I’m writing to highlight another article in the BMJ written by a patient about goal setting. The article is very simple, about a patient raising the issue of taking up running in an asthma review. It is also very deep, and considers the difficulty of breaking into the nurse’s routine review to raise the issue.
The Quality and Outcomes Framework included many items on a checklist to cover in an asthma review, and even though we are post-QOF in Scotland, we are still using our QOF template.
Some of the suggestions for patient participation made by the article are already in use. For example our asthma nurse makes good use of the self-assessment tools on the Asthma UK website.
I think that the real challenge to our practice is to encourage patients to set their own agenda before their appointment, and to make that appointment a space where the patient’s goals are at the forefront. I plan to take the article in to our practice as part of our preparation for ‘House of Care’
As the patient writing the article says: ‘These appointment had never felt like a two way conversation where I had the space to ask as well as answer questions’. What a wake-up call to all of us who run chronic disease management clinics. This patient felt apologetic raising her goals at the consultation, and this was done at the end of the time with the nurse.
I felt so strongly that the patient goals should be the first, biggest thing about chronic disease management reviews that I took the article in to work, and gave it to our LTC nurses to read. We need to come up with a new language and way of that invites these conversations, that creates this teamwork between clinician and patient naturally.
2016 – the year I went to the International Forum of Quality and Safety in Healthcare in Gothenburg. There were many memorable moments. It inspired a passion in me for showcasing quality improvement in primary care and in Scotland. These ambitions are still to be realised.
It also took me to Jönköping where I visited Qulturum, an amazing resource for bringing healthcare improvement ideas into practice. Here is where I first saw a description of a citizen’s jury, and a reasoned explanation for why they are valuable.
Before this, I had only seen single patients being asked about single issues. These lone lay people have attended meetings, to represent all patients, all demographics, all ethnographic minorities, and orientations. The agenda has been set by the medical establishment, and the lay person has been, at best, a commentator. Their participation has allowed organisations to tick the box on patient participation.
A Citizen’s jury changes this. First of all, a group of people get to debate the issues. This gets around the need for one person to represent all demographics. Secondly, this is more than a poll. The jury is provided with facts, as well as well reasoned and possibly opposing expert opinions. Members of the jury develop knowledge about a specific policy area. They may call expert witnesses to present evidence relevant to the issue being explored. Their viewpoint is therefore both independent and well-informed, and not fixed to one demographic.
The BMJ published an analytical article examining how citizens’ juries can review current medical practice. The article looks at the role of these juries in evaluating acceptability and legitimacy of screening policies. Relevant examples are provided.
I read with interest about Bernhoven Hospital in the British Medical Journal last year. The description of the ethos of the hospital is a good fit for what I aspire to in the provision of care in our community hospital. The beautiful idea is that ‘good healthcare starts with a good conversation – in this hospital we decide together’.
The hospital, like many others in Holland, was trying to manage rising costs, but instead of cutting services, it aimed to reduce unnecessary interventions by focusing on patient-centred care and management of risk.
The article includes flowery imagery and the pictures of the beautiful wild flowers around the hospital, and the tone of the writing implies a hospital nirvana. The vignettes of two patients give us a little more insight of how they have pursued this agenda; it is a highly complex system, which has taken years to grow and will continue to evolve.
One thing that really caught my attention is that they started with a vision, which they have stated clearly. The medical director and his team set out to create a climate in which their vision could thrive.
Examples include good access to senior decision support and a suite of decision-making tools. They stopped paying clinicians for procedures done, and provided a fixed salary instead. They included medical staff as hospital directors, and patients as shareholders. They added telemonitoring, and online support, and gave patients more control over their follow-up arrangements. They rolled consultant clinics out to the community and built better multidisciplinary teams with allied health professionals. They set up weekly brainstorming sessions that didn’t just involve the interface between primary and secondary care; they included patients as well.
Lead by the vision, instead of focusing on the cost of components, they have taken a leap of faith. Looking at patient-centred care as an ethos has bought best value to patients and to the health care service.
When I read this article, I recognised with joy many of the values I hold myself; that patient-centred care and shared decision making is a core attribute of a successful health care system.
Our community hospital and our GP practice incorporate this style of work, but it is not up-front and in our faces. We do not explicitly reference this cornerstone with every new change in care provision. I have no clear idea where patient-centred care sits within our NHS board – the stated aim is ‘The best at what we do’ – which is not that specific.
This is a complex and evolving process, not one that can he copied and emulated with ease. I would love to go on a study visit to see how this works, perhaps with some senior managers from our own health-board.
The brand of Realistic Medicine in Scotland seems to be forging along the same path. The annual report published in April 2019 is called Personalising Realistic Medicine. It sets an expectation that the NHS in Scotland will engage clinicians, managers and patients in the redesign of services, enabling the delivery of realistic, patient-centred, therapeutic goals.
This worked example shows that putting values ahead of cost has lead to better patient experience, and that has turned out to be financially prudent.
Our clinical work is about patients. In each consultation, we are a team of two, doctor and patient, collaborating on the solution to their clinical problem. Our services are organised to make best use of our clinical resources within the practice, the skills of our team members and the consulting space we are allocated.
However, our services could also be organised to make better use of the resources that patients bring with them. At the start of 2020, I am reflecting on five main areas where our patients have shown how they can shape the provision of health care. In 2019, our patients helped as research subjects, campaigned for new services, got involved in consultation and service design, helped to teach the next generation of doctors, and used their stories to help others access care.
Please note that I have got the permission of any patients mentioned in this article, and their contributions to health care are already in the public domain. Bear in mind that our practice only has 2,300 patients on average; for a small practice this is a high level of participation.
I’d like to thank all of our patients who have helped to teach the next generation of general practitioners. During the year, you have talked to school pupils, undergraduates, broad-based trainees and General Practice trainees, all of whom wanted to find out about the delivery of medical care in remote and rural areas. You have treated them with kindness and respect, and trusted them.
This year, we have been extending the use of a program called ‘Attend Anywhere’ which allows patients to be seen on a videolink. We haven’t yet fully realised the possibilities of the software, but we have supported patients to access clinics on the mainland when they have been too unwell to travel. Several patients have collaborated in writing an information leaflet to support this. Even better would be a short video that we could play to patients; watch this space.
PARTICIPATING IN CLINICAL TRIALS
David wrote his own account of participating in a stent trial, and has provided evidence of his improved health; a photo from the top of Ben Mor. His own account is too long to be part of this article, so I’ve given him is own page. He participated in the October trial at the Golden Jubilee – and they wrote about him as well – here.
He makes an important point at the end of his blog; his gratitude for good medical care was part of his motivation for participating in the trial. We all gain, our practice, our secondary care colleagues, and all of those patients who benefit from the advancement of clinical science.
On the 2nd November 2017, Shona received the devastating news she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. On the 12th July 2018, she celebrated with her family and friends on completing her treatment. On the 1st October 2019, she shared her story online, to highlight to others the importance of checking their breasts and seeking help.
We are all influenced strongly by stories, especially when they are told by people like ourselves, people that we know and people that we trust. Shona has told her story to help others, and to support two campaigns; breast cancer awareness month, and the Scottish ‘get checked early‘ campaign.
SCAD, Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection, is a rare cause of heart attacks. It particularly affects women, and is not related to cholesterol, smoking or any of the usual risk factors. We have two patients in our practice who have been affected, and they have both been campaigning for better services in Scotland for patients with this condition.
One of our patients, Mary, has been one of the founder members of the Beat SCAD Scottish Patient Group. She has been travelling down to Glenfield Hospital in Leicester for specialist advice and follow-up after her SCAD heart attack; a long trip if your health is not the best. The Leicester clinic is currently only one of two in the UK specialising in the care of SCAD patients, and the patients support each other. The other clinic is in London.
With the aim of improving health care for Scottish patients with SCAD, Mary has represented the group and worked to raise their profile at clinical conferences and events up and down Scotland. The Scottish group aims to increase awareness of SCAD in Scotland, and is lobbying for a Scottish SCAD clinic, the development of guidance for managing SCAD in our national SIGN guidelines, as well as a national care pathway.
If you want to read more about the campaign, follow @mary_galb and @beatscaduk on Twitter.
These are just the stories I know about from 2019. I’m sure there are many more patients contributing to our National Health Service, teaching our clinicians, developing new services, participating in research trials, supporting other patients, and helping us to see what is important to them.
I’ve discovered a way of doing things that improves patients understanding of their medication, and it is so simple I can’t believe I didn’t always do it before.
Actually, I lie. I was already doing it sometimes, I just hadn’t named what I did, or thought about it.
When I prescribe paracetamol, it has been fairly normal for me to write ‘take two tablets four times a day for pain’. It is the same for most of the PRN medications I prescribe. However, for all routine medications, the directions say how, but not why to take the medication.
I changed that in 2019. When I review medications, I add the indication to the prescription. The whole practice including our attached pharmacist will start using this as the new standard. For Amlodipine, for example, the directions say ‘take one in the morning to lower blood pressure’. How simple it is to do that. We can program the new directions in as short-cuts too. We’ve not been completely reliable, but it is becoming a normal way of working.
Hopefully, this small step has added a smidge more information to patient-centred discussions and decisions about medication. Maybe a bit naive, some people will always take the four white tablets in the morning without question. Some other people will play a random game, like the woman who just put all her medication in a bowl like mint imperials, and took some every day.
Now, patients will have an easy opportunity to recall why they take their medication, as well has what that medication is. More information, better discussions, more patient-centred, realistic decisions.
I was extremely fortunate that a chance comment about breathlessness to my GP following a walk up North Lee, quickly lead to some tests and a consultation with consultant cardiologist Dr. Stuart Watkins at the Golden Jubilee Hospital in Glasgow.
After a preliminary scan, I was diagnosed with restricted coronary arteries and required three stents, two of which were joined at a ‘Y’ shaped branch. This is a slightly more complicated procedure, and whilst he was explaining this to me, Dr. Watkins said that my case might be suitable to be included in a medical trial called ‘October’.
One’s first reaction when you have had a relatively serious medical diagnosis is that you just want to have the normal procedure as soon as possible and, in truth, the idea of being part of what sounds like a medical experiment is difficult to contemplate. However, on a closer read through the information, and discussions with both my GP in person, and Dr. Watkins by phone, it was clear that the trial was not about a new type of stent or a new method of inserting them, but a different way of imaging the procedure as it was under way. This new technology is believed to be particularly helpful in more complex Y branch stent procedures. Thus reassured, I agreed to take part.
When I arrived on the ward it felt a bit like being treated as a VIP. Not only did I have all the normal high quality care and attention one would expect from the nursing staff, but I had a second nursing team working on the trial looking after me too! The senior trial nurse explained to me that I was the first patient to be on the October trial at the Golden Jubilee, although many other patients had been involved in other similar trials using the new imaging technology all over the world. Also that the trial was ‘randomised’, with patients being selected by a computer programme when the procedure was already under way.
Catheter labs are very busy high tech places with what seems to the patient to be masses of staff and equipment, and the trial adds to both staff and equipment so makes it even busier. As the moment approached for the new imaging equipment to be turned on, the trial nurse started the randomising computer programme running, and a few seconds later she announced that I hadn’t been selected! So my procedure was then finished in the normal way. As soon as it was completed, Dr Watkins reassured me that because the arteries were at the front of my heart they were easily visible using the standard imaging technique anyway, and that he was very pleased with the results.
Afterwards, as I was patient ‘no 1’ on the trial, Dr Watkins and the senior trial nurse came to the ward and we had our photo taken for the hospital magazine. The trial nurse contacts me every few months to check I’m OK and will do so yearly for the next 10 years.
My recovery was incredibly quick. I was able to start taking short walks after a few days of taking it easy and headed up Rueval after around 6 weeks – accompanied by my District Nurse sister. Then in the summer I walked up Eaval with our younger son Joe, feeling absolutely back to normal in terms of fitness. Now I walk our dog twice a day for an hour and also go swimming once a week.
My recovery has been monitored by the Uist Cardiac Nurse and I’m just about to attend my final clinic. She says I’m a model patient, but I take a different view. In the Golden Jubilee ward I was surrounded by patients who had suffered much more serious cardiac problems, so I feel I’ve been incredibly fortunate to live on Uist and experience such fantastic medical care which has allowed me to return to my normal life. I will always be grateful for this, and participating in the ‘October’ trial and hopefully benefiting medical science in a small way in the process, is as good a way as any of saying thank you.
We are preparing for a new way of working in our practice. The idea is that we take what we do, and we supercharge it. Some of it sounds quite obvious.
Take the review of chronic diseases. At the moment, patients get called in for a pre-appointment check, then come back to see the nurse practitioner for a review of their condition.
The change is quite simple and also completely revolutionary. After the pre-appointment check, the patient is sent an update on their health, including any important areas to discuss, and space for them to consider what the key issues are for them. When they come to meet the nurse practitioner, the patient gets to choose which aspect of their health is most important for review, and for choosing which goals to set for the year ahead.
One of the key steps is how we reframe the review appointments. I personally believe that this is crucial: if we as a practice don’t understand and embrace this step, then all of the other changes are not going to be fully effective. This is the goal, the inspiring change.
I was very pleased to come across an article in the British Journal of General Practice: Setting goals with patients living with multimorbidity. Even the title is great – the goals are set with the patients, and they are the ones who are living with multimorbidity. The full article is in depth, and qualitative. The authors analyised 10 hours of VC to determine how goal setting is done. They describe ‘bearing witness’ to the patients goals. They conclude that this process requires a lot of time and energy from both parties, and it worked best when both GP and patient were prepared in advance.
I’m keeping that summary in mind, both for when we attend our training in Harris, and for when I prepare the staff-room QI noticeboard.
I’m just getting myself into the right frame of mind for the training we are going to do for our Benbecula House of Care project. I’ve also been stockpiling journals with articles that have caught my eye, and there has been a theme. Many of them are about empowering patients, and dealing with clinical complexity.
One of the articles stood out for me tonight. It discusses how we help patients lose weight. Much of the article covers change theory, identifying motivators for change, setting goals, signposting and support.
In the top right of the third page was the most interesting bit of all: a bubble diagram. How simple, how powerful, for the patient to set out what they wish to focus on.
There are loads of bubble templates on the internet, in the shape of trees, or networks, beautifully designed and probably copywrited. But as you can see, a pen and paper and an open mind are fine.
A year ago, I worked for three days in Pollok, at the Peat Road Medical Practice. I made a fairly amateur video of my experience, but the points I made at the end still feel really important.
I can still recall the faces of the patients that I saw in those three days, and wonder what happened to them. I didn’t have the luxury of reviewing them, of speaking to the wider team over time to see how they were doing. I wondered how it felt for them, not knowing who would see them next, or who would steer them through the system to better health.
I have the luxury of having worked in the same practice for over 25 years, and even if I don’t see a patient often, I know their back story, and if they want to see me, they know I’ll be there, and that I know the local health system intimately. This long-term relationship is based on trust and shared knowledge.
A systematic review of the impact of continuity of care was published in the BMJ last year, examining the link between continuity and health outcomes. It concluded that higher levels of continuity of care are associated with lower mortality rates, no matter the clinical system or cultural boundaries.
The articles that this analysis was based on were heterogeneous, and the authors comment on how hard it was to compare themes and outcomes. This said, I would like to have seen the article also discuss whether continuity of care has an impact on choice and management of risk. My own experience tells me that when the patient and I know and trust each other, I can take conversations further, and the patient is more able to tell me what they want from their care. Continuity of care can give us the freedom to decide to do nothing. It empowers patients to set their own health agenda.
My theory: Continuity of care promotes realistic medicine. It supports patient-centred discussions, and coaches patients into being the best advocates for their own health. On a large scale, it supports effective health care, and drives improvement by taking the needs of patients to design better systems.
I was very excited when I read about this study, about improving inpatient safety by systematically improving communication with patients and families during ward rounds. I could see immediately how this could be transferable to our own setting in the community hospital.
The entry in the paper BMJ is quite short and humble, and it is worth visiting the online version for more detail, and to see the short video clip introducing the key researchers, who describe the design and outline of the project.
Structured ward rounds aren’t new, and neither is the concept of ‘no decision about me without me’. No-one would deny that families are an important part of the team providing care to patients. Using a structured communication tool has been embedded in our practice for many years. Teach-back is an excellent way of ensuring that the person receiving information has truly understood. The genius idea was to do all these things as a single process, and designing the intervention with service users.
The lead researchers are from the Children’s Hospital in Boston, Harvard Medical School, Mothers against Medical Error, and the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute. They set out to introduce a method of improving communication with families. Their theory that this would improve outcomes was based on the observation that improving communication between clinicians improves safety, and that poor commmunication is a leading cause of adverse events.
The study group was made up of over 100 people, patients, nurses, family members, doctors, health literacy experts, researchers and medical educators. They co-produced the structured ward-round tool, to be used on ward rounds where the family is present. The communication tool is called I-PASS. They also produced a training package and a range of support tools including patient information leaflets.
A word about communication tools: We use SBAR locally, whereas I-PASS is the tool used in the study. It is designed to be used for structured communication with patients and families. It focuses more on the recommendations, and adds synthesis and teach-back as part of the communication tool.
I–Illness severity (family reports if child was better, worse, or same); nurse input solicited
P–Patient summary (brief summary of patient presentation, overnight events, plan)
A–Action list (to-dos for day)
S–Situation awareness and contingency planning (what family and staff should look out for and what might happen)
S–Synthesis by receiver (family reads back key points of plan for day, prompted by presenter, supported by others as needed)
The measures used were:
Outcome measure: Looking at error rates, and harmful errors
Outcome measure: Patient and family satisfaction
Balancing measure: Length of ward round
Balancing measure: Amount of teaching on ward round.
Process measure: Communication processes on ward round.
Although overall error rates were unchanged, harmful medical errors decreased and Satisfaction scores rose and communication processes improved. There was no significant impact on ward round length or teaching on ward rounds.
My own experience over the years has been that I have shifted from asking family members to leave the room during rounds, to asking if they can stay. The conversations around progress and plans for care involve families and patients equally. Bringing in students adds a dimension of teaching, usually in patient-centred language, and it enriches the discussion. These conversations lead to patient-centred decisions, which are understood by relatives as well as the patients.
In the words of Helen Haskell, president of Mothers against Medical Error, one of the lead researchers, ‘It doesn’t just feel good, it can help improve the safety and quality of care – I would add, improve health literacy, agency and opportunity for realistic, patient centred care to be forefront of care planning. This study is a model of how families and care provides can co-produce an intervention to make care safer and better.’