eHealth - Social Business in Health
7.3K views | +0 today
eHealth - Social Business in Health
ehealth, integrating care, health monitoring, on line communication, interaction and (mobile) technology to care for health better
Curated by rob halkes
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by rob halkes!

Portal me - a dream?

Portal me - a dream? | eHealth - Social Business in Health |
"Portal me" ... It is the way we finally want to go: integrated hard and software all directed at a healthier life in cooperation with professionals, insitutes, family, friends and peers we do want...

Jeff Belden inspires!

rob halkes's insight:

Jeff Belden message may inspire lots of health care professionals, authorities and others to more activity towards development of ehealth applications. It doesn't need to be through a all in once leap, but a step by step process may benefit all stakeholders! See him motivate!

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Medical engagement | The King's Fund

Medical engagement | The King's Fund | eHealth - Social Business in Health |
by John Clark  and Vijaya Nath July 10th
Incl. Report download
What is good medical engagement? In those organisations where it exists, how has good medical engagement been created and sustained? These questions are at the heart of this report, which builds on earlier work from The King’s Fund on medical leadership.

This report is based on case studies of four NHS trusts with acknowledged high levels of medical engagement. It aims to help other organisations that are seeking to create cultures in which doctors want to engage more in the management, leadership and improvement of services. Based on interviews with a range of executives, senior and junior doctors, the report presents key features of each of the four trusts. Its final analytical section highlights common themes and includes a checklist to allow organisations and individuals to assess how far medical engagement is being sought and developed.

Key Findings

  • Medical engagement needs to be part of an overall organisational approach, from board to ward, and needs time to evolve. It is a journey that requires doctors to be motivated and to assume greater engagement with and responsibility for improving the quality of patient care in partnership with clinical and non-clinical colleagues and with input from patients.
  • The four trusts studied have all enjoyed long-term stable leadership, creating a firm foundation for cultural change. Senior leaders have shown total commitment to medical engagement and leadership.
  • All four trusts have clear strategies based on quality running throughout the organisations. The distinguishing feature is that these strategies form a way of working for the organisation – they are not isolated programmes.
  • Each trust has embraced a strong medical leadership structure with doctors in leadership roles at divisional and departmental levels, supported by managers. Despite making great progress, none claims to have a completely embedded medical engagement culture. 
  • Each trust puts considerable effort and resources into selecting senior staff including consultants, and none takes the stance that clinical expertise is sufficient.
  • Well-developed appraisal and revalidation processes exist in all four trusts. Talent management and leadership development are taken seriously, through education and training, and learning from other organisations.

Policy into practice implications

  • Medical engagement should be an integral part of the culture of all health care organisations and should be a priority for NHS boards and leaders.
  • It requires investment in development and training and also in governance arrangements to support the culture.
rob halkes's insight:

Must read to be inspired!

Report of case studies about developing "medical engagement." Although the term hasn't been defined precisely in the report it denotes its meaning at two points. It is stated that medical engagement is intended to lead to "...enhanced clinical and organisational outcomes, and to real benefits for patients and staff.."(p.39). Also, it is said in the conclusions, that a "..sustained and collective vision" .. will enable to create an "..organisational culture where all staff, particularly doctors, are motivated to share in delivering the highest quality of care." (p.41)

In summary, what is needed to bring about this fundamental change, is, in my words:

- an overall and integrated program, led by explicit starting points that may act as a guiding philosophy,

- a collective leadership that endorses and leads the change,

- explicit selection of doctors and staff, with the needed attitude and intentions, also a program of development, training and learning that initiates and continues inspiration to the right development, and

- enough time to make it work and allows for genuine change.

So, in retrospect, the report tells us that change and development is hard work like any implementation of innovation and development. The distinction here, in the report, is the concrete case findings and examples of how it was brought about. That makes it very worthwhile to read it.

However, some comment is in order: patients' benefits are only indicated but mostly absent from the report. It is all about the staff and doctors' activities directed to "medical engagement" - a strange term for a self evident responsibility to a medical institute. But if the terms helps to motivate, that is fine with me, but in my personal reflection, in these cases, it has little to do with patient engagement.

Add to the project a working method with patients, in a co-creative way and patient benefit will readily arise!
See here for further information about co-creation in care.

No comment yet.