PROCUREMENT
progress against the adoption of PEPPOL will be monitored through the reporting of transaction volumes exchanged by access point providers.
The department added that NHS providers should include arrangements for the introduction of the PEPPOL messaging standards as part of their GS1 and PEPPOL adoption plan, including provision for the early adoption of PEPPOL compliant invoice messaging within pharmacy – to realise early benefits from electronic invoicing.
It was also stated that “in 2014, DH will establish a national framework agreement for the provision of PEPPOL-compliant access points”.
In response to the PEPPOL plans, the West Midlands procurement director said: “Steve Graham: let’s see your national strategy for PEPPOL, let’s see how you’re engaging with all the suppliers, let’s see your data warehousing strategy and let’s see funding from Dr Dan [Poulter].”
Achieving compliance
Speaking to NHE, Ali Ali, head of procurement at Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (BTHFT), said that the trust’s executives have fully taken on board the points raised in the eProcurement Strategy and promised to make available, subject to a business case, the funds required to implement the systems required to achieve compliance.
However, at the moment, Ali was not 100% sure what the changes will mean for the trust’s procurement department.
“We were promised by the NOE-CPC (North of England Commercial Procurement Collaborative) a more elaborative explanation document detailing what it means to achieve compliance,” he said.
Currently, the trust has in place the Oracle finance system; 100% electronic requisitions; and 80% catalogue utilisation via GHX. Despite this, it is now exploring e-material management systems that will allow full compliance.
Ali said: “Powergate is one of these options and it was named in the eProcurement Strategy. The other option is with a supplier, which is accredited by GS1. So we are hoping that these options, in addition to what is currently in place – i.e. Oracle and GHX – will make sure
BTHFT is compliant.”
He also believes that the eProcurement Strategy plans are deliverable but that is because the trust has “reasonable foundations”, and the DH has endorsed its “required actions” in principal to get it to the expected outcome: compliant.
Supplier concerns
Ali and Atack did, however, raise concerns with regards to suppliers. In particular BTHFT is worried that suppliers might not be able to comply with the requirements.
Atack stated that while the potential benefits of implementing GS1 and PEPPOL standards across the NHS are substantial, significant capital investment and process redesign will need to be implemented not only within NHS trusts but also by suppliers to the NHS.
“The DH has suggested that it could be 10 years before the whole vision of the eProcurement Strategy is in place and this gives some indication of the scale of the task,” she said. “Even before this time, however, small changes in line with the Strategy will deliver big improvements to the efficient running of many NHS organisations.”
Lucie Jaggar, head of procurement at East Sussex Healthcare Trust, told NHE that she couldn’t go into detail on the trust’s eProcurement plans, but did say: “We are working with fellow peer trusts in the south east and also with the DH to understand the implications for our trust and to develop a coordinated approach to delivery of the requirements over the next 12 months.”
Fragmented
The director from the West Midlands said that the NHS procurement landscape is “fragmented” and “diffused”, and the DH is not addressing the leadership issues.
“We’ve got Lord Carter of Coles as the de facto procurement champion (more on p24), but actually it is about the practical reality about how that then filters down onto a regional basis,” he said.
“I think the DH is missing a trick on how they bring a region together and develop some commonality of standards and processes; after all, that is what the Strategy is all about really.”
Lord Carter told NHE that he believes the
Shelford Group highlights how collaborative buying can deliver savings.
But the director we talked to said: “If they’re going to nail the colours to the Shelford Group [mast] as the way to drive efficiency across the whole system then they’re backing the wrong horse in my opinion. Just because a trust is in the Shelford Group doesn’t mean its procurement is any good at all.”
He did state, however, that getting a trust’s e-commerce system functioning and in place can help underpin an organisation’s financial health.
Chris Slater, head of procurement at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, interviewed on the next page, told us: “We’ve had very little support.” But he said DH procurement officials had recently visited the trust. “They walked away very impressed with what they’d seen, and they hadn’t seen that level of integration between inventory, Oracle, patients, RFID cabinets and catalogue management in one place.”
As someone originally from a sector outside the NHS “where stock management was all- important”, he was surprised that in the health service, “stock and inventory and supply chain is almost forgotten about, initially”.
His trust’s pioneering work over recent years has been mostly self-directed. “It’s something we’ve had to do on our own. Clearly we’ve got a vision: but we’ve very much got on and done it ourselves, so we’ve had no financial support from the centre, and no strategic support, if truth be known.
“They’re obviously waking up to the fact that the ability to get lower cost through negotiation of prices has pretty much had its day, and they’re having to look at other areas as to value within the NHS procurement landscape.”
Slater suggested the closure of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) in 2010 made things worse.
“When PASA was dissolved, unfortunately the DH completely dropped e-enablement. We could have been where we are now four or five years ago, if they’d continued with some level of support – but it got dropped and fell between the cracks. Only more latterly are they starting to pick it up again.”
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@nationalhealthexecutive.com
national health executive Nov/Dec 14 | 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100