E-procurement/GS1 standards
barcodes – is seeing it save a significant amount every month via more efficient stock management.”
‘Intelligent’ barcodes I asked whether the plan, both within the Leeds Trust, and more widely, was for large- scale capital assets to be next to be widely GS1-‘tagged’? Chris Slater responded “Absolutely, but we will then need to start using ‘intelligent’ barcodes or RFID tags. Once we put active tags on assets, we can start looking at our asset base, and whether we are utilising assets correctly.” Chris Slater said his Trust’s GS1 work was progressing well: “We are engaging with suppliers, and, working together, the six demonstrator sites have held national supplier engagement days, facilitated by GS1 UK. One key goal is to get suppliers to recognise the need for GTINs and identify the potential savings. You can imagine that if, for the first time, the NHS is asking for the same item, coded the same way, in the same language, suppliers’ back office costs will diminish significantly. Using a common business language will enable them to transmit invoices electronically, and help Trusts pay more promptly, because we will all recognise the same items being called the same thing. The major suppliers are already on board, but we will need to get distributors and wholesalers talking the same language. The six demonstrator sites are striving to segment the supplier base, so that we don’t get the same suppliers asking the same questions. There is a lot of good collaboration.”
Removing some of the competitiveness
In fact, Chris Slater noted, the exercise was ‘taking the usual competiveness out of the equation’. He said: “We are talking about trying to improve each of our efficiencies.
The Government’s eProcurement Strategy recommends that the NHS initially focuses on implantable medical devices, pharmaceuticals, medical/surgical equipment, and, subsequently, on staff, contract purchasing, and stationery.
We all have a real common purpose.” After the first three months’ work in Leeds, ‘great progress’ had been made. Chris Slater elaborated: “We have a project office at St James’ University Hospital, and teams comparing and sharing data with suppliers. Currently I have about 12 Trust staff on the project day to day, but it ebbs and flows, and will continue doing so. For example, when we deploy GLN location stickers, I might need 50.” He acknowledged that educating staff would be key: “This is driven right from the top table. All staff need to understand what this means to us as an NHS Trust, but also what adopting GS1 standards means to us as a business. We will be communicating news on our Trust website and staff
Intranet. I think the title for the project that the six demonstrator Trusts came up with – ‘Scan4Safety’ – encompasses the ethos and goals – it needed to have the words ‘scan’ and ‘safety’ in it.”
Chris Slater explained that, equipment- wise, the Trust had so far used fixed scanners, but that, looking forward, more mobile scanning technology would be needed.
The ability to scan medical equipment and items should bring numerous benefits. 28 Health Estate Journal September 2016
Cost-saving potential Clearly, alongside improving asset and property utilisation, facilitating product recalls, improving patient safety, and enhancing patient throughput and clinical efficiencies, saving money is a key goal. I thus asked if the Trust’s GS1 UK team had compiled any data on how much the exercise might save the organisation financially. Chris Slater replied: “I guess the tangible numbers are about inventory reduction, waste reduction through visibility, and less obsolete stock. Historically we have reduced inventory by about 25 per cent in areas where we used GS1 standards in about 12 months. A Trust our size typically carries stock worth about £18 m to £20 m. The less tangible number is around releasing time to care, and we must look at how we capture that data, record it, and ensure that that time is used productively. “Working with the DH, we have devised metrics for capturing this, and to measure the efficiencies the project brings. It is, however, a bit early to be able to produce definitive data. Logically, however, there is no question that there is the potential for considerable savings in time and cost, and equally for significantly reduced wastage.”
✚
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 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120