Tag: digital health

  • Three things we must do now to prevent patient harm from digital tech

    In the wake of reports linking IT flaws to deaths of patients and the recent cyber attack on pathology services in south east London, Chris Fleming calls for radical change to make digital safer and more effective

    Digital technologies and ways of working have huge potential to transform our healthcare system and alleviate some of the pressures facing the NHS. But only if we do it right.

    So how are we getting on? Last month, the BBC reported on IT system failures that have been linked to the deaths of three patients. And in the last fortnight a pathology system supporting some of our biggest hospitals has been taken offline, and an entire healthcare system’s digital infrastructure was reported to have collapsed.

    We need to change. We need to improve the products we ask our staff and patients to use, insist that the market modernises alongside us, and recognise that digital is not the same as IT – it changes the way healthcare is delivered. It is essential to get this right, to tackle the risks of digital systems and prevent patient harm.

    Reshape the market

    It’s tempting to bury the reasons for this failure behind issues of complexity. And in fairness to my colleagues working in the sector, the federated nature of the NHS, and the inherent complexity of medical data and medical practice, are undoubtedly contributing factors.

    But the complexity is not a sufficient excuse.

    There are three things we can and must do now to mitigate future patient harm and make sure we are leading digital change in the most effective way we can.

    Firstly, we must take market shaping seriously to drive drastic improvements in the products we use every day in the NHS. We need to act on rent-seeking behaviours and give new players who are shaping the market in a positive way a boost. Given the general failure of the market to respond to this design challenge (with a few exceptions) we might, as Digital Health’s editor-in-chief Jon Hoeksma points out, be rather better off building some of our own systems.

    Secondly, we need to take the development, coordination, and enforcement of open standards in interoperability and cross-institutional communications seriously and underpin it with the resources that reflect its importance. It is an unglamorous topic, but this plumbing is vital for the future of the NHS. The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which had provisions for interoperability between vendors, fell down in the wash-up period after the general election was called. If they win the election, as looks likely, Labour should revive the provisions in the Bill, to give the NHS teeth to force interoperability without being scared of the response of the market.

    Thirdly, we need to recognise across the NHS that digital health is not about funding ‘IT projects’ but a fundamental rewiring of the way healthcare is delivered, requiring requisite buy-in from the whole organisation both at national and provider level.

    Digital at the top table

    All of which will require a well-informed and muscular centre playing a servant leadership role with the system. Digital and technology experience should be at the very top table of NHS England. Clear architecture and commercial strategies should be developed in conjunction with the wider NHS CIO community.

    NHS England needs to focus on a long-term approach to funding and should build (or fund the scaling of) world leading open platforms that are designed for adoption that can take pain away from the system and prevent the front line from having to constantly reinvent the wheel.

    The Wade-Gery review recommended “Putting data, digital and tech at the heart of transforming the NHS”. I know many fantastic people in the local and central NHS who get it and are succeeding, in spite of the challenges. We need to break down the barriers, unblock things for them, and let them deliver.

    The complexity of the digitisation of the NHS and social care is such that it is not an area where major systemic change can happen over the short term. This has been proven many times in the past. Any incoming administration would be advised not to underestimate how hard it will be to deliver their technology commitments – especially those involving patient data, as the operational changes are huge.

    But if we do not at least start with a radical rethink of how to go about these challenges, history will be doomed to repeat itself.

    This article originally appeared in Digital Health.

  • How can we get to a single shareable patient record?

    If I were a new Secretary of State arriving at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), one question I’d be asking is why is it so difficult to have a single patient record. That is to say: a single source of health information about a person that is available to any health practitioner helping them.

    The reasons for this are legion but fundamentally it’s down to two things. Complexity and culture.

    The NHS, despite the name, is not one single service. It’s a huge collection of different organisations funded in different ways under different conditions, delivering possibly millions of different services. This is underpinned by a huge mix of software systems both national and local, making the NHS the brownest of brownfield environments for digital change. 

    As well as institutional complexity, there is also data complexity. Picture a cradle-to-grave data model that minutely describes the human body and its systems, the things that can go wrong, and the treatments available. Add in the fact this data is also highly personal. The technical security and political sensitivity questions are formidable.

    Beyond the environmental factors, there are some self-inflicted moves that have slowed progress too. Lurches in NHS technology policy from the top down / outsourced model of NPfIT to thousands of blooming flowers (although flowers is perhaps a generous metaphor in many cases). 

    From interoperability to convergence and back. Completely different commercial approaches in primary, secondary, or urgent care. And more digital and data strategies than you can shake a stick at. This confused and confusing picture is exacerbated by piecemeal funding cycles driven by announceables that don’t allow for long term planning or foundational enabling work.

    IMG_1834_2024-01-16-091936_zhos.webp

    But it can be done. It arguably has been, if you look at the success of shared care records like Connecting Care or One London. In the long term many, including me, believe that the best way to deliver this requires a new model where comprehensive health records are organised around patients rather than institutions, based on open data standards. Such models are emerging in some regions and countries, such as Slovenia.

    I would ideally like to tell the new Secretary of State to simply swerve the question as elegantly as possible. A single health record is hugely complex, fraught and littered with elephant traps. But on the basis that isn’t politically feasible, here’s what I would say is needed:

    • Clear consistent long term strategy accompanied by a credible delivery plan
    • Sustainable and predictable funding supporting the development of long standing expert teams
    • Bold local and national leadership
    • Starting small and iterating, and scaling what’s effective
    • More active management of the vendor market in secondary care
    • Increased investment in the “plumbing” activities supporting development and adoption of data and interoperability standards

    Because no matter how hard it is, there are reasons for optimism. Like many things in the NHS, the future is perhaps here; it’s just unevenly distributed. And because the prize is so big, it really is worth the effort.

    This post was originally published on the Public Digital website.

  • What good looks like for digital transformation in health

    As part of our work with NHS Providers (supported by HEE and NHSX) on running digital board sessions for trusts, we often get asked, “Can you tell us what good looks like?”. So it was great to see that NHSX is working on this very question, and even better talking about it openly on social media.

    When Trust leaders ask us this question they usually are coming from a place of “tell us what the latest technology is” or “paint us a picture of the modern digital hospital”. My response is always the same. We could do that, but is that really what you need?

    Historically, digital advancement in health settings has been taken through a predominantly technological lens. The most obvious example of this is HIMMS. But I worry this approach has been pretty unhelpful overall, because as anyone with experience at the sharp end of digital transformation will tell you, it’s not just the technology but the culture, processes and operating model you need to worry about if you want to genuinely change. The risk of painting the picture of an internet-era clinic is that you are not giving a trust any tools to help them get there.

    With that in mind, here are some thoughts about what good looks like

    1. Having a clear mission everyone understands. Digital strategies that are 40pages of shopping lists are hard to remember. Make it clear to people what you are trying to do, or they wont come on the journey with you.
    2. Relentlessly focus on your users’ needs. If you aren’t actively focussed on understanding and addressing the clinical, practical, or emotional needs (Ht Janet) of either patients, clinicians, or other staff people won’t use your services and you will never see any benefit.
    3. Talk about services not projects. Services start at go live, projects end at go live. Your digital services should be seen in the same way as any other service you offer- to be supported ongoing, iterated, improved. The NHS Service Standardhas all the advice you need.
    4. Invest in skilled teams – with internet era capability covering not only engineering but product and design, and pair these with clinical and operational staff. Work together, don’t chuck requirements over the fence. And please please try not to design things without some design expertise!
    5. Use modern cloud based technology. Don’t lock into long contracts. Work with suppliers who want to collaborate with you as one team. Stop putting tin in the basement.
    6. Be agile. Focus on the minimum viable product based on valued delivered and iterate when you learn more. Minimum viable governance that is proportionate to the need. Show the thing, don’t hide meaning in 2″ inch-thick board packs.

    As a board, be servant leaders. Take collective responsibility for your digital transformation, put it at the top of your agenda. Ensure you have the right technical knowledge in the room where it happens. Unblock things for your teams. Move authority to information not information to authority.

    The title of this blog post is ‘What good looks like for digital transformation in health’ but the same principles apply in every sector. None of this is news. It’s all already in the Public Digital bookblog, and in other places like the digital maturity scale my colleagues developed with Harvard Kennedy School. Many of my formercolleaguesand others all around in the health and care system have been saying similar things. 

    A common picture for what good looks like is beginning to emerge across the NHS. In some places, it is already more than just words – you can see it, and so can patients. But that’s not true everywhere. What comes next must be the harder discussion about what makes good so difficult to achieve, and so hard to scale. Because the answers are likely to be rooted in the topics that all too often fall into the ‘too hard to fix’ category: money and power, legislation and legacy, the rules and tools of the game. 

    If you’re interested in this work and want to continue this conversation you can find me @e17chrisfleming.

    This post was originally published on the Public Digital website.

  • An introductory guide to digital healthcare products

    There is a wide and occasionally bewildering array of software used by patients and clinicians in the NHS. This is a short, introductory reference guide to illustrate the range. It is by no means comprehensive so any critique or additions are well received. I hope it’s useful to some.

    Clinical system: If you are new to healthcare, one of the immediate things you encounter is the primacy of the clinician and the concept of clinical safety. A clinician is someone with a medical qualification who treats people i.e. a doctor, nurse, paramedic, dentist, pharmacist, or midwife. ‘Clinical system’ is a broad term that is used to refer to the software that supports clinical activity i.e. the act of treating patients in a healthcare setting. When software is considered to be clinical it means it is subject to legislation such as clinical safety standards (as defined under the Health and Social Care Act 2012) or the Medical Device Regulations. This means clinical systems must be able to evidence their safety through testing and by explaining their approach to clinical risk management.

    Clinical systems are the bread and butter of healthcare and this is where most of the health IT money goes. They can range from specific standalone systems for a specific purpose like a Radiology Information System/Picture Archiving and Communication System, to care pathway-specific dealing with, say, cancer. A care provider chooses these based on its needs then often integrates them into a core enterprise system, more on which below. There could be over 100 in a given hospital.

    Patient administration system (PAS): used in hospitals, this describes the software that manages administration of patient interactions. This includes things like: the hospital’s patient index with patient demographic details, appointment booking functionality, checking patients in and out, scheduling and workflow type stuff, referral management, payments. Notably, PAS’s are distinct from being clinical i.e. they do not typically store or process clinical information about patients. Pretty much every care setting has something akin to a PAS, it’s just that the term is synonymous with hospitals. Because of the way PAS’s in acute settings have evolved to meet very specific NHS-y needs such as national data returns or payment processing, it makes it a niche market with higher barriers to entry.

    Electronic Patient Record (EPR): self-explanatory in some respects, as this refers to the digital manifestation of the patient’s healthcare record. EPRs are everywhere, although the term itself is most closely associated with hospitals. This is mainly because in hospitals there is a historic distinction between the care record and the PAS, and because other care settings have EPRs that are already called other things. These days EPR systems often do heavy lifting for both the patient record and various jobs previously undertaken by the PAS, as part of the trend to enterprise approach. EPRs can also go by the name EHR, or EMR. The market leaders in the UK are Cerner and EpicIt is apparently not cheap to install an EPR. Leeds Teaching Hospitals built their own, starting in 2003. Many sensible people on all sides of the political divide think that the patient data layer should be separated from the enterprise applications, and more who suggest it should be nationally owned. This is not going to be easy.

    GP IT Systems: these are the main software systems used by GPs, and are really an EPR for the GP setting. They have a whole range of features from appointment booking and management, prescription management, to generation of letters and storage of data. Crucially, they store your GP medical record, allowing GPs to code entries and enter free text information regarding your consultations, conditions or medications. The GP record is particularly important in NHS terms because the way the NHS is structured means it is de facto the main record for your healthcare. It stores correspondence between your GP and hospital or other provider. The systems also automatically pump data to NHS Digital for aggregate, statistical use. There are 4 GP system suppliers in England which are TPPEMISVision and Microtest.

    Clinical decision support system: commonly abbreviated to CDSS, this is a tool that is often embedded as a feature within types of clinical systems. It typically forms a series of questions that can be asked of a patient in order to help a healthcare professional (either clinically trained or not) assess the patient’s condition. You can see a CDSS in action on 111.nhs.uk in which patients themselves access the NHS Pathways CDSS. Pathways’ underlying clinical information makes a risk assessment based on the combination of answers provided. It’s essentially a corpus of medical knowledge with the “one thing per page” design principle applied. CDSS’s can be either for diagnostics or triage. Diagnostics is where the tool is actively trying to suggest possible illnesses whereas triage simply assigns a level of risk to direct a patient to the appropriate clinician or care setting. The former is governed by stricter regulations, but this is a bit of a false distinction in my view as a triage system is still making some guess at what the problem might be, in order to assign a risk score. As well as online, CDSS is used by phone operators e.g. on 111, or at the front door of emergency departments. Very specific CDSS can also exist to support clinicians in highly specialist settings e.g. to help doctors select the right chemo dosage in cancer treatment.

    Online consultation systems: these are relatively new on the scene, and are systems in primary care to enable GP-patient interaction to happen remotely. They comprise a number of features that support this. Online consultation is often conflated with video consultation. While the former does encompass video consultation, the terms are not wholly interchangeable because online consultation also encompasses things like form-based triage (i.e. the patient fills in a questionnaire about their symptoms and this is sent to the practice); 2-way messaging between the practice and patient; and symptom checking using a CDSS. Examples are eConsultAsk my GPEngage Consult.

    Personal healthcare record (PHR): PHR is an umbrella term for a digital healthcare record that is owned and administered by the patient themselves. It’s not clear to me yet how much this term is understood beyond a core group of wonkish types like me who work in digital healthcare delivery and policy. A PHR may combine clinical information from various sources, but crucially they also allow the patient to submit information themselves either through manual data entry or via wearables. NHS Digital maintain a working definition of a PHR on their website. Some examples are Tiny Medical AppsPatient Knows Best or Apple Health.

    Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD): This is the system that supports 999 control centres in the management of telephone calls into the service and the coordination of staff and vehicles in support of the calls. It also supports CDSS modules to help triage calls. Ambulance services will also often have a separate EPR for their patients. As the urgent and emergency care sector evolved as its own sector through the advent of the 111 service, so too did the case management tooling. So now equivalent products are available in 111 to queue and manage calls, undertake referrals, update records and perform triage. And some are used across both 999 and 111. In NHSD we have broadly referred to these as Encounter Management Systems but this is not a widely used term. Examples are ClericAdastra.

    Internet pharmacies: also known as ‘distance selling’ pharmacies in commissioner language. These are pharmacy services that fulfil prescriptions by delivering them to your house as opposed to requiring you to go to the pharmacist. They tend to have web or native apps that enable you to manage prescriptions accordingly. Examples are EchoPharmacy2U.

    Patient portals: as much as it pains me to write this heading, this is nonetheless still a term that is oft used in the NHS. It refers to any application either browser-based progressive web app or native app that enables a patient to interact with an underlying clinical system. Usually this is so the patient can see their records, book and manage appointments, and manage their medication. There are a ton of these for both primary and secondary care.

    Wellbeing: there is a massive market for wellbeing apps which support everything from diet, mental wellbeing, sleep. For a browse of some examples it’s worth a look at the NHS Apps library. I’ve not really given them the full treatment here because I know little about them and they aren’t typically transactional in the same way the other examples are.

    Having set all of this out, a few thoughts on healthcare products.

    • The boundaries around the different types of products are very fuzzy. e.g you will get PHRs that have some features of online consultation tools; or EPRs that do the work of a PAS. This sometimes makes it hard to know what to buy, and exacerbates the challenge of ensuring interoperability between systems. i.e. it’s a bit confused, in a similar manner to the organisation of our health institutions as I have blogged before.
    • Somewhat unlike central government departments (in my experience at least) the NHS and its staff are entirely comfortable with the concept of ‘services’. The clue is in the name I suppose. But there is very little discussion of services in the context of digital delivery, except at the national level with things like PDS and e-RS. You rarely hear the term ‘product’ compared to say ‘system’ or ‘tool’, and the closest you get to service is probably ‘digital care pathway’ which is kind of getting there but can miss the real fundamentals.
    • This proliferation of product types means there are lots of places that patient data can be held, hence the massive focus on interoperability in the NHS, and the importance of point 6 in the Future of Healthcare.

    Hopefully this is helpful to digital healthcare workers new and existing. As above, I welcome any additions or comments.

    The views expressed here are all mine and not those of my employer. Thanks to Kate Gill for her fact checking and examples. This was originally published on Medium on 1 May 2020.

  • Untangling organisational design in digital health

    The prevalence of duplication, dependencies, and contradiction is not unusual in large, complex bureaucracies trying to undertake digital transformation. But, to me at least, it does feel particularly noticeable in healthcare. A behemoth of a system with approx 1.7m employees this is understandable but makes it even more urgent a problem to solve.

    The Secretary of State at DHSC obviously thinks this challenge needs more drastic measures. The announcement of NHSX has made clear it is going to try and tackle the strategy challenge head on.

    I’m particularly fascinated to see the organisational structure they bring to bear. In the past I’m not sure those of us in the relevant delivery agencies have always helped ourselves untangling the complexity challenge; and I’ve started to think that there is something around our organisational design tendencies that is holding us back.

    When I started working in digital roles one of the first things I was taught about by a valued mentor was “Conway’s Law”. This is well known in digital circles but for the uninitiated, Conway’s Law states that:

    “organisations which design systems … are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organisations.”

    This was introduced to me during the development of a departmental intranet, where the content was organised by the various departments of the organisation in question, rather than say, something more useful like being organised around the tasks users wanted to complete.

    In the world of digital, what Conway’s Law is saying is that if your organisational structure and approach to software development (which should de facto based on user needs) are not in alignment, expect problems.

    In digital health, whether working at a national, local agency level or within a supplier market, there appears to be a number of different ways organisations, well… organise themselves and their departments and functions. They might:

    1. Organise by the user. Is it a clinician using a particular technology, or the patient? Or a commissioner or provider? For example: empower the person; or enable clinicians.
    2. Organise by the care setting. Primary care, acute care, or my own area urgent and emergency care? Or it could be around disciplines e.g. nursing, dental, or pharmacy.
    3. Organise by function or capability. Enable users to undertake booking, get prescriptions, or access care records.
    4. Organise by the care pathway or user journey. For example “maternity” or “cancer”.

    There are probably more, and a fifth category specific to the NHS of ‘interoperability’, i.e. working on the plumbing between systems, merits an honourable mention as sometimes it’s on its own, and sometimes it’s within other buckets.

    All of these are logical ways of slicing up the problems to be solved. But the problem is that we can often use all of these taxonomies all at the same time.

    This then often means that perfectly skilled teams of well meaning people in each group set out to try to meet needs (sometimes user, sometimes business) in their area in a way which will then inevitably span all of the other categories.

    So you might get, for example, primary care people trying to create patient facing services, and patient facing services teams trying to tackle primary care. Or urgent care people spinning up analytical teams to get the data they need, while the data infrastructure teams cast around for customers. The natural tendencies of “not invented here syndrome” and an understandable desire to reduce dependencies on other parts of the system can often make things worse. In such a mind bogglingly complex system it can often be more accident than design when these things link up.

    This is further exacerbated by two other factors. First, the central agencies overall probably play quite a small role in actually delivering ‘stuff’ compared to organisations on the ground, which means the same contradictions may play out at Trust, Clinical Commissioning Group, or Integrated Care System level as well as across the national agencies.Second, there is the challenge that end-to-end user journeys will touch many settings and functions, and implicitly different provider organisations, rendering proper service design pretty challenging.

    I’m not sure what the answer is, and I have no envy at all of the talented folks who have wrestled with this in the past and are probably doing so now. Maybe the response is a combination of the above: something like a top tasks strategy with a mix of user journey/care pathway teams, and capability teams. But if nothing else it underlines the need to go the extra mile to set a crystal clear strategy, including how markets should be managed, and the combination of ruthless spend control, and serious capability building. Sounds like a plan.

    Originally published on 16 May 2019 on Medium.