1

Governing Body Assurance Framework

Document information

Version Version 3.0

Reported to CCG Board 08.05.2013

Next review June 2013

Author Luke Moore – Governance and Risk Manager

Chair: Dr. Zuhair Zarifa Accountable Officer: Steve Gilvin

2

1 Contents

2 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Board Assurance Framework .................................................................................. 3

2.2 Risk Management Governance ............................................................................... 3

3 Board Assurance Framework ......................................................................................... 4

3.1 Risk Profile ............................................................................................................. 4

3.2 Risk area 1: Improve the quality of care commissioned services............................. 5

3.3 Risk area 2: Developing and sustaining beneficial stakeholder engagement........... 8

3.4 Risk area 3: Planning for a stable financial future ................................................. 11

3.5 Risk Area 4: CCG Authorisation ............................................................................ 13

4 How to interpret the CCG BAF ..................................................................................... 17

4.1 Risk profile ............................................................................................................ 17

4.2 Full BAF entries .................................................................................................... 18

5 Newham CCG – Risk Grading Matrix ........................................................................... 19

3

2 Purpose and Scope

2.1 Board Assurance Framework

The purpose of the Board Assurance Framework (BAF) is to:

1) Identify the main risks to achieving our objectives,

2) List and evaluate the mitigations in place to the reduce the likelihood or

impact of the risk,

3) Summarise the remedial or proposed actions that further mitigate the

likelihood or impact of the risk.

The BAF is an important document for providing external assurance (to NHSCB, Internal

Audit and the public) that the CCG is sighted on its risks and has a robust system of internal

control.

The BAF is populated and updated through an escalation process described in the Newham

CCG Integrated risk management framework.

A guide to interpreting individual BAF entries is shown at How to interpret the BAF.

The risk scoring matrix to establish initial risk ratings is shown at Newham CCG Risk

Grading Matrix

2.2 Risk Management Governance

Risk Management is embedded in Newham CCG‟s Governance Structure:-

The Audit Committee is responsible for scrutinising the group‟s Risk Management policies

and procedures. Accountable to the group‟s Board, the Committee provides the Board with

an independent and objective view of the group‟s financial systems, financial information and

compliance with laws, regulations and directions governing the group in so far as they relate

to finance.

The Executive Committee is responsible for approving internal control arrangements, risk

sharing and pooling agreements.

The Chief Officer is responsible for approving the group‟s arrangements for business

continuity and emergency planning.

The Chief Finance Officer is responsible for approving the group‟s Counter Fraud, Security

Management and Risk Management arrangements.

The Governing Board is responsible for approving and monitoring the Board Assurance

Framework.

4

3 Board Assurance Framework

3.1 Risk Profile

Risk #

Risk Summary Risk Owner

Initial Risk rating

(January 2013)

May 2013

Forecast Progress Target

August 2013

forecast

Difference between

target and forecast

1.1 Not delivering on CSP and QIPP plans Scott Hamilton 15 12 8 12 4

1.2 Not improving the quality of commissioned care. Chetan Vyas 20 15 10 15 5

1.3 Barts financial performance Chad Whitton 15 15 10 15 5

2.1 CSU ability to deliver on contracted services due to capability / capacity.

Scott Hamilton 20 10

3 10 7

2.2 Board preparation for meeting in public Satbinder Sanghera

8 2

1 1 0

2.3 Collaborative working and engagement with local authority.

Jane Lindo 9 9

3 3 0

3.1 Financial management of the CCG Chad Whitton 16 8 3 5 2

3.2 Transfer of a proportion of the specialised commissioning budget from NCCG to NHS England

Scott Hamilton 20 20

15 10 -5

4.1 CCG has outstanding conditions for authorisation Steve Gilvin 12 3 1 0 -1

4.2 CCG is not prepared for the Cluster 'Handover and Legacy documents' including contracts.

Steve Gilvin 12 6

2 2 0

4.3 Unprepared for Emergency Planning and NCCGs role

Satbinder Sanghera

12 12

2 10 8

4.4 IG arrangements for CCG are in undeveloped state.

Satbinder Sanghera

15 12

2 10 8

4.5 Recruitment and retention of key staff Steve Gilvin 20 9 6 8 2

4.6 Bridging skills and competency levels throughout organisation

Steve Gilvin 20 12

10 12 2

5

3.2 Risk area 1: Improve the quality of care commissioned services

Risk

Ref Lead

Risk

Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

1.1 Director

of

Delivery

Failure to

deliver the CSP

(including QIPP

plans) could

result in:

-A reduced

ability to deliver

local service

improvement for

patients, this

year and

beyond.

-An increase in

the likelihood of

performance

management

measures from

NHS England.

-Negative media

coverage.

Se

ve

re (

5)

x P

oss

ible

(3)

= H

igh

Ris

k (

15) -Quality & Delivery Programme Board

has responsibility for oversight for the

Operating Plan and QIPP and reports

regularly to the Executive Committee.

-Programme Boards have

responsibility for their elements of the

plan.

-Senior management meeting

between CCG & CSU relating to

finance activity and performance.

-Operating Plan consulted on by

multiple stakeholders and approved.

-CCG Management leads are in post

working with CSU teams (E.g.

Borough team and Health Intelligence)

to ensure delivery within financial

envelope.

-Terms of

reference,

agendas and

minutes of the

Q&D PB as well as

the Board reports

and minute

demonstrate focus

of CCG on

delivery.

-Programme

Boards feed into

the Executive

Committee

through the

process outlined in

the Corporate

Governance

document.

-The NCCG

structure chart

shows

management team

in place with

collaborative CSU

working.

-The CSP

document and

minutes / email

chains of

consultation and

approval.

CSS Service Level

Agreement

showing provision

of support.

Cluster support

Ma

jor

(4)

x P

os

sib

le (

3)

= M

ed

ium

Ris

k (

12) None identified -NCCG sign off

of QIPP plans

by March 2013.

-NHS England

(London office)

sign off of

Operating Plan

and QIPP

plans by March

2013.

-Uncertain of

how NCB will

gain assurance

on delivery.

-Prepare and

submit

detailed QIPP

plans for

2013/14/15/16.

-Revise QIPP

plan to ensure

it contains high

level strategic

intentions and

delivery plans

until 2014-15.

Ma

jor

(4)

x U

nlik

ely

(2)

= M

ed

ium

Ris

k (

8)

6

Risk

Ref Lead

Risk

Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

1.2 Deputy

Director

of

Quality

Failure to

manage

performance &

quality at Barts

Health NHS

Trust.

This will

negatively

impact upon

the healthcare

of the local

population,

CCG finances

and CCG

reputation.

-Poor value for

money for the

CCG and

taxpayer.

-Unable to

support CCG

strategy of out

of hospital care

and achieve

the associated

efficiency

savings

Se

ve

re (

5)

x L

ikely

(4

) =

Hig

h R

isk (

20) -Q & D Programme Board

established.

-Collaborative Commissioning

Arrangements in place to monitor

overall Trust performance

- CSU performance scrutiny across all

clinical indicators

-Daily and weekly reporting on

compliance. Weekly updates on

actions and progress (Hot Topics)

- -Policies in place to ensure that

serious incidents and complaints are

communicated to NCCG.

-CQRM meetings in place monthly for

providers.

-Programme Boards have

responsibility for their elements of the

CSP.

Handover of Cluster quality

management processes under way.

- Borough summary reports &

Finance & Activity reports

submitted monthly to CCG

Board

Terms of

reference,

agendas and

minutes of the

Q&D PB as well as

the Board reports

and minutes

demonstrate focus

of CCG on

delivery.

-CSU offer and

contract and

performance

monitoring

arrangements.

-Documented

minutes of where

the weekly

updates are

received and the

actions taken by

the CCG officers

and Board.

- CQRM minutes

reported to Q&D

PB.

Cluster Quality

handover

documentation

Monitoring of

Barts Health

progress towards

FTstatus by NHS

TDA

Se

ve

re (

5)

x P

oss

ible

(3

) =

Hig

h R

isk (

15) Embedded

quality

management

processes with

providers that

allows

challenge of

performance.

Development

of CQRM

meetings. -

KPIs that

demonstrate

robustness of

provider

recovery plans.

--Early warning

and monitoring

systems in

place with CSU

to warn of large

variances in

quality in terms

of

performance,

SIs complaints,

etc.

- None

identified

- Devise

quality

management

processes.

Devise quality

KPIs.

-Complete

handover of

quality

management

processes and

handover

documentation

.

Se

ve

re (

5)

x U

nlik

ely

(2)

= M

ed

ium

Ris

k (

10)

7

Risk

Ref Lead

Risk

Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

1.3 Chief

Finance

Officer

Failure to

manage

financial

performance at

Barts creating

severe financial

pressure for the

CCG.

Move to PBR

contract for

2013/14 with

loss of risk

share

arrangement

creates

additional risk

of over

performance

against the

contract.

Se

ve

re (

5)

x L

ikely

(3

) =

Hig

h R

isk (

15

) -Q & D Programme Board established.

-Finance and Activity report

considered each month by Q&D and

the Board.

-Programme Boards have

responsibility for their elements of the

CSP.

- Practice clusters considering regular

activity information with drill-downs on

high-spend areas.

- Demand Management programmes

being implemented through practice

clusters

- Collaborative agreements in place

and working effectively

- Analysis of the Cost Improvement

Programme (CIP) at the Trust does

not impact negatively on the CCG.

- Contractual levers including KPIs

and CQUINs

- Process for management of the CSU

regarding acute contracts

management in place.

Terms of

reference,

agendas and

minutes of the

Q&D PB as well as

the Board reports

and minute

demonstrate focus

of CCG on

delivery.

-CSU offer and

contract and

finance and activity

monitoring

arrangements.

- Cost

Improvement

Programme

analysis

- Minutes of cluster

meetings to

demonstrate work

around demand

management to

manage activity

levels into acute.

-NHS TDA

performance

management can

ensure that a

delivery plan is

developed upon

major slippages

Se

ve

re (

5)

x P

oss

ible

(3

) =

Hig

h R

isk (

15) Analysis of

cost

improvement

programme

(CIP)

- None

identified

CCG review of

the CIP

Ensure robust

financial,

quality &

performance

monitoring

arrangements

are in place as

result of

review of Barts

Health

commissioning

arrangements

review

Se

ve

re (

5)

x U

nlik

ely

(2)

= M

ed

ium

Ris

k (

10)

8

3.3 Risk area 2: Developing and sustaining beneficial stakeholder engagement

Risk

Ref Lead

Risk

Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

2.1 Director of

Delivery

CSU capability /

capacity to

deliver on

contracted

services could

result in the

increased

likelihood of the

failure of

several

corporate

objectives.

Sev

ere

(5)

x L

ikely

(4)

= H

igh

Ris

k (

20) -Level of CSU support agreed.

-Open dialogue between CCG and

CSU on amendments to the level of

provision.

-Monthly meeting with the Chief

Officer, Head of Governance &

Engagement and the Commissioning -

Support Director from the CSU.

- Quarterly review with the CSU

Executive

- Review of CSU customer report

- Use of KPIs (to be finalised)

- Regular escalation of issues to the

Commissioning Support Director

CSU

governance

structure

showing filled

roles.

-CSU KPIs

and meeting

schedules.

Successful

completion of

„Checkpoint 2‟

„Checkpoint 3‟

feedback

reports.

„Checkpoint 4‟

due for

completion

shortly.

WELC POD

meeting every

2-weeks to

review

performance

Monthly CSU

Executive

meeting for

escalation

Se

ve

re (

5)

x P

oss

ible

(2

) =

Hig

h R

isk

(1

0) -Finalise KPIs

for CSU,

including „local‟

Newham KPIs.

-Establish a

CCG network for

performance

management of

CSU.

-Develop

contingency

plans for

alternative

commissioning

support.

- Embed CSU

into the CCG

governance

structure

-

Documented

process for

escalation and

contract levers

to manage

performance.

-Finalise KPIs

and

performance

management

process for

CSU

Escalation

process for

resolution of

issues

established.

Market-test

exercise to be

undertaken

from Q3

Mo

dera

te (

3)

x R

are

(1)

= L

ow

Ris

k (

3)

9

Risk

Ref Lead

Risk

Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

2.2 Head of

Governance

/

Accountable

Officer

Board members

insufficiently

prepared

meeting in

public could

result in:

-Damage to

reputation

M

ino

r (2

) x L

ikely

(4)

= M

ed

ium

Ris

k (

8)

Chair, Senior Officers and other Board

members are experienced in meetings

McKinseys have delivered a Board

development session on preparations

for meeting in public.

None

identified at

present.

None

identified at

present.

Min

or

(2)

x R

are

(1)=

Lo

w R

isk (

2)

Training /

development

session

McKinsey review

of March Board

meeting.

-Peer review

feedback

None identified

at present

Insig

nif

ican

t (1

) x R

are

(1)

= L

ow

Ris

k (

1)

10

Risk

Ref Lead

Risk

Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

2.3 Deputy

Director of

Delivery

Not maximising

collaborative

working and

engagement

with external

groups (e.g.

local authority,

voluntary sector

and Community

groups) could

result in:

-Adverse Media

attention

-Damage to

reputation

-Duplication of

effort from LA

and CCG.

-Increase in

complaints

-NCB scrutiny

of NCCG PPE

-Poor VfM

through missed

opportunities.

-Reduced ability

to deliver care

that suits the

needs of the

local

population.

-Reduced ability

to meet one of

the

cornerstones of

the reforms (No

decision about

me without me)

Mo

de

rate

(3)

x P

os

sib

le (

3)

= M

ed

ium

ris

k (

9) - Partnerships Programme Board

monthly meeting with the LA.

- Monthly joint ops meeting with the

Local Authority to discuss areas of

commonality to ensure VFM and to

identify further joint working

opportunities.

-Local authority members attend CCG

Board.

-Internet, workshops and newsletters

demonstrate the wide range of

communication mediums used.

- PPE embedded into entire CCG

structure

- PPE strategy in place.

-Head of Governance & Engagement

in post.

-Non executive with lead for PPE on

CCG Board.

-JSNA process in place including

priority setting

-H&WB Board in place

-H&WB strategy in place

-Minutes of

CCG formal

meetings.

-Newsletters

-NCCG

Governance

structure

-E&C Strategy

-Mins, TOR

and agendas

of joint ops

meeting.

-HWBB mins

TOR,

agendas.

-Authorisation

feedback.

Mo

de

rate

(3)

x P

oss

ible

(3)

= M

ed

ium

ri

sk (

9) Implementation

plan for

Engagement

Strategy

None identified

at present

Internet,

workshops and

newsletters to

be developed

to demonstrate

the wide range

of

communication

mediums

used.

CCG launch &

production of

prospectus

used to

engage public

& patients

Mo

de

rate

(3)

x R

are

(1

) =

Lo

w ri

sk (

3)

11

3.4 Risk area 3: Planning for a stable financial future

Risk

Ref Lead

Risk

Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

3.1 Chief

Finance

Officer

Failure to plan

for a sustainable

financial future

would result in:

-Major impact on

ability to deliver

several

Corporate

Objectives.

-Severe impact

on CCG

Finances.

-Major damage

to CCG

reputation.

Ma

jor

(4)

x L

ikely

(4)

= H

igh

Ris

k (

16) -Substantive CFO now in post.

- Finance Plan for 13/14 has a 1% surplus target and will provide 2% non-

recurrent head-room and 1%

contingency, 50% of which is to cover

acute contracting risk. There will be a

risk reserve of £2.3 million and plans to

commit the balance of the £3.8m

brought forward 12/13 surplus on non-

recurrent pump-priming initiatives.

-Detailed monthly reporting to Q&D PB

and The Board

Summary reporting to the CCG Board

on a monthly basis.

-Audit Committee and Board will

scrutinise the reports.

-Monthly FIMS returns to NCB.

See risks 1.1 for management of QIPP

risk

-Documented

CCG Board

approval of

financial plan.

-JD and

scope of work

for the CFO.

-Audit

Committee -

TOR,

agendas and

minutes.

- Q&D &

CCG Board

minutes

NCB

approval of

financial plan

as part of

authorisation

process.

Ma

jor

(4)

x U

nlik

ely

(2)

= M

ed

ium

Ris

k (

8) -Handover

between Interim

CFO and

substantive

CFO to be

arranged.

-Review of

Standing

Financial

Instructions and

scheme of

delegation.

-Final financial

plan.

-NCCG Scheme

of Delegation.

-Handover from

interim CFO to

CFO.

Mo

de

rate

(3)

x R

are

(1

) =

Lo

w ri

sk (

3)

12

Risk

Ref Lead

Risk

Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

3.2 Director

of

Delivery

There is a risk

that the CCG will

not be able to

fully recover

funding

transferred pro-

rata to the

NHSE to enable

the London-wide

costs of

specialised

commissioning

to be met

There is a risk

that a reduction

in the CCG

commissioning

budget will

decrease the

likelihood of the

CCG agreeing

contracts with its

major providers

which could

ultimately lead to

arbitration.

Se

ve

re (

5)

x L

ikely

(4

) =

Hig

h R

isk (

20) The CCG Board holds overall

responsibility for commissioning

services within budget.

Programme Boards hold devolved

budgets for their defined areas of

commissioning.

The CCGs providers are engaged

through programme boards and

through contract negotiation meetings

with support from the CSU contracting

team.

Director of

Delivery

A Technical

Group led by

the London

Area DoF and

including CCG

representatives

is working with

the SCG & the

3 London

CSUs to

ensure CCG

contributions

are matched to

commitments

through the

year with

appropriate

repatriation of

excess

funding. Ma

jor

(5)

x U

nlik

ely

(4

) =

Hig

h R

isk (

20) None identified

at present

None identified

at present

Detailed work

to be

undertaken by

NCL/NELC

CCGs in

conjunction

with CSU

contracting

team to monitor

and challenge

the contract

value of the

specialist

commissioning

services

transferred to

NHS England.

Se

ve

re (

5)

x U

nlik

ely

(2)

= M

ed

ium

ris

k (

10)

13

3.5 Risk Area 4: CCG Authorisation

Risk

Ref Lead Risk Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

4.1 Accountable

Officer

The CCG has been

authorised by NHS

England, with eight

remaining conditions.

In order to fully

discharge its

commissioning duties

the CCG needs to

remove outstanding

conditions as possible.

Majo

r (4

) x

Po

ssib

le (

3)

= M

ed

ium

ris

k (

12) We currently have eight conditions

and no directions following the

March Evidence Window.

Evidence was submitted for one

outstanding condition relating to

Safeguarding in April 2013.

We will be submitting further

evidence for the remaining

conditions in the June Evidence

Window.

Head of

Governance

and

Engagement

-Authorisation

feedback

NHS England

authorisation

reports

Mo

dera

te (

3)

x R

are

(1)

= L

ow

Ris

k (

3) -Await

guidance for

how end of

year 1

assessment

will be

undertaken.

-None

identified at

present.

-Complete

submission of

evidence of all

remaining

conditions in

June evidence

window.

Insig

nif

ican

t (1

) x R

are

(1)

= L

ow

ris

k (

1)

14

Risk

Ref Lead Risk Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

4.2 Chief Officer Transfer schemes,

statutory functions,

contracts, quality.

The risk of the CCG not

being fully prepared for

the handover of “legacy”

functions, documents

and responsibilities

could result in an

unexpected high level of

risk and drain on

resources in QTR1 of

2013/14.

Ma

jor(

4)

x P

oss

ible

(3

) =

Me

diu

m r

isk (

12) -Handover documents, including

Contract Novation List, Property

List and Asset Register being

scrutinised by CCG officers and

signed off by CO using CCG

delegated authority

-Day one

action plan

-Authorisation

feedback/

Mo

de

rate

(3)

x U

nli

kely

(2)

= M

ed

ium

ris

k (

6) -Processes

for due

diligence

-Newham

information

governance

policy inclusive

of retention of

records.

-Newham

policy on

shared drive

structure

incorporates

management

of legacy

documentation.

-Write and

implement

policies.

-Ensure there

is sufficient

resources to

conduct due

diligence on

the Cluster

transfer

documentation.

-Prepare

adequate

storage or

management

processes for

the content.

- The CCG has

a day one

planning group

in place to

address

handover

issues from

existing to new

organisational

structures.

Min

or

(2)

x R

are

(1)

= L

ow

ris

k (

2)

15

Risk

Ref Lead Risk Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

4.3 Head of

Governance

and

Engagement

Uncertainty over

Emergency Planning

and NCCGs role

Ma

jor(

4)

x P

oss

ible

(3

) =

Me

diu

m r

isk (

12) The CCG is working with

colleagues at the Commissioning

Board, CSU, fellow CCGs and the

London Borough of Newham to

ensure that robust arrangements

for emergency planning remain in

place through the transition period

and into the future

Agreed need

EPPR plan in

place for

WELC

Emergency

Planning on-

call

arrangements

established

with senior

CCG officers

trained.

- CSU

Ma

jor(

4)

x P

oss

ible

(3

) =

Me

diu

m r

isk (

12) -None

identified at

present

-None

identified at

present

-Emergency

Plan

Business

Continuity Plan

Min

or

(2)

x R

are

(1)

= L

ow

ris

k (

2)

4.4 Head of

Governance

and

Engagement

IG arrangements for

CCG are under-

developed.

Mo

de

rate

(3

) x

Ce

rtain

(5

) =

Hig

h r

isk

(1

5) The CCG is commissioning IG

support from the CSU

An Information Governance

Development Plan has been

agreed by the NHSCB as part of

the authorisation process this will

form the workplan for 2013/14.

Bespoke support from Cluster

governance team on offer.

-Day one

action plan

-NHSCB

assurances on

IG.

Mo

de

rate

(3)

x

Lik

ely

(4)

=

Me

diu

m r

isk (

12)

-Write CCG

specific IG

policies

-Ensure key

IG

appointments

have received

the relevant

training.

-Policies and

procedures on

IG.

Complete IG

action plan.

Min

or

(2)

x R

are

(1)

= L

ow

ris

k (

2)

16

Risk

Ref Lead Risk Description

Initial

Risk

Rating

Controls

Assurances Current

risk

rating

Gaps

Pro

po

se

d

ac

tio

ns

Target

Risk

Internal External Control Assurance

4.5 Accountable

Officer

Recruitment and

retention of key staff

Se

ve

re (

5)

x L

ikely

(4

) =

Hig

h R

isk (

20) - Majority o permanent posts now

recruited to

- External recruitment being

undertaken if no suitable

candidates in internal

redeployment pool

- Temporary staff recruited if

business need is agreed

- Monitoring

reports to

Executive

Committee

- Employment

agencies for

temporary

staff

Mo

de

rate

(3)

x P

oss

ible

(3)

= M

ed

ium

ris

k (

9) - None

identified at

present

-None

identified at

present

-None

identified at

present

Min

or

(2)

x P

oss

ible

(3)

=

Me

diu

m r

isk (

6)

4.6 Accountable

Officer

Bridging skills and

competency levels

throughout organisation

Se

ve

re (

5)

x L

ikely

(4

) =

Hig

h

Ris

k (

20) - Skills audit across NCCG to be

undertaken (for Board)

- Gap analysis to be produced for

Board

- PDPs to be produced for Board

Members

- Regular Development Sessions

for Board Members

- Reports to

Executive

Committee

and Board

- Specialist OD

support from

McKinsey

consulting

Mo

de

rate

(3)

x L

ikely

(4)

=

Me

diu

m r

isk (

12) -None

identified at

present

-None

identified at

present

Skills audit and

PDPs for staff

to be

undertaken

Se

ve

re (

5)

x U

nlik

ely

(2)

=

Me

diu

m R

isk (

10)

17

4 How to interpret the CCG BAF

4.1 Risk profile

18

4.2 Full BAF entries

19

5 Newham CCG – Risk Grading Matrix