Digital Health | March 2020 | Hospify becomes first NHS-approved clinical messaging app
Hospify has become the first clinical messaging app to be made available on the NHS Apps Library.
The app offers similar functionality to popular messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, but includes additional security features to make it a secure platform for sharing patient information.
The app, which provides an NHS-compliant platform for sending and receiving messages and can be used by clinicians to share patient information, is now approved for use by professionals and patient across the NHS.
Hospify said it had taken more than a year for the app to pass through “rigorous” testing and assessment processes by various NHS organisations and regulatory bodies (Source: Digital Health).
New campaign calls on the public to share their experiences of NHS services to help make care better for all
Healthwatch has launched a new campaign SpeakUp2020 to encourage people to speak up about what would make health and social care services in their communities better. The results will be shared with decision makers across the NHS, social care sector and Government to ensure that improvements to services are informed by people’s experiences.
Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Plan 2018/19 | National Institute for Health Research
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has published Patient and public involvement and engagement plan 2018/19. This document sets out NIHR plans for working with patients, carers and the public to improve the quality and relevance of the research they commission and to raise public awareness of research.
In 2017, five national priorities for involvement and engagement in research were identified as the focus for NIHR-wide delivery over the next 12 to 18 months. This plan reflects those national priorities and they are:
Voice: To ensure patients, carers and the public have a voice in how the NIHR works
Feedback: To ensure patients, carers and the public get feedback on how they have made a difference
Standards: To define what good public involvement and engagement looks like
Impact / Getting results: To understand and show the impact of public involvement and engagement
Invention: To test new ideas in public involvement and engagement and share the learning
The standards aim to provide people with clear, concise benchmarks for effective public involvement alongside indicators against which improvement can be monitored. They are intended to encourage approaches and behaviours that will support this.
They have been developed through a UK-wide partnership over the last 18 months building on previous work in this area. The partnership brings together members of the public with representatives from the National Institute for Health Research (England), the Chief Scientist Office (Scotland), Health and Care Research Wales and the Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), working with an independent expert.
This resource provides an overview of the different approaches to working with communities for improving health and illustrates the vital role that they have in improving health and wellbeing. The Kings Fund has produced this reading list for those who want to explore the topic of communities and health in more detail.
The following questions and areas are examined:
What is a ‘community’?
What is the role of communities in improving health?
Health policy and the role of communities in health
The added value of patient organisations | The European Patients Forum
The objective of this report is to emphasise the contribution of patient organisations in representing and voicing the situation of a specific population that would otherwise not be represented.
Patient organisations are able to help policy-makers understand the experience of living with a disease or a condition. They use this ‘end-user perspective’ to promote the interests of patients at all stages of policy development and in a range of institutional settings.
The main activities of patient organisations are set out in four different areas: policy, capacity building and education, peer support and research & development (both health and pharmaceutical).
The Care Quality Commission has published Public Engagement Strategy 2017-2021. This strategy sets out how the CQC will improve the way they engage with the public by using their views and experiences in their work and helping them use the information they have about the quality of care.
The high profile role that the NHS played in Brexit and recent general election campaigns demonstrates that the health care system remains foremost in the minds of all political parties when considering how to present their policies | The Health Foundation
These campaigns put a spotlight on the sustainability of the health care system, but may have also fuelled a fear over deteriorating health system performance. In 2017, the NHS was recently ranked by the Commonwealth Fund as the best performing health care system out of 11 countries, including Germany, Australia and the United States. However, 82% of the general public expressed concerns about the future of the NHS in a survey following the 2017 General Election, with quality of care identified as one reason for dissatisfaction previously. Arguably, this disparity may be the result of intense media coverage of the human and financial pressures on the NHS, which could have shaped public perception to some extent. However, it might also point to a deeper disparity: a disconnect between the general assessment of measurable health system performance versus the quality of care perceived by patients when accessing the NHS.
One reason for this relates to the difficulty in measuring quality of health care at the system level. Quality in the context of health care is a multi-dimensional framework that captures six domains:
This study examines the effectiveness of a patient-centered care and engagement program in the medical ICU | Critical Care Medicine
Interventions: Structured patient-centered care and engagement training program and web-based technology including ICU safety checklist, tools to develop shared care plan, and messaging platform. Patient and care partner access to online portal to view health information, participate in the care plan, and communicate with providers.
Measurements and Main Results: Primary outcome was aggregate adverse event rate. Secondary outcomes included patient and care partner satisfaction, care plan concordance, and resource utilization. We included 2,105 patient admissions, (1,030 baseline and 1,075 during intervention periods). The aggregate rate of adverse events fell 29%, from 59.0 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI, 51.8-67.2) to 41.9 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI, 36.3-48.3; p < 0.001), during the intervention period. Satisfaction improved markedly from an overall hospital rating of 71.8 (95% CI, 61.1-82.6) to 93.3 (95% CI, 88.2-98.4; p < 0.001) for patients and from 84.3 (95% CI, 81.3-87.3) to 90.0 (95% CI, 88.1-91.9; p < 0.001) for care partners. No change in care plan concordance or resource utilization.
Conclusions: Implementation of a structured team communication and patient engagement program in the ICU was associated with a reduction in adverse events and improved patient and care partner satisfaction.
Patients are increasingly being asked for feedback about their healthcare experiences. However, healthcare staff often find it difficult to act on this feedback in order to make improvements to services | Social Science and Medicine
This paper draws upon notions of legitimacy and readiness to develop a conceptual framework (Patient Feedback Response Framework – PFRF) which outlines why staff may find it problematic to respond to patient feedback.
A large qualitative study was conducted with 17 ward based teams between 2013 and 2014, across three hospital Trusts in the North of England. This was a process evaluation of a wider study where ward staff were encouraged to make action plans based on patient feedback.
Through the development of the PFRF, we found that making changes based on patient feedback is a complex multi-tiered process and not something that ward staff can simply ‘do’.
First, staff must exhibit normative legitimacy – the belief that listening to patients is a worthwhile exercise.
Second, structural legitimacy has to be in place – ward teams need adequate autonomy, ownership and resource to enact change. Some ward teams are able to make improvements within their immediate control and environment.
Third, for those staff who require interdepartmental co-operation or high level assistance to achieve change, organisational readiness must exist at the level of the hospital otherwise improvement will rarely be enacted.
Case studies drawn from our empirical data demonstrate the above. It is only when appropriate levels of individual and organisational capacity to change exist, that patient feedback is likely to be acted upon to improve services.