How reform of the tendering process will save the NHS hundreds of thousands

Now is the time to get decisive and urgent action to streamline the aggressive tendering procedure and conserve income, says Sue Ward. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

A flurry of freedom of data (FoI) requests from government departments requesting data about investing on NHS competitive tendering signals the start off of political parties gearing up for their election campaigns.

Whilst I am not a massive fan of FoI due to the extra burden they spot on stretched assets, I welcome this sudden curiosity in a hugely expensive workout that is draining considerably-needed frontline sources at a time when we are all facing tremendous monetary problems to make unprecedented cost savings.

Our response to these FoIs tends to make for salutary studying without a doubt: far more than £1m a year is being invested on the competitive tendering approach. Assuming that we are not special, the all round price to NHS providers is fairly basically eye watering – a scandalous waste of public cash.

Above the many years there has been significantly talk about bettering the bid procedure although retaining robust governance and intelligent commissioning. Nevertheless, speak has not translated into modify and costs carry on to rise year on 12 months. Now should absolutely be the time to consider decisive and urgent action to streamline the procedure and save the NHS millions of pounds.

Even at the pre-qualification stage, there is no normal format that means that every tender requires a new response. Some concerns might be similar but either have a slightly different angle or need information that has not been requested ahead of or is required in a various format. There is limited opportunity to use earlier responses to streamline the method and reduce the value of responding to every single individually.

There are occasions when, possessing invested massive amounts of sources, the tendering approach is stopped or suspended for different motives. On other occasions, the approach has been stopped and then restarted with a somewhat distinct tendering necessity so bidders have to invest equivalent assets yet again if they want to keep in the operating.

This is not just a burden on providers: commissioners are also investing assets in coming up with new tender documentation and rules of procurement – not to mention the substantial quantity of time and cash in administering the approach itself. Numerous of these functions are outsourced, which can only include to the expense. Clinical commissioning groups have not learned the lessons of the previous. If anything, the expectations placed on bidders have elevated.

We need a wholesale review of this process so that the NHS can lead the area in wise, productive procurement that guarantees the best bidder is chosen although conserving income at the front line. We currently have a model that gives some possible to accomplish this in the “any experienced supplier” approach. Its core characteristics are:

• On the internet submissions: reducing the costly and environmentally unfriendly needs of paper submissions
• Standardised queries: this implies earlier responses on concerns this kind of as organisational form, clinical governance, good quality, fiscal management, patient engagement and suggestions can just be re-utilised
• Support certain questions: this targets sources to offering info about how the distinct service becoming commissioned would be delivered
• Regional questions: these enable commissioners to ask one or two added, particular inquiries to deal with regional problems and demographics

We could go even more and make better use of Monitor’s licensing regime and the Care Quality Commission’s inspection processes. Each are created to offer assurance close to viability and the good quality of care, supplying commissioners with assurance and reducing the requirements of individual procurement exercise routines.

Through the use of engineering, we could build a centralised procurement hub where organisations respond to a set of core queries which can be accessed by commissioners to supplement the a lot more local and distinct details required for individual bids – all of which would be managed on the internet. Info could be updated as required and would reduce the massive quantity of assets required to deal with the method for the two companies and commissioners alike.

I would enjoy to see a person rise to the challenge of reviewing the procurement process as a political priority, so we can target our increasingly stretched assets to where they are most needed –at the front line, on high good quality services for sufferers.

Sue Ward is head of organization development and market at Central and North West London NHS basis trust

This article is published by Guardian Expert. Join the Healthcare Specialists Network to acquire normal emails and unique delivers

How reform of the tendering process will save the NHS hundreds of thousands