If you type patients, quality and care into google, the results suggest that this is something that we do for and to patients. Discussions about change agents take me to pages about how to engage clinicians within the healthcare system, but nothing directly about patients as systematic change agents.
I want to flip this on it’s head, and inspire patients to shape the health service, seeking provision that meets what matters to them. A 180 degree revolution. Clearly, there needs to be some strategy, some oversight from health care providers, so that those with greatest need don’t lose out to those with the strongest lobby. Both parties are required to create the service.
The current term for this process is co-production. On a personal level, working as a GP, this is our bread-and-butter. An effective consultation supports the patient with diagnosis, providing information, management choices, and opportunities to meet again to discuss progress.
While I was looking for articles about patients as change agents, I came across the concept of the Patient Activation Measure, a tool to assess how ready patients were to engage in these discussions. The tool is used on an individual, case-by-case level, where the doctor-patient relationship and the problem to be managed is the scope of the co-production. How could we lift this to a more strategic level? Could we use the Patient Activation Measure to see how successful systemic change is in increasing the number of patients able to use the tools of realistic medicine, able to develop that agenda with the clinicians they meet?
As a GP partner in Scotland, I am responsible for ensuring that our practice systematically provides safe appropriate patient-centred care. We provide opportunities for patients to feed back to us about their experience of healthcare, and give us suggestions about improvements. These tend to be about small things – how comfortable our seating is, whether we should have Radio 2 or another station in the waiting area.
Nationally, Care Opinion collects patient feedback, enables organisations to respond and reply, as well as being searchable. But this doesn’t of itself, change the relationship between clinicians and the public. Much of the positive feedback includes stories about care where the principles of Realistic Medicine has been at the heart of care. Within this movement, I feel I am getting closer to system-wide patient-led quality improvement.
The place where I feel this project really sits is as part of the House of Care. I seem to be trying to create an environment in which the left-hand wall is nurtured. Imagine a house which has, at it’s centre, conversations about care, support, realistic medicine. The foundation and floor is the social context, all of the sources of support in a community. The roof, sheltering this all, is the system and processes that bring the patient and clinician together. The conversation has on one side, individuals ready to engage in a therapeutic dialogue, and on the other, clinicians who are committed to partnership working with patients.
So far, most of the Realistic Medicine discussions that I have been involved in have focused on the clinicians, the ‘right-hand wall’, and on the roof. However, we could possibly be talking only to each other, unless we have individuals and carers that are speaking the same language, individuals and carers who can start these conversations spontaneously.
This model allows for work at local, regional and national scale. The British Heart Foundation has just published a report on a three-year project that used the House of Care Model in five health communities. The report describes how patients were involved in championing this approach, how important an enabling infrastructure is, how to flex the model to fit local need, and the importance of culture before paperwork.
I’m feeling inspired.
References (accessed on 11/10/2018):