s. 118 is the contentious clause of the Care Bill.

An important question is of course whether the Labour Party, if they were to come into government in 2015, would seek to repeal this clause if enacted. The likelihood is yes. What to do about reconfigurations and reconsultations for NHS entities which are not clinically or financially viable is a practical problem facing all political parties. A practical difficulty which will be faced by all people involved in the TSA process between now and 2015 is that it is relatively unclear what Labour’s exact legislative stance on the future structural reorganisation of the NHS is, save for, for example, having strongly opposed the recent decisions over Lewisham (prior to the High Court and Court of Appeal.)

Draft recommendations for the future of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust were published on Wednesday 31 July 2013 by the Joint Trust Special Administrators. Tomorrow will see the publication of the final proposals (and it is widely expected that interested parties will be informed about the outcome of the consultation process this evening.) Producing a long-term outlook for key services, including paediatrics, ICU and maternity, is going to have been a complicated decision-making process for all involved.

Stephen Dorrell MP, Chairman of the influential Health Select Committee, pointed out in the Care Bill debate yesterday afternoon that the competition debate about the NHS is usually presented as ‘binary’, and this is to some extent reflected in John Appleby’s famous piece for the King’s Fund on how there are both advantages and disadvantages of competition. What people agree on more or less is the need to move beyond fragmented care to an integrated approach in which patients receive high-quality co-ordinated services. The idea is that competition itself need not be a barrier to collaboration provided that the risks of the wrong kind of competition are addressed. This will involve considerable legislative manoeuvring in the future. In securing a more integrated approach, reflected also in Labour’s “whole person care” ultimately, commissioners are expected not be able to fund ever-increasing levels of hospital activity.

Trying to keep frail older people away from hospital, and to allow such individuals to live independently, has become an important policy goal. Trying to keep people in hospital for shorter stays is another key aspiration. Matching services to actual demand is a worthy aspect of any reconfiguration (and also providing the full range of relatively unprofitable emergency services locally.) All of these factors become especially important with the increasing numbers of older people in the population, some of whom have multiple and complex chronic conditions that require the expertise of GPs and a range of specialists and their team. “Integrated delivery systems” in other countries have previously embraced a model of multi-specialty medical practice in which GPs work alongside specialists, often in the same facilities. It is possible that this sort of approach will become more popular in future here in the UK. It is relevant to the NHS here, because of the need for specialists and GPs to work together much more closely to help patients remain independent for as long as possible and to reduce avoidable hospital admissions.

A frequent criticism has been that ‘competition lawyers should not be blocking decisions which are in the patients’ interest‘. The problem with this argument is that simple mergers may not actually be in the patients’ interest. While mergers to create organisations that take full responsibility for commissioning and providing services for the populations they serve have been pursued in Scotland and Wales, the benefits of this kind of organisational integration remain a matter of dispute.

It’s been mooted that stroke care in London and Manchester has been improved by planning the provision of these services across networks linking hospitals. They are reported ass “success stories”. For example, Manchester uses an integrated hub-and-spoke model that provides one comprehensive, two primary and six district stroke centres. Results include increasing the number of eligible patients receiving thrombolysis within the metropolitan area from 10 to 69 between 2006 and 2009.

The decision over the future of services in Staffordshire allows to put to the test the idea that health care teams can develop a relationship over time with a ‘registered’ population or local community. They can therefore target individuals who would most benefit from a more co-ordinated approach to the management of their care. For example, a “frail elderly assessment service” might well to act as a one-stop assessment for older people and take referrals from a wide range of sources to better meet the needs of the frail elderly. The ‘new look’ services in Mid Staffs could become a ‘test bed’ for seeing how information technology (IT) could be best used. IT could, in this way, support the delivery of integrated care, especially via the electronic medical record and the use of clinical decision support systems, and through the ability to identify and target ‘at risk’ patients

A clinician–management partnership that links the clinical skills of health care professionals with the organisational skills of executives, sometimes bringing together the skills of purchasers and providers ‘under one roof’, might become more likely in future. This might be particularly important for ensuring that patient safety targets are actually met in clinical governance, and corrective action can be initiated if at any stage deemed necessary. The engagement of actual patients would be very much in keeping with Berwick’s open organisational learning culture. Of course the Care Bill cannot set top-down commands for organisational culture and leadership. It was interesting though that these were discussed in yesterday’s debate. Effective leadership at all levels will be necessary to focus on continuous quality improvement. A collaborative culture will be needed which emphasises team working and the delivery of highly co-ordinated and patient-centred care.

So the future of Mid Staffs clearly represents an opportunity for the NHS, not a threat; it would be helpful if politicians of all sides could rise to the occasion with maturity and goodwill.