Six-month planHandover deliverables → Ideas under test

Handover deliverable · 6 of 6 · Target M1–M6

Ideas under test

Portfolio of ideas tested, promoted, parked or dismissed — Test and Scale in practice.

DRH migration context: Legendary Care (case-based) → PathwayOne (action-based). Parallel run Dec 2025–Jan 2026; Mar 2026 definition crunch.

Test and Scale in practice: test cheaply with real users, test against evidence, stop ideas that mislead, park what is not ready, promote what improves decisions, scale only when the evidence is strong enough.

What this register is for

A controlled way to test improvement ideas without turning every suggestion into a permanent report or dashboard. During a six-month secondment there is not time to build everything — there is time to learn what deserves further investment and what should stop.

How an idea moves through the register

What makes an idea safe to scale

Summary table

IDIdeaStatusMonthDecision supported
IDEA-01Weekly demand/capacity packPromotedM4Weekly capacity, agency spend and workforce allocation.
IDEA-02Reporting assurance single packPromotedM3Whether figures are safe to publish to SLT, Board or mandatory returns.
IDEA-034-week backlog forecastingDismissedM4Agency hire and short-term capacity spend.
IDEA-04SPC on referral countsParkedM4When to escalate suspected definition drift.
IDEA-05Manager 1:1 performance conversation guideUnder testM4Team performance support, training needs and whether underperformance needs formal HR pathway.
IDEA-06DNA recovery slot analysisUnder testM4Whether to expand recovery slot model to other CMHTs.
IDEA-07RosterFlow capacity integrationParkedM5Agency spend and roster planning in weekly pack.
IDEA-08PIP / underperformance support pathwayUnder testM4Whether formal performance support is appropriate vs definition or caseload mix issue.
IDEA-09Trust-wide MH demand forecastParkedM5Long-term workforce and estate investment.
IDEA-10Board slide confidence columnPromotedM5What is safe to present at Board and what needs a caveat conversation.
IDEA-11Real pressure vs data artefact reviewUnder testM4Agency, roster and escalation — real demand vs wait to fix definitions.
IDEA-12Source-to-report walkthrough with CMHT leadsUnder testM4Whether to roll out map walkthroughs to all CMHT teams.
IDEA-13Handover checklist with incoming post-holderPromotedM6Whether secondment outputs become business-as-usual products.

Idea cards

Promoted · M4 · IDEA-01

Weekly demand/capacity pack

Problem: CMHT managers run separate spreadsheets for referrals, waits, caseload and agency — often on different definitions during the Legendary Care to PathwayOne move.

Small test: Build a single weekly pack and run it with two CMHT leads for six weeks. Compare their capacity meetings against the old spreadsheet routine.

Evidence: Managers use the pack in meetings without BI translation; agency and roster conversations reference the same figures; South/North variance prompts action (INS-01).

Decision it supports: Weekly capacity, agency spend and workforce allocation.

Next step: Promoted — owned by performance lead with CMHT sign-off; not scaled Trust-wide until a third team confirms value.

Safe to scale when: Managers change decisions because of the pack; OPT-C referral definition signed off; pack refreshed from agreed sources only.

Demand capacity pack

Promoted · M3 · IDEA-02

Reporting assurance single pack

Problem: Migration risk, validation checks and confidence ratings duplicated each other — sponsors read one page and missed the publish decision.

Small test: Draft one combined assurance page; walk BI lead and performance lead through March 2026 withhold scenario before replacing three separate deliverables.

Evidence: Single narrative covers risks → checks → publish; March withhold of executive dashboard understood in one read-through.

Decision it supports: Whether figures are safe to publish to SLT, Board or mandatory returns.

Next step: Promoted as deliverable #3; monthly refresh owned by performance + BI.

Safe to scale when: Publish rules agreed with directorate; checks automated where possible; owners named for each must-not-fail report.

Reporting assurance pack

Dismissed · M4 · IDEA-03

4-week backlog forecasting

Problem: Directorate asked for a simple backlog forecast to justify agency spend while waits were rising.

Small test: Four-week linear forecast using dashboard referral counts (W18–W21) compared to agreed OPT-C trend.

Evidence: Forecast overshot actual backlog growth by 18% because dashboard referrals inflated demand during definition change (INS-03).

Decision it supports: Agency hire and short-term capacity spend.

Next step: Dismissed for Board use until OPT-C signed off and six weeks of stable agreed data exist.

demand_capacity_insights.csv

Parked · M4 · IDEA-04

SPC on referral counts

Problem: Teams want an early warning when referral logic drifts — before mandatory returns or Board packs go wrong.

Small test: Plot weekly referrals on a control chart for March, using both dashboard and OPT-C series side by side.

Evidence: Chart flagged false signals every time definition options changed; signal-to-noise unusable during parallel run.

Decision it supports: When to escalate suspected definition drift.

Next step: Park until OPT-C is signed off and at least three months of single-definition data exist.

Safe to scale when: One agreed numerator; stable feed; service managers understand limits of statistical rules.

KPI definitions register

Under test · M4 · IDEA-05

Manager 1:1 performance conversation guide

Problem: Productivity variance by team (contacts per WTE) was visible in data but conversations with line managers were ad hoc and defensive.

Small test: Short conversation guide linked to weekly pack metrics; two CMHT leads trial for four weeks with South team focus.

Evidence: Managers report clearer actions from 1:1s; at least one workforce action logged (roster review or training) per pilot team.

Decision it supports: Team performance support, training needs and whether underperformance needs formal HR pathway.

Next step: Continue pilot; pair with IDEA-08 if HR pathway test succeeds.

Safe to scale when: HR BP agrees template; trade unions consulted if needed; guide used without blaming individuals for definition artefacts.

Ideas under test

Under test · M4 · IDEA-06

DNA recovery slot analysis

Problem: DNA rate rose from 8% to 11% while median wait held at 12 days — patients disengaging before contact.

Small test: South team offers targeted recovery slots for long-wait DNA cases; track DNA and contacts for four weeks vs North baseline.

Evidence: DNA rate and long-wait count move in the right direction without extra WTE; clinical lead signs off safety.

Decision it supports: Whether to expand recovery slot model to other CMHTs.

Next step: Review pilot at week four; link results to demand pack INS-02.

Safe to scale when: Pilot shows sustained DNA improvement; clinical governance agreed; capacity impact on other waits understood.

demand_capacity_insights.csv

Parked · M5 · IDEA-07

RosterFlow capacity integration

Problem: Workforce availability index uses estimated hours; roster system may be more accurate once feeds stabilise.

Small test: Match RosterFlow available hours to WFA calculation for one team for four weeks.

Evidence: Feed incomplete post-cutover; one team crosswalk still failing (INVALID_TEAM).

Decision it supports: Agency spend and roster planning in weekly pack.

Next step: Park until PathwayOne roster extract reliable and team crosswalk complete.

Safe to scale when: Roster feed validated against manual rota sample; WFA moves only when managers trust the hours.

Demand capacity pack

Under test · M4 · IDEA-08

PIP / underperformance support pathway

Problem: Contacts-per-WTE outliers were discussed in capacity meetings but without a fair, consistent HR-aligned route when performance concern was genuine.

Small test: Identify one team with sustained outlier metrics; HR BP and CMHT lead use conversation guide before any formal process.

Evidence: Documented support plan or confirmed data/definition explanation; no pathway misuse for migration noise.

Decision it supports: Whether formal performance support is appropriate vs definition or caseload mix issue.

Next step: Complete HR BP pilot; do not scale until definition stable and IDEA-05 guide evaluated.

Safe to scale when: HR and clinical leads agree thresholds; metrics agreed in KPI register; pathway distinct from spreadsheet blame.

Ideas under test

Parked · M5 · IDEA-09

Trust-wide MH demand forecast

Problem: Directorate wanted a twelve-month MH demand forecast for workforce and estate planning.

Small test: Review whether six months post-migration OPT-C data would support a simple time-series model.

Evidence: Definition change and dashboard artefact invalidate historical series; IDEA-03 forecast failure confirms risk.

Decision it supports: Long-term workforce and estate investment.

Next step: Park; revisit in month twelve of stable agreed data if secondment extended or role permanent.

Safe to scale when: Six months single-definition referrals; forecast validated on hold-out period; clinical leads sign off assumptions.

six-months-trusted-performance

Promoted · M5 · IDEA-10

Board slide confidence column

Problem: Board packs treated all KPIs as equally trustworthy — dangerous when dashboard still refreshes on old logic.

Small test: Add confidence column to senior brief template; draft March pack with executive dashboard marked Low and withheld from Board slide.

Evidence: Directorate leads used confidence column in rehearsal; no accidental use of withheld dashboard figure.

Decision it supports: What is safe to present at Board and what needs a caveat conversation.

Next step: Promoted in senior brief template; confidence rules tied to assurance pack.

Safe to scale when: Confidence ladder adopted monthly; owners confirm ratings before circulation.

Senior performance brief

Under test · M4 · IDEA-11

Real pressure vs data artefact review

Problem: Backlog grew in March but partly because dashboard referrals and OPT-C diverged — teams risked misreading genuine pressure.

Small test: Standing five-minute review in weekly capacity meeting: OPT-C vs dashboard referrals, long-wait count, and agreed narrative line.

Evidence: Minutes show correct classification in at least three of four weeks; managers cite artefact vs pressure accurately.

Decision it supports: Agency, roster and escalation — real demand vs wait to fix definitions.

Next step: Continue through OPT-C sign-off; promote as standing agenda if managers keep using it.

Safe to scale when: Agreed definitions stable; chair rotates but format survives secondment handover.

Demand capacity pack

Under test · M4 · IDEA-12

Source-to-report walkthrough with CMHT leads

Problem: Managers disengage from lineage documentation they cannot navigate when a figure is challenged.

Small test: Walk two CMHT leads through the interactive map using a live disputed referral example; collect what helped and what confused.

Evidence: Leads can name owner and source of one KPI without BI present; feedback shapes filter presets.

Decision it supports: Whether to roll out map walkthroughs to all CMHT teams.

Next step: Complete second session; simplify preset labels from feedback.

Safe to scale when: Walkthrough guide written; BI maintains map; managers request sessions without performance lead chasing.

Source-to-report map

Promoted · M6 · IDEA-13

Handover checklist with incoming post-holder

Problem: Secondment outputs often live in one person’s folder and decay when they leave.

Small test: Run handover checklist in M5 with Head of Business & Performance or nominated stand-in: location, owner, last review date per deliverable.

Evidence: All six deliverables have named owner and location confirmed; one gap closed before M6.

Decision it supports: Whether secondment outputs become business-as-usual products.

Next step: Promoted — checklist on deliverables index and month-six playbook step.

Safe to scale when: Incoming post-holder signs register; monthly review date set for each artefact.

deliverables/index

ideas_under_test_register.csv

In plain English

This is a visible list of improvement ideas I would try in a real secondment — not every suggestion becomes a permanent dashboard. For each idea it records what problem we were solving, what small test we ran, what evidence we looked for, and whether to promote, park or stop. That is Test and Scale in practice: test cheaply, scale only when managers actually use the output to make decisions.