ONLINE IHEEM AE EVENT
responsibility does not need to include technical operational or professional duties, but the accountable officer does need access to a structure that delivers governance, assurance, and compliance, for a formal reporting mechanism. While a Trust’s CEO and Board carried the ultimate responsibility for a safe and secure healthcare environment, aspects of that responsibility could be assigned or delegated to other senior executives, but an independent audit system should be in place to assure them that the responsibilities were being discharged properly.
Independence key
Turning to the AE’s role, the speaker said: “HTM 00 makes clear that the Authorising Engineer’s role is to act as an independent professional advisor to the healthcare organisation, and that this individual should be appointed by that organisation with a brief to provide services in accordance with the relevant HTM – whether in water safety, fire safety, medical gas, and so on. Of course the AE’s professional status, and the role required, may vary in accordance with the specialist service being supported.” HTM 00 went on to say that the AE will ‘act as an assessor and make recommendations for the appointment of Authorised Persons, monitor the performance of the service, and provide an annual audit to the Designated Person. To effectively carry out this role, particularly with regard to the audit, the AE should remain independent of the operational structure of the healthcare organisation’.
Rationale for review
Paul Fenton said: “The rationale for undertaking the review of the Terms of Reference was to ensure that appropriate governance and assurance was in place in all of the these areas, and especially the first one, which is often forgotten.” He continued: “As Pete Sellars mentioned, we received the Engineering Council ‘red alert’ in 2019 over some issues around our Technical Platforms. We have to meet the licensing requirements of the Engineering Council, and because we also have corporate responsibilities to the Charities Commission, and to our members, the review was commissioned. Pete mentioned earlier about protecting IHEEM from potential professional litigation and reputational damage, and David Harper will touch on that later, but that has never been more important than during the last 12 to 15 months. We have seen a huge amount of change in the NHS in having to adapt our estate to meet the needs of the pandemic.” This, he explained, had meant looking at the various aspects of healthcare facilities’ building services, and at ‘how to make them work in this new COVID world’ –
18 Health Estate Journal August 2021 Paul Fenton, David Harper, and Maz Daoud, spoke in turn in the day’s first session.
which had ‘undoubtedly led to some derogations’.
Against this backdrop, IHEEM ‘absolutely needed to ensure’ that any litigation or reputational damage to it was ‘covered off’ through the review. Paul Fenton stressed that the Institute also wanted ‘to ensure transparency, fairness, inclusiveness, and consistency’, across all of its Technical Platforms, and as the review started, it became evident that each of the 10 operated quite differently. He said: “We needed to create the confidence across the system that IHEEM activity is underpinned by robust governance and assurance, and
operates within the agreed standards and by the appropriate code of conduct; that is no different than any other professional institution, and, of course, to support the 5-year Business Plan – to modernise elements of the of the Institute, ensuring that it is fit for purpose, and ready to respond to new opportunities and challenges.”
The review process
With all this in mind, a full governance review across all of IHEEM’s core business activities was undertaken by Head Office. The operation and management of the Technical Platforms, and the Boards of Registration for Authorising Engineers, were identified as a significant corporate risk, and this, together with the recommendation to undertake a review, was discussed and agreed by the Executive Council. In March 2019, the intention to undertake a review was then communicated to all Technical Platform Chairs, and ‘the broad context’ set out for initial feedback, forming the basis of detailed face-to-face discussions in July 2019.
IHEEM’s CEO, Pete Sellars, told the webinar audience: “The reason we conducted this review is that, following a Head Office review of our governance back in 2019, it was agreed that the management of these activities presented a significant corporate risk to the Institute.”
The initial feedback from Technical Platform Chairs had centred around discussions around professional indemnity, along with trademarking, and concerns around individuals and companies operating under the IHEEM brand, without having approval to do so. Technical Platform Chairs were informed in 2019 that Bill Millar and David Whiteley would undertake a high-level initial review of the existing Terms of Reference and working arrangements for all Technical Platforms and Boards of Registration, with wide notification of this work published in HEJ. Paul Fenton added: “In February 2020, at an IHEEM Strategic Planning event, the Council considered the findings of the review, and unanimously agreed that governance and assurance around the Technical Platforms and Boards of
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
