News / Progress needed on STPs (HFMA 2016)

08 December 2016

Login to access this content

 

Sue Jacques, chief executive of County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘In our STP we have been having conversations with clinicians, some of whom have been here before but nothing has really changed. It’s imperative we continue to support these clinicians and get some of these changes through because if we don't take this opportunity now it is possible we could lose a decade. We have some enthusiastic, young clinicians who can see how things can be done differently so we must get that delivered. It is critical we push on over the next 12 months.’

STP change plans could face opposition from local politicians and groups campaigning for no change at all, she added. A national debate could be needed to inform the public. ‘I wonder if we need an informed national discussion because does the average member of the public understand what we are about to embark on?’ she asked. panel 2 resize

Asked about the progress in delivering STPs, the panel said implementation was largely a work in progress. HFMA 2016 president Shahana Khan said: ‘I think we need to get the technical bits right, but also the hearts and minds and behaviours right too. We have to work together as a proper system and look at how we take our patients with us on this journey. This is a huge ask and is going to require real system leadership to get it done.’

Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group chief finance officer Tom Jackson said STPs should focus on their priorities rather than trying to do everything.

This was echoed by David Williams, Department of Health director general of finance, who suggested STPs should focus on the top three or four things that they wanted to change.

NHS Improvement director of finance and deputy chief executive Bob Alexander said STPs had to move to implementation, though he accepted that the 44 STPs were at different stages of their development.

CIPFA chief executive Rob Whiteman described the STP process as ‘two tectonic plates’. One involved technical productivity – a focus on service improvement and getting a grip on finances – while the other was allocative productivity or putting money in the right place, such as prevention, mental health, primary and social care, to get better productivity overall. The two had to work in tandem as if the NHS pursued only one it would be weaker overall, he said.