Managing Single-Point Dependency Risks in Adult Social Care Supply Chains
Single-point dependency is one of the most significant but least visible risks within adult social care supply chains. Reliance on a single staffing agency, landlord, transport provider or specialist partner can quickly destabilise services if disruption occurs. Within Supply Chain & Partner Resilience and business continuity tender requirements, commissioners increasingly scrutinise how providers identify and manage these vulnerabilities.
This article examines practical approaches to reducing single-point dependency while maintaining operational stability.
Understanding Single-Point Dependency Risk
Single-point dependency arises when a service cannot function without one supplier. While sometimes unavoidable, unmanaged dependency significantly increases risk exposure.
Providers must first identify:
- Which suppliers are critical to delivery
- Where alternatives are limited or absent
- What impact failure would have on people supported
Operational Example 1: Sole Staffing Provider
Context: A domiciliary care provider relied on a single agency for weekend cover.
Support approach: The provider onboarded a secondary agency and increased internal overtime capacity.
Day-to-day delivery: Dependency levels were reviewed monthly and reported to senior management.
Evidence of effectiveness: Service continuity improved during peak pressure periods.
Commissioner Expectation: Risk-Aware Service Design
Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate awareness of dependency risks and proportionate mitigation. This does not require elimination of all risk, but evidence of planning and oversight.
Operational Example 2: Property Ownership Concentration
Context: A provider delivered multiple services within properties owned by a single landlord.
Support approach: Lease risk was assessed, and alternative accommodation options were explored.
Day-to-day delivery: Lease expiry and maintenance risks were monitored through governance meetings.
Evidence of effectiveness: Reduced exposure to sudden loss of accommodation.
Regulator Expectation: Continuity Planning for High-Risk Dependencies
The CQC expects providers to plan for foreseeable risks, including dependency on external partners. Inspectors will seek evidence of contingency arrangements where dependency is unavoidable.
Operational Example 3: Specialist Transport Services
Context: Individuals depended on a single transport provider to access day opportunities.
Support approach: Alternative travel options and flexible scheduling were introduced.
Day-to-day delivery: Individual risk assessments were updated and reviewed regularly.
Evidence of effectiveness: Reduced missed sessions and improved personal outcomes.
Reducing Dependency Through Strategic Planning
Effective providers treat dependency reduction as a strategic objective, integrating it into procurement, workforce planning and service development decisions.