Abstract
NHS Trusts in England must adopt appropriate levels of continued investment in routine and backlog maintenance if they are to ensure critical backlog does not accumulate. This paper presents the current state of critical backlog maintenance within the National Health Service (NHS) in England through the statistical analyses of 115 Acute NHS Trusts. It aims to find empirical support for a causal relationship between building portfolio age and year-on-year increases in critical backlog. It makes recommendations for the use of building portfolio age in strategic asset management. The current trend across this sample of NHS Trusts may be typical of the whole NHS built asset portfolio and suggests that most Trusts need to invest between 0.5 and 1.5 per cent of income (depending upon current critical backlog levels and Trust age profile) to simply maintain critical backlog levels. More robust analytics for building age, condition and risk-adjusted backlog maintenance are required.
Highlights
Asset management in National Health Service (NHS) EnglishIn 2010/11, the English government spent circa £121bn on healthcare, which was delivered from a national building portfolio valued at £83bn and cost £7.2bn in maintenance (Harker 2012; Appleby et al 2009)
To demonstrate the relationship between NHS Trust building portfolio age and critical backlog maintenance cost, publicly available data called the NHS Hospital Estates and Facilities Statistics (2008–2011) and data provided by the Department of Health (DH) were utilised
It has been shown that Trust building portfolio age has a significant impact on critical backlog, and could drive the development of new asset management approaches
Summary
In 2010/11, the English government spent circa £121bn on healthcare, which was delivered from a national building portfolio valued at £83bn and cost £7.2bn in maintenance (Harker 2012; Appleby et al 2009). The Care Quality Commission (2010) stated that healthcare providers must “take account of any relevant design, technical and operational standards and manage all risks in relation to the premises”. The costs and risks associated with asset condition require further investigation, as do: life-cycle scenario planning (Bjorberg, Verweij 2009); the application of robust predictive analytics (Lavy, Shohet 2007); and the realisation of best portfolio and service whole life value (through acquisition, maintenance, adaptation and disposal strategies) (BSI 2000; BSI 2001; BSI 2002; BSI 2004a,b). Facilities management organisations have embraced new total asset management approaches such as agile, lean and enterprise (Price 2007; Price, May 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Strategic Property Management
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
