The main elements of our use of resources work are:
    • Auditor’s Local Evaluation (ALE) - we are required to assess how well NHS bodies manage and use their financial resources by providing scored judgements on your arrangements in five specific areas.
    • Acute Hospital Portfolio Phase 6 – the Acute Hospitals Portfolio work is undertaken by us on behalf of the Healthcare Commission and benchmarks the Trusts performance against its comparator group on a sample of clinical and non clinical areas.
    • Value for money conclusion – in part based on the ALE assessment above, we are required to issue a conclusion on whether we are satisfied that you have put in place proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in your use of resources.
    • Specific risk based work - within the 2005/06 audit plan we indicated that we would complete work in three of the Audit Commission Red Risk topics: Managing Resources for Improvement, Work force contracts and Information Management and Governance. We have agreed with the Trust that due to the work ongoing with the Turnaround Project, we will revisit the work plan for appropriateness following the outcome of the first phase of the Turnaround Project. We have completed a high level review of the systems and processes which the Trust has implemented during the past twelve months to address the ongoing financial challenges faced.
  • Financial Management risk review
  • Overview of 2005/06
  • The Trust made deficit of £12.1 million in the year ended 31 March 2006. This was after the receipt of £19.26 million financial support from Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority (the SHA). This financial support offset the resource reduction relating to prior year deficits. This means that the £12.1 million deficit was the actual in-year financial position for the Trust.
  • Following a challenging first six months in 2005/06, the Trust reported significant improvements in its financial position during the second half of the year. From April to September, the Trust’s “run rate”, i.e. the difference between income and expenditure, was a monthly deficit averaging £1.37 million. This resulted in a half year outturn position for the year of £8.2 million deficit. Significant improvements in the financial position in the second half of the year resulted in an average run rate of £656,000 deficit, resulting in an outturn for the second half of the year of £3.9 million deficit. This represents a significant improvement in the financial performance of the Trust.
  • The Trust’s forecast outturn for 2005/06, at October 2005, and level of historic deficit led to the Trust being identified for a Department of Health (DoH) review as one of the 63 most financially challenged organisations in the NHS. The independent analysis of the financial position completed in December 2005 rated the Trust as a category one turnaround organisation, meaning that urgent action was required and additional management resources were needed to support the financial recovery. The Trust appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers to provide financial turnaround support and to help develop a long term financial recovery plan.
  • 2006/07 forecasts and budget setting process
  • The budget setting process for 2006/07 began early in 2006. Following the initial assessment of activity and income and expenditure budgets, the initial budget forecast a deficit of £8.1 million for 2006/07 should additional cost recovery actions not be undertaken. Following management challenge and consideration of outcomes of the turnaround work, the budget was revised and CIPs to the extent of £7.2 million were identified. At this point the forecast year end deficit remained £5 million.
  • This budget was rejected by the Strategic Health Authority in May 2006 and following further revisions of the potential CIPs, the Trust agreed financial support of £2.8 million with the SHA which enabled the Trust to produce a balanced budget which was approved by the Board on 23 May 2006.
section two key issues arising from use of resources work1
Section TwoKey issues arising from use of resources work
  • The chart below outlines the movement from the initial income and expenditure gap identified in the initial budget setting process through to the balanced budget agreed for 2006/07 which includes the financial support of £2.8 million.

Table 1 – Key breakeven budget assumptions Source: Trust annual budget exercise

  • The balanced plan is based upon the achievement of £9.4 million CIPs and as at August 2006 £2.2 million (23%) of these savings remained unidentified. The achievement of the total savings, which represent in excess of 4% of turnover, present a significant challenge at a time when the Trust is facing increased activity pressures and enhanced waiting times targets. The Trust therefore, needs rigorous processes to monitor delivery and provide assurances to the Board and its stakeholders.
  • In both our Annual Audit Letters and our Public Interest Report issued in July 2005, we highlighted concerns surrounding the robustness of budget setting and adequacy of budget monitoring processes both at Board and directorate level. As part of our 2005/06 audit we considered the adequacy of these processes against recognised best practice. Early findings and recommendations were made in our Interim Report which was presented to the March Audit Committee.
  • The PricewaterhouseCoopers turnaround support to the Trust to aid the delivery of the CIP development was undertaken during April and May 2006. Their findings are yet to be formally presented to the Trust. However, the Trust’s internal Turnaround Team, using the initial findings of PricewaterhouseCoopers, has been formulating a number of detailed project plans, for the delivery of the CIP. Each scheme has an identified purpose, objective and outcome measures to enable the level of success of the project to be monitored.
  • The plans formulated by the Turnaround Team to date, aim to deliver an element of the CIP, totalling £5.6 million through a number of specific projects. The Trust has commissioned Healthworks Ltd to provide additional project, performance and change management support to assist the delivery of these projects. The projects identified to date are split into three areas each with an Executive Director responsible for the delivery. The areas identified, the total to be delivered, and the Executive Director Responsible are detailed below:
  • Capacity – Chief Operating Officer £1.8 million;
  • Skill mix – Medical Director £0.7 million; and
  • Non clinical – Director of Finance £3.1 million.
section two key issues arising from use of resources work2
Section TwoKey issues arising from use of resources work
  • To monitor the delivery of the CIP, the Trust holds weekly delivery team meetings attended by the relevant project lead. These meetings are held primarily to share ideas and to update informally on progress to date. In addition, fortnightly Executive meetings are held where the progress to date is discussed along with the risks associated with each project. Finally the progress against the CIP targets are monitored at a monthly Turnaround Board, Chaired by the Chief Executive and attended by each of the Executive Directors, the Turnaround Project Manager, and a Non Executive Director. The Turnaround Board formally monitors the progress against plans, risks in delivery and updates against the bed reconfiguration plan. These arrangements are much stronger than those in place in prior years and meet many areas of good practice recommended by both private sector turnaround teams and the Audit Commission in its recent reviews of financial failings within NHS bodies.
  • The immediate challenge facing the Trust is the timescale for delivery of the CIP. A number of projects have already been identified as having a high risk of non-achievement in year and significant progress must be made against the delivery of the remaining project plans to ensure that outcomes are delivered on a timely basis during 2006/07. In addition to achieving the CIP, Trust budget holders have challenging operational budgets to meet in addition to CIPs.
  • As at 30 June 2006 (the latest figures available at the time of drafting this letter) the Trust had made an in year deficit of £1.4 million which was £636,000 (87%) greater than forecast. The Trust’s analysis suggests that this overspend is predominantly due to the non-achievement of budgeted CIPs rather than the operational overspends. However, at this point in time the Trust has been prudent in recognising over performance against contracts. Although there is only a minor income gain factored in at the end of June, the value of actual over performance is estimated at around £1 million. This income has not been included in the income budget although the costs have been recognised in the pay and non pay budgets. Should this income have been included, the deficit for the period would have been less than planned. The Trust needs to secure agreement for the payment of this and any subsequent over activity as soon as possible and factor this into its ongoing financial plans.
  • Despite the level of over activity the Trust must continue to focus on the delivery of the CIP. We have previously raised concerns about the late phasing of CIPs into Trust budgets. Although much improved, this continues to be a feature of the Trust budget with 32% of the £9.4 million CIP being planned for delivery in the final two months of the year. As highlighted, there has already been slippage in the delivery of planned CIPs which puts further pressure on the deliverability of the overall CIP programme. However, offsetting this, the Turnaround Team has identified a number of further savings projects for which plans are being developed.
  • Although the financial position remains precarious, the clarity of reporting the financial position is much improved and the establishment of the Finance Committee allows for more in-depth challenge by the Non Executive Directors of those managers responsible for the delivery of the Trust’s finances. Therefore the Trust should be better placed than in previous years to identify slippage against budgetary targets and more accurately forecast its end of year position.
  • The next step in financial recovery will be the achievement of a positive run rate and the delivery of the CIP.
section two key issues arising from use of resources work3
Section TwoKey issues arising from use of resources work
  • Wherever we identified an area to improve performance as a result of this work, we communicated this to the Trust as a recommendation. A summary of the most important recommendations raised, along with the Trust management’s response, has been provided at Appendix 1.
section three key issues arising from the audit of the accounts
Section ThreeKey issues arising from the audit of the accounts
  • Opinion
  • We issuedan unqualified opinion on your accounts on 7July 2006. This means that we believe the accounts give a true and fair view of the financial affairs of Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust and of the income and expenditure recorded by the Trust during the year.
  • Before we give our opinion on the accounts, we are required to report to your Audit Committee any significant matters arising from the audit. In reporting the outcome of the audit, in line with accounting standards, we report key issues to those charged with governance. We did this on 15 June 2006 and the key issues are summarised here.
  • Accounts production and adjustments to the accounts
  • We received a complete set of draft accounts by the deadline set by the Department of Health which were supported by good quality working papers.
  • We identified nine potential adjustments required to the accounts which had a £356,000 negative impact on the deficit. These were reported to the Audit Committee. The Committee agreed that these adjustments were not significant enough to require amendment and we confirmed they would not have an impact on our opinion on the accounts.
  • Financial Standing
  • NHS Trusts are given financial targets every year. One of these, the breakeven duty, is statutory, which means you must achieve it. The others are administrative, which means you should achieve them. Your performance against the targets in 2005-06 is outlined below.
  • .

As highlighted within the use of resources section , we remain concerned about the financial position going forward and the Trust’s ability to meet its statutory duties. This will remain a key focus of our audit work going forward.

appendices appendix 1 key recommendations
AppendicesAppendix 1: Key recommendations

This appendix summarises the main recommendations that we have identified during the 2005-06 year, along with your response to them. The detail of the recommendations has been communicated to you during the year.


AppendicesAppendix 3.Prior Year Annual Audit Letter recommendations

This appendix summarises the progress made to implement the recommendations that we identified in our previous Annual Audit Letter. We have given each of our recommendations a risk rating . In summary: