1. Jo

    It sounds as if they have been seduced by the promise of enormous financial gains that could be achieved through outsourcing, rather than by a rejection of an old-fashioned service procurement framework.
    Based on the absolute lack of evidence from quality, impartial evaluations of outsourced services, let’s hope that they put in place some robust, independent monitoring of the quality and outcomes so that they don’t end up with a second rate service, using a restricted inventory of equipment.
    I hope that this doesn’t mean an admission that providing telecare to all levels of FACS is so costly that it is being abandoned.

  2. UpNorthAndToTheRight

    Simply put – they need to know what they are asking for before they ask for it.
    I agree with Jo – £££££££££££ are what could be in front of commissioners (sorry, decommisioners) eyes.
    I think Sunderland are stepping into the unknown and it will be very interesting to follow their journey over the next few years as a ‘Lessons Learned’ exercise.
    Anyone who knows anything about anything about TeleWhatever knows that within the umbrella terms that people throw about such as Assistive Technology, Telehealth, Telecare, Telemedicine, Teletrampolining etc there are so many parts and arms to these that only a consortia could deliver.
    One provider, no names, may believe they can and make you believe they can but what Sunderland actually needs and wants will not be what Sunderland gets. By then it is 5 years later and it is too late.