Sign in or 

|
davemiller |
Latest page update: made by davemiller
, Nov 14 2008, 5:07 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
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. |
|||||
| 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. |
|||||
| 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. |
|||||