CENTRAL MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

Transcription

1 CENTRAL MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST Report of: Paper prepared by: Julia Bridgewater, Chief Operating Officer David Furnival, Director of Service Redesign Date of paper: June 2014 Subject: Purpose of Report: Statement of Case for a helipad on the Central Site Indicate which by Information to note Support Resolution Approval Consideration of Risk against Key Priorities The provision of high quality helicopter landing facilities is critical to the efficient transportation of patients by air ambulances. One of the current air ambulance charities has deemed the existing landing site at Platt Fields unfit to use and has ceased to use it, another has raised similar concerns. As a result of these concerns and the potential changes to trauma and broader emergency care provision across Greater Manchester, the Trust has reviewed the options for a helipad located on the Central Island Site. A long list of fifteen options has been refined to four options, the current preferred option being the provision of a helipad on the Grafton Street car park extension with a link bridge to the MRI Phase 1 and 2 buildings. Recommendations The Board are asked to note the content of this report and support the development of the Full Business Case and exploration of all available funding routes to support the development of the helipad on the Central Island Site. Page 1 of 7

2 Introduction Statement of Case for a helipad on the Central Site 1. The provision of high quality helicopter landing facilities is critical to the efficient transportation of patients by air ambulances. The time taken and manner in which a patient is transferred from the aircraft to the point where they can receive definitive care is also essential. 2. Within the Trauma network in England only 7 of the 29 Trusts have suitable helipads, with a further 7 having landing facilities that have operational issues 1. The remaining 15 sites require secondary land transfer from another site, incurring a delay. 3. CMFT is one of the 15 Trusts requiring a secondary ambulance transfer from the designated landing site in a local park (Platt Fields) to the hospital campus. 4. Recent correspondence received from the Director of Operations, at Great North Air Ambulance Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (GNAAS), has identified that they are encountering problems while landing at the Platt Fields site. This has resulted in GNAAS now deeming the site unfit for use - owing to the hazard of foreign object damage, risk from and to the public and secure access/egress to and from the park. 5. Similar concerns have also been raised by the North West Air Ambulance when they met with the Trust. 6. As a result of these concerns and the potential changes to trauma and broader emergency care provision across Greater Manchester the Trust has reviewed the options for a helipad located on the Central Island Site Options for the provision of a helipad on the Central Island Site 7. The Trust commissioned a report by CAA International (CAAi), a subsidiary of the UK Civil Aviation Authority to identify potential helipad locations. 8. The CAAi report identified fifteen potential locations (thirteen on the island site and two within the immediate vicinity), of which six were deemed suitable for further consideration as elevated helipads (see Appendix 1). 9. Each option for an elevated helipad would require its own supporting structure as none of the existing buildings could carry the require loads. 10. Given the likely timescales to implement an operational elevated helipad CAAi have been recommissioned to review/identify short term landing sites. Should any options be identified these would require ambulance transfer from the landing site to the hospital. 1 As detailed by the Association of Air Ambulances in their Helipads Report March 2014 Page 2 of 7

3 11. Further refinement following the CAAi report has led to the development of four options. The four options are summarised as follows: H1: Roof level, over MRI Phase 1 & Phase 2 Buildings H2: An independent core supporting the Helipad structure, at the rear of radiology, linked to the main hospital buildings via a corridor at ground floor H3: Roof level, over the RMCH Building H4: Roof level, over the new Grafton Street car park; linked to MRI Phase 1 & Phase 2 buildings via a high-level link bridge and roof-top corridor. The sketch plan for this option is shown in Appendix The indicative costings (exclusive of VAT) for the options are shown below. H1-4.7m H2-4.1m H3-4.5m H4-3.2m 13. In each case the use of a combination of ramp, lift and internal corridors gives direct trolley push access from the helipad to the relevant Emergency Department, negating the need for ambulance transfers. 14. At this stage it is estimated that each option would take 24+ months from a formal decision to proceed to commencing flight operation. This in part is due to likely requirements of the planning process. 15. It may be possible to shorten the build phase for option H4 by 4-6 months by adapting existing planned works on the Bruntwood Grafton Street car park extension and modifying the Project Co lifecycling plans. In order to do so an instruction to proceed Page 3 of 7

4 would be required quickly to avoid any aborted works which would then place a pressure on the cost plan. 16. As each option is an elevated (rooftop) helipad there is a requirement to provide a minimum of two 2 trained Rescue and Fire Fighting Services personnel at all times the helipad is in operation. This potentially increases the revenue consequences of helipad operation but affects all options equally. 17. The transfer distances for each option from the landing site to adult and paediatric ED are shown below. Option Distance to Adult ED (m) Distance to Paediatric ED (m) H H H H Option H4 is deemed the preferred option at this point due to the lower capital cost, potential to reduce the overall build time and similar transfer distances when compared to the other options. Funding 19. All local sources of potential funding will be reviewed. This will include a discussion with the CMFT Charity regarding possible fundraising to support the construction and potentially the running costs of helipad operation. Recommendation 20. The Board of Directors are asked to support the development of the Full Business Case for a helipad on the Central Site. 21. The Board of Directors are asked to support a rapid conversation with Bruntwood regarding the potential adaptation of the Grafton Street car park scheme. 22. The Board of Directors are asked to support the ongoing conversation regarding funding streams for the capital and revenue consequences of the helipad build and operation, including conversations with the CMFT charity. 2 Two RFFS personnel are required for H1 helicopter landings. H1 designates helicopters with an overall length up to 15m which includes all current ambulance helicopters. If H2 helicopters were to use the helipad three RFFS personnel would be required. Page 4 of 7

5 Appendix 1: Potential Helipad locations, CMFT Island Site (Extract from CAAi report, Feb 2013) The six suitable locations are highlighted by a red bounding-box DESCRIPTION COMMENT 1 Above A&E development, MRI Phase 1&2 A suitable site for an elevated helipad. Option H1 2 A&E Car Park Site in car park at ground level is unsuitable for safe helicopter operations. 3 Above Bowling Green Pub Unsuitable due to the proximity of high rise buildings and a road junction. 4 Above Welcome building Existing building has a sloping roof plus the proposed extension to the Grafton Street multistorey would make this location unsuitable. 5 Above NOWGEN Access to A&E possibly an issue plus the proposed extension to the Grafton Street multi-storey 6 Above the Grafton Street Car Park Option H4 7 Above the Rehabilitation Centre (discounted due to the transfer route and future estate plans) would make this location unsuitable. The top of the car park or an extension to the existing car park would make this a suitable site for an elevated helipad. Above the Rehabilitation Centre would make this a suitable site for an elevated helipad provided the helipad was raised 2-3 storeys above adjacent surrounding buildings. 8 On the Boulevard The proximity and presence of buildings and enclosed bridge makes this location unsuitable for a surface level helipad. 9 Behind Old Saint Mary s The proximity and presence of buildings makes this 10 Hathersage Road Car Park The proximity and presence of buildings makes this location unsuitable for a surface level helipad. 11 Above MISHC & Hathersage Road Car Park Distance from A&E makes this location 12 Highest point of the New Hospital Development between St Mary s and RMCH Option H3 unsuitable. Suitable - from a helicopter operational perspective it is one of the best locations for an elevated helipad but could be considered less than ideal due to distance from the Adult A&E. 13 Above ICON Unsuitable due to proximity of the hospital 14 Above the A&E Entrance (A modified version of Option H1) 15 On the land opposite MRI A&E across the A34 (Discounted due to issues with land ownership and the requirement for a raised platform and link bridge negating any benefits) buildings adjacent to the site. A suitable site for an elevated helipad but would have to be at the height of the helipad planned for option 1 to ensure the required access routes for the helicopter are achieved. Has the potential to be suitable from the viewpoint of accommodating safe helicopter operations. Overall, suitability will depend on access to A&E across the A34 with a covered bridge and ideally a helipad at bridge level which would be considered as elevated. Without the link bridge this option would require an ambulance transfer Page 5 of 7

6 Map of locations as contained within the preceding table, extracted from the CAAi report prepared in February 2013 Page 6 of 7 Agenda Item 8.2

7 Appendix 2: Sketch proposals For Option H4, Rooftop Helipad over GSMSCP Expansion Page 7 of 7 Agenda Item 8.2