Diagram 2 | WMADASS

Back to Ideas, information and innovation: find out more

Readiness criteria for progressing new Council and NHS developments:

There is a clear vision and description to demonstrate the benefits of the proposal.
The partners of the NHS and Council geography support the proposal via explicit agreements and any impact on, or interface with, neighbouring populations can be managed. This includes the need for local political support.
There is strong, named, local leadership for the proposal, including clinical and professional leadership (when appropriate).
Clear accountability and governance arrangements for the proposal are defined and supported by all organisational partners, including escalation mechanisms to resolve serious disagreements.
The proposal is clear about what it intends to achieve. How it will maintain and improve the quality and continuity of care and/or wellbeing and how these elements will be measured.
The proposal will demonstrate it has given due regard to the complexity of the environment in which the changes will be delivered, for example, using mechanisms such as interdependency mapping, to ensure that ensure quality and performance at the defined geography (or cohort) are not detrimentally affected by other concurrent change plans over a larger (or smaller) area of activity.
Build on a track record of involvement and engagement with people and local communities, with whom the proposal has been developed in partnership.
The proposal has clear costings, with financial and legal risks for all involved organisations clearly and fully articulated and mitigated, with clarity on how the proposal will be able to sustain under pressure (particularly financial pressure).
There is an understanding of the reality that although local organisations may be asked to think ‘system first’, a ‘system first’ ethos cannot mean individual organisations are left at untenable risk; therefore, arrangements must build in acceptable operating parameters for both ‘system’ and ‘individual organisation’.
Any impact on organisational infrastructure(s) is articulated and can be managed.
There is a clear mitigation plan and exit route, should the arrangements fail to deliver the expected benefits, with potential exit costs for all involved organisations considered at the start as part of risk mapping.