Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: September 17, 2025

Purpose:

Content: 11.1 The Assistant Director of Transformation and Delivery from the Sheffield ICB/Sheffield CC presented a report which sought approval to initiate a joint procurement process for the Integrated Community Equipment Loan Service (ICELS_ in collaboration with Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Assistant Director stated that a joint approach was expected to be confirmed shortly. It was outlined that the procurement would support Sheffield’s statutory duties under the Care Act 2014 and align with the city’s strategic priorities around personalised care, technology-enabled care (TEC), and hospital discharge work.     11.2 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Adult Health and Social Care Policy Committee:-   Agree to jointly commission an Integrated Community Equipment service in collaboration with Rotherham Council from April 2027 Adopt a model of joint governance and a dedicated CES team Agree to pooled funding via Section 75 arrangements     11.3 Reasons for Decision     11.3.1 A new contract needs to be in place by 1st April 2027 and to facilitate this, a tendering exercise needs to be undertaken with a new provider in place by this date. If this is not achieved, then the commissioning organisations and their partners will not meet their statutory obligations under the Care Act.     11.3.2 The proposals support Sheffield City Council’s Strategic Plan (2022-2027), NHS South Yorkshire ICB Sheffield and Rotherham Places, and Rotherham Borough Council by enabling people to live their best lives and support people to be independent through the provision of equipment: • Supports the care of people within their own homes, enabling them to maximise their independence. • Reduces hospital admissions and facilitates prompt hospital discharge. • Reduces the requirement for Service Users to enter long-term care. • Reduces the demand on domiciliary care through reduced care packages, double-handed care. • Enables access to the curriculum and care at home for children with a range of health and social care needs.     11.3.3 It is recommended that Sheffield and Rotherham formally agree to jointly commission an Integrated Community Equipment Service from 1 April 2027, adopt a model of joint governance, a dedicated CES team, and pooled funding via Section 75 arrangements, align commissioning timelines through a one-year extension of Sheffield’s current contract, and co-develop a joint specification and tender with shared market engagement activities during 2025/26.     11.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected     11.4.1 Alternative Option 1: Sheffield-only procurement One option considered was for Sheffield to proceed with a standalone procurement process, without collaboration with Rotherham. This option was rejected because it would not deliver the same level of efficiency, value for money, or service resilience. A Sheffield-only approach would miss the opportunity to align commissioning timelines, reduce duplication, and benefit from shared infrastructure. It would also limit the ability to attract and retain high-quality providers through a larger, more attractive contract.     11.4.2 Alternative Option 2: Fully in-house An alternative considered was to bring the Integrated Community Equipment Service fully in-house, with the Council directly managing logistics, warehousing, procurement, and delivery operations.   This option was rejected due to significant operational and financial challenges. Delivering a service of this scale in-house would require substantial upfront investment in infrastructure, including warehousing, fleet management, staffing, and IT systems. It would also introduce considerable logistical complexity, particularly in managing stock, coordinating deliveries, and ensuring timely response to urgent needs such as hospital discharges.   Evidence from other areas, such as Kirklees, highlights that in-house models often struggle with fragmented policies, inconsistent access to equipment, and inefficiencies in procurement and delivery.   In contrast, outsourced models benefit from national buying power, established logistics networks, and access to specialist expertise in clinical governance, health and safety, and procurement. These advantages enable faster delivery, better value for money, and improved service resilience.   Given the scale and complexity of the service, and the need for flexibility and responsiveness, an in-house model was not considered viable or cost-effective at this time.