There are moments when you sense that we might be on the edge of some genuine transformation. For me, last week’s Reform conference was one of them.
The theme was the ‘new NHS’ and considered the likely impact of the white paper policies of integration, clinical commissioning and competition as the changes go live this April. While in my experience these topics have, in the past, generated some quite technocratic discussion – focusing on cost reduction, incentives and levers – coming less than a week after the Francis report there seemed to be one thing on everyone’s minds: the patient.
Speaker after speaker concluded that to transform healthcare to meet the challenge of rising demand and constrained resources, patients must be put at the centre of what we are doing. While for some of us this begs the question 'What did you think the health service was about if you weren’t already working on this basis?', now is perhaps not the time to say ‘I told you so’ but rather to welcome this universal acknowledgement.
However, as I listened to the presentations I was struck that, as is often the case in healthcare, good ideas poorly implemented can have unintended consequences. While the unintended consequences of access targets cast a shadow over the Francis report, we shouldn’t forget that these targets were introduced as a response to people suffering outside of hospitals and on trolleys in corridors as they were unable to get access to the right care at the right time.
So, as well as the direct lessons from Francis, I feel there is another one: we must consider now the possible unintended consequences of the current groundswell of change, rather than regret later. Redesigning care around patients is essential but confronting the risks this might present means we can act to mitigate them.
I am sure others will have their own thoughts on this question but based on what I heard last week, two things struck me:
Firstly, in making services more person centred, we must avoid the risk of continuing with a model and philosophy of care that inadvertently encourages dependency. Rather we need to make the shift to a service that supports patients look after their own health and healthcare. The best way to maintain dignity and respect is to enable people to stay in control of their health and healthcare. Where people are seen as equals, it is a lot harder to de-humanise them.
Secondly, an encouraging theme of the conference was the commitment and action to move care from the hospital to the community setting and to people’s own homes. Of course this should be welcomed and needs to be the shape of future services, but if people can be poorly treated in the broad daylight of a hospital ward, what are the potential risks if we don’t have proper assurances of the quality and safety of care provided in people’s homes?
The patient safety agenda has focused largely on acute care, both in terms of measuring harm and implementing safety improvements. As the shape of care changes, we will need to improve our understanding of the safety challenges in community and home settings and the mechanisms for mitigating these.
It feels like we are on the brink of some very real change in healthcare. A debate about the risks of doing the right thing wrongly could be time well spent.
Jo is Director of Strategy at the Health Foundation.
Really useful issue to raise and very important to consider.
I have been working on the flip side - lots of talk about how to do the 'wrong' thing well. Much of the post Francis talk is not based on behavioural science and so is very well-meaning but horribly misguided. I have a fear that millions will be spent fixing a symptom and not the cause...
I wrote about this on www.betterleadership.co.uk (Culture, Values & Missing the Point)
Thank you for raising this issue.
Andrew
As you say, when people can be poorly treated in broad daylight in our hospitals........something is amiss.
You mention training - and this to me is key.
If we are going to attempt to keep patients in their own homes for as long as possible, then we need a training template.one that truly empowers the individual.
Something that offers choice, dignity and a certain amount of control. That is effective, efficient and safe. Where would we find that?
The longitudinal study that I am writing up looks at this model and compares it to that provided by Social Services - and the resulting disempowerment..
When it is finished - I hope towards the end of this year - maybe people will have a real idea of how to do it.
How about some clinical ( ie cross sector care ) governance overseen by HWBs? Would give HWBs something to do and avoid the "this does not apply to us" syndrome
Agencies involved with her also informed in the Friday same day she was discharged, times 4 daily visits, I was alerted first by night sitter calling to be allowed in to the home, when I went in next day, G was still in hospital gown, had old bread served as toast she couldn't eat and all night gowns soiled not yet put in washing machine! his was after x5 members of staff had been in x 4 for 30 minute care slot, x 1 over night stay.
I reviewed care plan which had option for careers to put washing in machine in first visit check any to take out next, as established care requirement in per admission care plan continuing, was disappointed to see this happen. Health and social care in th community definitively is open to the same poor basic standard
I am convinced this is culture and leadership as well as skill mix pay and elect for self in care delivery. it took Severus days for me to li with each agency coming in to my neighbour and highlight issues, I await PALS feedback still on discharge lack of communication with myself ( named next of kin in lieu of mo family member), and other key agencies to see correct medication prescribed, opportunity to ensure food was available and whether there is any minimum checklist on ambulance team leaving a lady with severe respiratory problems!
isolated case! Hope so!
Thank you for posting about your neighbour. I feel that your story highlights the more practical issues associated with these reforms. Currently, time and time again, there isn't a single person who has the whole picture of patient care and can co-ordinate effectively. In some hospices, i've seen the named key-worker system work well.
However, the quality needs to be assured of key-worker systems because it can go very wrong otherwise. A good friend of mine had Multiple Sclerosis, and here MS-nurse was rarely in contact and rarely knew if she had been admitted to hospital or not. It was so frustrating trying to communicate with her, we gave up.
I believe a key-worker system could be a strong link in the community based care, however as the blog post states, it needs to be checked.