Emerging issuesThis is a featured page

What should be done to make a socio-technical approach to the delivery of technology projects in health and social care in the NHS the norm?

A Socio-technical approach considers the technology change alongside and as part of all the other aspects of work, and people's attitudes to it. This recognises that people will not always use systems in the anticipated way, and that this can be a good thing. Healthcare as a very complex system was mentioned (though complexity theory was not), and the need for the technology to meet the needs of the users, and to develop with them, rather than just to provide a rigid set of workflows which may not match preferred or efficient ways of working.

The following issues were raised during the discussion part of the event - please, please add comments, add content, challenge statements, amend our use of headings, reference other material ...


The question itself was challenged! It was suggested that we should not be considering a socio-technical approach, nor that we deliver technology projects, rather that this is about improving healthcare using mechanisms that promote the value of informatics.

The recommendations below have been grouped around 5 main areas where delegates felt change could be effectively implemented. These include:

Engage Key Stakeholders, have Clinicians in the Lead
  • Engage clinicians in the change process
  • Get a clinician to lead the change project *
  • Use a clinically led decision making panel *
  • Incentivise clinicians and those that need to engage with the change
  • Give clinicians protected time to participate in change projects
  • Provide bank staff to backfill when clinicians asked to participate in change projects
  • Use the clinician’s contract to incentivise / influence
  • Don’t forget the nurses and other health professionals
Develop new, flexible processes – including planning and project management, contract and supplier management
  • Need to align local business objectives with IT drivers coming from the centre
  • Start with small pilots and work with the enthusiasts *
  • Get the technology working before committing to its extensive use
  • Develop standards, not standard systems
  • Build in realistic timescales / relax targets
  • Bring together clinicians, managers, academics etc.
Base activity on service / service user benefits
  • Develop an ‘upwards’ approach to change rather than ‘downwards’
  • Clearly define objectives / care benefits of the change project
  • Focus outcomes on the needs of the users *
  • Focus on the care benefits, not on technology ‘button counting’
  • Move away from contract and contract dates driven change
  • Pull managers away from the target driven culture within which they work
  • You cannot simply transfer the risks – take rather than off-load ownership of the business processes
  • Ensure that IT is the servant not the master in Health Policy
  • Influence the politicians!
Encouraging local ownership
  • Identify the right stakeholders at the outset, or you will get what you “think” you need rather than what is actually needed
  • Build a consensus of the need for change – it is a gradual process
  • People need to see the longer term benefits of change
  • Develop a deeper understanding within the organisation(s) of why change is needed *
  • Change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary
Developing the Health and Social Care Workforce to embrace “socio-technological change” / use vibrant and interactive communication media to improve and promote knowledge sharing and experience
  • Have the right capability (skill mix) to deliver the change
  • Offer training or other support for clinicians to ensure that they know how to influence the use and development of technology around patient and clinical needs
  • Share lessons learned – there needs to be a structured knowledge sharing process
  • Benchmarking *
  • Clinical Leaders Project (e.g. action learning sets )
  • Provide a business change award scheme
What can be done to use the opportunities that the Darzi Next Stage Review and the National Health Informatics Review implementation plan offer?


davemiller
davemiller
Latest page update: made by davemiller , Nov 14 2008, 5:07 AM EST (about this update About This Update davemiller I have marked bullets with * where I believe there are simple, realistic mechanisms that can be put in place to ensure change is driven for the right reasons - davemiller

6 words added

view changes

- complete history)
Keyword tags: issues
More Info: links to this page
Started By Thread Subject Replies Last Post
hadleyac Informaticians are key stakeholders too ! 0 Nov 17 2008, 7:28 AM EST by hadleyac
Thread started: Nov 17 2008, 7:28 AM EST  Watch
It certainly appeared working through this period in an IT department in the NHS that NPfIT made very deliberate attempts to talk to (a few) clinicians over the heads of local IM&T expertise, and belittling or ignoring the wealth of experience, and hard learned mistakes, that went before.

These NHS staff do have expertise to interpret the needs, represent the users at remote meetings, get debates going locally with far more clinical and administrative staff than remote or external teams could connect with. They generally have a passion to get things right, to support users that they are in constant contact with, and will be supporting the results directly.

I see re-engaging, energising and showing support and trust for local IT teams, who have kept all the local systems going (despite these being starved of investment pending NPfIT solutions), as a key element for future success. These staff rarely limit themselves to the 10% technology, but often get involved in identifying, highlighting and fixing clinical and administrative processes right around their NHS organisations.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
davemiller Local acceptance of the need for change 1 Nov 17 2008, 7:10 AM EST by hadleyac
Thread started: Nov 14 2008, 5:49 AM EST  Watch
All the recommendations made here are admirable and will, I am sure, improve the chance of effective change. And I suspect there is little disagreement with the list. An interesting observation made on the day alluded to the NHS not being a single entity ... I'm not sure if we used the word 'franchise' of organisations. We are dealing with an organisations (if we can call it that) which tends to be driven by very high level directives and large national initiatives, having to work with (rather than compete with) locally drivan care decisions. The end goal is a healthier nation but the driving forces tend to vary, from politics and macro economics natinally, to targets driven care objectives and micro economics locally.

This pull and push on organisations has a tendency to create environments where groups and organisations tend to work in opposition rather than in collaboration ... this might include cliniciancs, managers, commissioners and providers, and national projects.

If we can accept that we are all working towards the same goals, and forge partnerships instead of rival factions, we might make more headway. This requires time within change activity to consider the needs (the benefits) of change, to engage those that will be impacted by the change, and to realise the benefits of change.

There's clearly no easy fix, but I've added my twopennyworth by marking some of the bullets above with * where I think there are realistic opportunities to bring people on side, to focus on improving care, and to increase the chances of success.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
Show Last Reply
higgoo Systems thinking: but whose 'system and who's 'thinking'? 0 Nov 7 2008, 7:14 AM EST by higgoo
Thread started: Nov 7 2008, 7:14 AM EST  Watch
Sociotechnical change may be about appreciating the whole, the integrated sum of parts rather than concentrating and reducing to individual components. Prof Clegg put that point, in common with the UK Strategy Unit and many others involved with complex situations.

But systems are an abstraction. It depends whose summary and interpretation you're prepared to accept when different groups have different perspectives, levels of knowledge and motivations. Complexity increases when the 'systems' we're reviewing are also hit by multiple initiatives from outside (Darzi, HI, etc). Systems then become much wider and even more difficult to understand.

I look at this as a disabled researcher. Those with disabilities (and long term conditions) apparently place the biggest burden on the NHS. Yet an expert at the Masterclass described diagnostic data in primarycare records as "a disaster". I personally have difficulties using Wikis and Discussion Boards via assistive technologies. Note also this from the Equality Impact Assessment accompanying the HI Review:
"2.8.1 There are no current nationally-agreed NHS code-sets for disability".

We call for clinical leadership. But does 'clinician' mean 'doctor' or all involved in direct care? Look too at the structure of medicine. Do you see multiple specialities who, like my eye and ear specialists, rarely talk to each other? Do you sense some contradictions emerging?

So the sociotechnical approach based on systems thinking is laudable. The problem may be turning the mantra into true systems thinking and realistic systems practice by all involved from top to bottom.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
Showing 3 of 4 threads for this page - view all