Governance and Accountability When Working With ICBs and Mental Health Trusts

Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), NHS Trusts and independent providers increasingly deliver mental health services through collaborative partnerships rather than isolated contracts. While this integration offers opportunities to improve outcomes, it also introduces greater complexity around governance, accountability and assurance. Commissioners therefore expect providers to demonstrate not only effective partnership working, but also clear governance arrangements that maintain patient safety, organisational accountability and high-quality decision-making across organisational boundaries.

This article forms part of the Mental Health Services Knowledge Hub and should be read alongside Working with ICBs, NHS Trusts & System Partners, Quality, Safety & Governance, Mental Health Risk & Safeguarding and Workforce & Clinical Oversight.

Commissioners increasingly distinguish between providers that participate in partnership meetings and those that demonstrate mature governance systems capable of supporting safe, accountable and effective integrated mental health services.

Why governance matters within integrated partnerships

Integrated mental health delivery inevitably creates shared responsibilities across multiple organisations. Without clearly defined governance arrangements, decision-making can become inconsistent, accountability may be unclear and risks may escalate without coordinated oversight.

Commissioners therefore expect governance frameworks that support:

• Clear organisational accountability.
• Safe multidisciplinary decision-making.
• Timely escalation of risks.
• Transparent reporting.
• Effective partnership oversight.
• Shared quality improvement.
• Learning from incidents.
• Continuous assurance.

Strong governance allows collaboration to strengthen services without weakening individual organisational responsibility.

Defining accountability across organisations

One of the most important features of successful partnership working is clarity regarding who remains responsible for particular decisions and actions.

Providers should be able to demonstrate:

• Clearly defined delegated authority.
• Named accountable leads.
• Documented decision-making responsibilities.
• Processes for resolving disagreements.
• Escalation routes for complex issues.
• Board oversight of partnership activity.

Commissioners gain confidence when accountability remains explicit throughout integrated delivery.

Operational example 1: resolving accountability during complex care coordination

A person with complex mental health needs receives support from an independent provider, NHS Trust clinicians and local authority services. As risks increase, uncertainty develops regarding who should coordinate the response.

The partnership governance framework provides clarity by:

• Identifying the accountable clinical lead.
• Convening an urgent multidisciplinary meeting.
• Documenting agreed responsibilities.
• Recording escalation decisions.
• Communicating actions to all partners.
• Reviewing implementation through governance processes.

Clear governance prevents duplication, delay and uncertainty during periods of heightened clinical risk.

Joint governance structures that commissioners expect

Effective partnerships rely upon formal governance arrangements rather than informal relationships. Commissioners increasingly expect governance structures that provide strategic oversight while supporting operational delivery.

Examples include:

• Joint operational groups.
• Quality assurance committees.
• Clinical governance forums.
• System performance boards.
• Integrated safeguarding meetings.
• Executive partnership reviews.

Participation should be meaningful, with documented actions, agreed responsibilities and evidence of continuous improvement.

Managing risks across organisational boundaries

Partnership governance should ensure that emerging risks are recognised and addressed collectively rather than remaining isolated within individual organisations.

Strong governance arrangements typically include:

• Shared risk registers.
• Common escalation thresholds.
• Joint review of high-risk cases.
• System pressure monitoring.
• Coordinated contingency planning.
• Routine governance reporting.

Commissioners increasingly value providers that proactively escalate risks while working collaboratively with system partners to identify solutions.

Operational example 2: responding to increasing system pressures

Several community services experience rising referral demand, creating delays across the local mental health pathway. Rather than addressing pressures independently, governance arrangements trigger a coordinated system response.

Actions include:

• Reviewing shared performance data.
• Identifying capacity pressures.
• Agreeing temporary operational changes.
• Escalating strategic risks.
• Monitoring recovery plans.
• Reporting progress to commissioners.

This collaborative governance approach enables organisations to manage pressures collectively while maintaining service quality and safety.

Safeguarding governance across partnerships

Safeguarding responsibilities remain with individual organisations, but integrated care requires strong coordination between partners. Commissioners increasingly expect safeguarding governance to demonstrate both organisational accountability and effective collaboration.

Providers should evidence:

• Alignment with safeguarding partnerships.
• Clear information-sharing arrangements.
• Joint safeguarding reviews.
• Shared learning from incidents.
• Routine safeguarding assurance reporting.
• Executive oversight of safeguarding performance.

Strong safeguarding governance protects people using services while strengthening commissioner confidence.

Operational example 3: learning from a partnership governance review

A safeguarding incident highlights inconsistent communication between partner organisations. Although individual practice was appropriate, governance processes identify opportunities to strengthen partnership arrangements.

The improvement programme includes:

• Reviewing governance responsibilities.
• Updating partnership protocols.
• Clarifying escalation processes.
• Strengthening joint training.
• Monitoring future compliance.
• Reporting learning through governance boards.

Commissioners value organisations that respond transparently and strengthen governance following learning rather than focusing solely on organisational performance.

Commissioner expectations

Commissioners increasingly expect providers working with ICBs and NHS Trusts to demonstrate:

• Clearly defined accountability.
• Robust partnership governance.
• Transparent decision-making.
• Shared risk management.
• Effective safeguarding oversight.
• Routine quality assurance.
• Evidence-based governance reporting.
• Continuous organisational learning.

Common pitfalls to avoid

• Unclear organisational responsibilities.
• Informal governance arrangements.
• Poor documentation of partnership decisions.
• Delayed escalation of risks.
• Weak executive oversight.
• Limited joint learning.
• Failure to monitor governance effectiveness.
• Treating partnership meetings as governance in themselves.

How to evidence this in tenders and commissioner reviews

Strong tender submissions demonstrate mature governance arrangements through clearly defined accountability frameworks, partnership governance structures, shared risk management, safeguarding oversight, executive leadership, documented decision-making, quality assurance processes and continuous improvement. Practical examples showing how governance arrangements improved safety, resolved complex partnership issues or strengthened integrated care provide additional commissioner assurance.

Commissioners are reassured when providers demonstrate that governance actively enables effective partnership working while maintaining clear accountability for quality and safety.

Conclusion

Successful partnership working depends upon more than positive relationships. Robust governance provides the structure that allows organisations to collaborate confidently while maintaining accountability, protecting people using services and continuously improving integrated mental health care.

Providers that invest in mature governance, transparent decision-making and shared assurance arrangements are increasingly recognised as trusted partners capable of supporting long-term system transformation and delivering consistently high-quality mental health services.

---