General Reports and Other Publications
NAO: The National Audit Office has called for a central, mandatory system of assurance to be established for government. The spending watchdog recognizes that central government has made a number of improvements towards providing assurance for high-risk projects - particularly by introducing OGC Gateway™ reviews and establishing the Major Project Review Group. However, the lack of an integrated system is limiting the ability of government to make further improvements.
The NAO estimates that the total cost to government of assurance for high-risk projects is £8.3m, which is minimal compared with the £10.5bn of annual expenditure on the 42 projects tracked within the Major Projects Portfolio.
Press release ~ Full report - Assurance for high risk projects ~ OGC Gateway reviews ~ Major Project Review Group ~ NAO: Commercial skills for complex government projects ~ OGC’s skills strategy ‘Building the procurement profession in government’ ~ Senior Responsible Owners ~
Newswire – IfG: Cutting the deficit is perhaps the biggest challenge facing the new coalition government. The current debate has focused on the numbers, but cutting spending will also require government to act very differently. Going with the grain of how people behave could make the process of cutting less painful and more effective.
In a recent article in Civil Service World, Institute for Government senior researcher, Michael Hallsworth, discusses behavioural economics, one of the most intriguing new tools that policy makers can draw on. By applying the Institute’s new MINDSPACE framework, Michael outlines new strategies to motivate civil servants – and the public – to support the fiscal consolidation.
Press release ~ Article from Civil Service World ~ MINDSPACE - influencing behaviour through public policy
CQC: The Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) are calling for improvements in NHS healthcare provided for adults in the prison system in a joint report. It indicates progress has been made in embedding management & clinical governance systems and also in the way IT systems are used to record and analyse information on the quality of care.
But CQC and HMIP say clear improvements must be made in broader arrangements to monitor the quality of care and to ensure care is centred on patients’ needs. The review flags up particular concerns over arrangements for continuity of healthcare around prisoners’ transfer and release.
The report describes it as inadequate and says it appears to be getting worse. There has also been no improvement in the provision of drug treatment systems, a potentially critical resource within a prison environment.
Press release ~ Report on healthcare in prisons ~ 'The Bradley Report - Lord Bradley's review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the Criminal Justice System' ~ DH: Offender Health ~ Corston report ~ IDeA: Offender and ex-offender health ~ TH: Reducing re-offending ~ NOMS: Reducing Re-offending Pathways - Health~ Lets talk about it - A review of healthcare in the community for young people who offend ~ Getting help with drug problems that prevent you working ~ National Treatment Agency ~ CQC: Healthcare in Prisons ~ CQC: Commissioning health and social care for offenders ~ MoJ: Prison Policy Update ~ Integrated Drug Treatment System (IDTS) ~ RAPt – The Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust ~ A Survey of Buprenorphine Misuse in Prisons: July 2007 ~ Channel 4 News video report
Newswire – KF: A new report published by The King’s Fund shows that having a choice of hospitals is ‘valued’ by the majority of patients. However, it is not yet operating as intended and has not so far acted as a lever to improve quality and increase competition.
Since April 2008, patients in England have been able to choose treatment from any hospital in a national directory. The new report - Patient Choice: How patients choose and how providers respond - assesses how patient choice is operating based on research with patients, GPs and hospital providers.
While GPs broadly supported the idea of patient choice, they also strongly criticised Choose & Book, the electronic system for booking appointments for treatment, which despite technical improvements, GPs found difficult to use.
