Agenda item

NHS Guildford and Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group (GWCCG) has led the procurement process for Children Community Health Services on behalf of the Surrey CCG Collaborative, Surrey County Council and NHS England. A preferred bidder has been identified; public announcement will be made in due course. This report details the procurement process to date and the next steps with regards to mobilisation

Witnesses:

Sarah Parker, Director of Children’s Commissioning (Surreywide), NHS Guildford and Waverley CCG.

Karina Ajayi, Head of Children’s Commissioning (Surreywide), NHS Guildford and Waverley CCG

Harriet Derrett-Smith, Commissioning and Performance Principal, Public Health

Matthew Parris, Evidence and Insight Manager, Healthwatch Surrey

Tim Hall left the meeting at 1:20pm

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Director of Children’s Commissioning began by explaining that the procurement process had been undertaken by NHS Guildford and Waverley CCG on behalf of the six Surrey CCGs, Surrey County Council and NHS England.  The Board were told that a preferred bidder had been identified, however Commissioners were not currently in a position to announce who this would be.

2.    The Director of Children’s Commissioning explained that where Adult and Children community health services had previously been procured together under one contract, the delivery of children health services had sometimes been overshadowed against adult health service delivery.  The Board was informed that the procurement of children community health services as a separate entity contract would enable better scrutiny, transparency and visibility of performance data.

3.    The Board was advised the new procurement would deliver a single countywide community health service for children and young people under one contract rather than the three community health providers at present.  This would allow for streamlined service delivery, with a view of making access equitable irrespective of location within the county.

4.    The Director of Children’s Commissioning explained that the suite of services being provided encompassed 19 different children’s health services.  Some of these services were jointly commissioned by the CCGs and Surrey County Council.  For some of these services, there were performance data benchmarks available.  For services where no benchmark was available, Commissioners would work with Public Health to establish what level of performance was required as a minimum standard.

5.    Members were informed that extensive stakeholder engagement had been undertaken in order to establish what was important to the service users and their families, what was working well and to identify areas in need of development.  The majority of the 612 stakeholders engaged with were aged between 12-18.  The key findings were that information being shared with their GP, care close to home, equitable care and the need to only tell their story once were of the highest importance to the service users and their families.  The Board was informed that Family Voice Surrey were also involved in the engagement process and the development of service specifications.  

6.    The Board were informed that Commissioners, alongside Family Voice Surrey, had specified a set of principles which were to be embedded across all services by the new provider, as well as a list of outcomes with measures to which the provider can be held to account.

7.    The Director for Children’s Commissioning explained that whilst there were many benefits to the new contract, it was important to look ahead and start planning for three years time.  The visibility of performance data and service delivery against set measures would enable decisions regarding the potential two-year extension option being taken, or for procurement to be undertaken for another community health services provider.

8.    The Board enquired as to what the CCGs were doing to encourage a choice of suppliers at the procurement stage.  The Board were told Commissioners had proactively sought to engage with the market, with 35 providers originally expressing interest in bidding for parts of or all of the contract.  The decision was taken to look to procure a provider who could cover all 19 service specifications.  As a result, seven providers made it through the pre-qualification stage to the invitation to tender stage.  Three providers submitted at the invitation to tender stage.  It was envisaged that similar levels of interest would be attracted in the future.

9.    A Member enquired if anything had been built into the contract to provide for children who were carers to their parents or siblings.  The Director of Children’s Commissioning stated that although she was cognisant of the need of provision, nothing had specifically been built into the contract, however it was there as a recurring theme and children who were carers would still be able to access universal services.

10.  Members enquired as to what was being done to ensure that young people transitioning from childhood into adulthood would also encounter a smooth transition of care provision.  It was noted that the transition between services would not worsen, however the service covered 19 specifications and therefore transition from childhood to adulthood service provision would vary in parts.  There was acknowledgement of the need to continue provision of children community health services to 19-25 year olds with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and that an ongoing focus on transition would ensure that nobody slipped through the net.

11.  Members raised concern that whilst the scenario of opting for one community health service provider instead of three offered some great advantages, there was a risk that the provider could seek to take the service in a different direction.  Members were assured that the Commissioners would be working with the provider to ensure focus was on delivering the required outcomes through the set measures.  Furthermore, the dialogue would be ongoing with regard to the future strategic plans of the service.

Recommendations:

The Board thanks witnesses for the report. It recommends:

1.    That the CCG and provider develop a public facing performance score-card in order to help residents understand how services are delivering;

2.    That the CCG return in 12 months, with an update on how the performance data of the newly commissioned services has supported further strategic commissioning for future years;

3.    That the CCG provide a briefing on how the new commissioning arrangements will work with the relevant partners to ensure smoother transition between childhood and adult-hood for community health services;

4.    That the Board gather evidence from relevant commissioning bodies as to how they stimulate and support the provider market in order to ensure appropriately competitive tendering.