Perceived benefits of joint commissioning lag behind reality, new study shows

A major new report on joint commissioning in health and social care has found the perceived benefits of collaborative working, such as efficiency savings and improvements to services, often lagged behind the reality. The study, carried out by professors at the University of Birmingham for the National Institute of Health Research, warns that new financial pressures will make joint commissioning and joint working even harder in the future. "Our research finds no clear evidence that joint commissioning improves outcomes across the board. Even though we picked sites of 'best practice' for the study, most sites found it difficult to demonstrate what joint commissioning had achieved locally," says Helen Dickinson, one of the co-authors of the report. "The government needs to communicate the objectives of joint commissioning much more clearly to local organisations because those doing the joint commissioning don't always understand what the process is meant to achieve. "If the government does not have a clear sense of what joint commissioning should deliver then there is a question over whether it should be pressurising CCGs and Local Authorities to combine budgets." The report, entitled: Joint Commissioning in Health and Social Care: An Exploration of Definitions, Processes, Services and Outcomes says: "Faced with less money, but also with an ageing population, rising need and demand and higher public expectations, health and social care will have to work together more than in the past." The study found that the necessary reform involved in joint commissioning was often difficult, disruptive and time consuming.