David Gibbs and Kevin Watts recount the recent successful procurement for Bristol and Weston pathology services and suggest that the methodology used could be an exemplar healthcare IT procurement model.
In light of the changing face of laboratory medicine, and with demand for pathology testing forecast to increase in future years, many trusts across NHS England have been forced to review how and where they carry out their pathology testing, often involving consolidation of stakeholders and service providers, or collaboration between trusts in their geographical area. North Bristol NHS Trust (NBT), in partnership with University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (UH Bristol), Weston Area Health NHS Trust (WAHT) and Public Health England (South West Public Health Laboratory), decided to undertake such a review of their target operating model, with the aim of having an integrated, high-quality pathology service that maximises innovation and technology in order to drive efficiencies and effectiveness. The trusts recognised that to achieve such a model they needed to invest in the current service with new accommodation and equipment, and to replace current disparate IT systems with a modern single-database laboratory information management system (LIMS) solution that would support multiple site operational requirements. The current systems had reached the end of their lives and lacked the functionality to deliver the future vision for Bristol and Weston pathology services. With this replacement programme decided upon, the LIMS procurement exercise began.
Evolving model
The first decision was with regard to the procurement options that were available, and how they would suit the requirements, considering that the trusts were unsure as to whether there was in fact any supplier in the LIMS market that could meet all the requirements. It was also apparent that the joint pathology services had not fully agreed on the ultimate solution for the service; as a consequence the target operating model would need to evolve during the procurement process.
Traditionally, most authorities tend to lean towards an open procedure, in which all interested parties are asked to return tenders by a set date. These are evaluated and contract(s) awarded to the winning party/parties. A more flexible model was requires, as David Gibbs states: “It was certainly felt that by using this traditional model we could restrict our original idea of what our service model could look like, which, considering the changes we were preparing to go through, could not be guaranteed against.”
Log in or register FREE to read the rest
This story is Premium Content and is only available to registered users. Please log in at the top of the page to view the full text.
If you don't already have an account, please register with us completely free of charge.