Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 29
29
We received submissions from three collaboratives: Lancashire & South Cumbria Hospices Together, Greater Manchester Hospices...
Conclusion
We received submissions from three collaboratives: Lancashire & South Cumbria Hospices Together, Greater Manchester Hospices Provider Collaborative, and Cheshire & Merseyside Hospice Provider Collaborative. They described how as collaboratives they can present a united voice to the ICB and are able to negotiate funding awards collectively, which in one case had resulted in ‘wins’ of a one-off boost in funding and an agreement to a longer-term review of palliative care services. They described how working in partnership enabled mutual learning, levelling up of standards, minimisation of unwarranted variation in care, avoidance of needless duplication of effort and smarter workforce planning. Collaboratives help individual hospices maintain strong clinical governance and operational resilience.65 61 Qq 47 and 69-70 62 Qq 5, 10-11, 18, 29, 34 and 37 63 Qq 16 and 23 64 C&AG’s Report, paras 3.10-3.11 65 Lancashire South Cumbria Hospices Together, Pendleside Hospice (AHE0008); Greater Manchester Hospices Provider Collaborative (AHE0009); East Cheshire Hospice, Cheshire & Merseyside Hospice Provider Collaborative (AHE0010) 17