Reconfiguration blog

There is a new world that needs new leaders

Healthcare is broken and broke. The latter is a recent realisation while the former is our dirty little secret. And we have known it for some time. Our self-interest and secrecy has served us well, but healthcare poorly.

The state of the national finances is now shining a light on the profession, and our leaders are being found wanting. It’s time for new leaders that understand the new world.

In the new world citizens want to know what’s going on. Years of research into the biological and social determinants of health have hit their radars. They realise that sickness happens and a significant proportion of them want to avoid it. If they fail in that, they want to get better — and quickly. And they don’t want a nosocomial along the way.

England’s new world is also one of recession. While recent reports suggest we’re climbing out — albeit stained by the failure of ‘light touch’ regulation in the banking sector — it would be a mistake to believe health care financing will ever return to its opulent past. Year-on-year increases in spending have little to show except for shiny new clinical toys, often poorly tested and equivocal in performance.

Combine the desire to know what’s going on with concerns about spending and you get a citizenry that wants value for money. They don’t want to know that you did something; they want to know that it worked. And they want to define what ‘worked’ means.

All this is going to need a new kind of data collection — outcomes, not activity, based. The current activity based data is pathetic at analysing clinical effectiveness — not surprising given that it was designed for payment not clinical purposes. Clever people are working on an outcomes framework that will help bring transparency, building on the excellent work by NICE over the years. But it’s taken too long to get here.

Citizens have had enough. They’re creating apps that track every measurable part of them. They’re collating the data to make it mean something. And they’re making decisions based on it. They don’t need you until it goes wrong. And then they want guidance, not patriarchy. They want understanding, not orders. You’re a knowledge partner, not the boss.

This future is here. As always, it’s not evenly distributed. Those of you practicing in green belts will recognise aspects of it. One or two of you practicing near so-called Silicon Roundabout in East London are living it. It is with an understanding of this future that we need to redesign services. Not for the medical profession, but for its customers. It’s their money we’re spending, after all.

The future is about transparency. It’s about doing what we know works, while being honest about where we’re taking punts. It’s about open access to better clinical performance data. It’s about accepting different types of analyses – those of the profession, those of the government, those of citizens, and those of industry. It’s about consensus-based decision-making, whether at the national or individual level, and every level in between.

Service design is not just about bed numbers and pathways it’s about embracing this whole new future. The Atlas of Variation has shown us that we have singularly failed to deliver health care that we know works – our dirty little secret is out. Questions are already being asked of our ‘self-regulation’. We need new leaders to guide us into these fundamental changes in health care and help design the services of tomorrow.

Competing interests: I advise Sir Muir Gray, an author of one of the articles cited and the co-lead of QIPP Right Care, the group behind the Atlas of Variation.

Pritpal S Tamber is the director of Optimising Clinical Knowledge, a consultancy that helps organisations devise and deliver clinically credible strategies that have a measurable impact on care. He was previously the medical director of Map of Medicine Ltd, a company that creates clinical pathways to help health communities design services.

Posted in:  Reconfiguration

Tags:  reconfiguration

Comments

  • Huw Llewelyn

    14 November 2012

    Please read two recent letters in the BMJ that suggest practical ways forward in order to optimise clinical knowledge [http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.e6867?ijkey=xz7onCHzLLJSjOC&keytype=ref] and allowing patients and health professionals to work together [http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.e7050?ijkey=lQQz6cGh77BlRE0&keytype=re].
    .

  • Mary Hawking

    14 November 2012

    nice rant - but how accurate is it?
    From a GP point of view, broken or not the NHS appears to be still functioning - and functioning much better (certainly as far as waiting times are concerned) for the "year-on- year" increases in funding between about 2000 and 2010 - which still leave the spending on healthcare below most of northern Europe - and well below that of the USA!
    When it comes to talking about the demands of "citizens" and "the citizenry", where is he getting his information and what evidence does he have of any overwhelming demand for detailed information on the workings of the NHS (regardless of the accuracy of such information e.g. the claim that the NHS has not suffered savage cuts already) - or any other organisation where there is little or no possibility that any public or front-line input will make the slightest difference to the plans of DH and/or the politicians keen to "make their mark on history"?

    Please rejoin (or join) the real world inhabited by the citizenry of England

  • Steve Davis

    15 November 2012

    Yes - very interesting - not. However whilst numerous management consultants and the like sit stating the obvious - the reality is collecting accurate outcome data is exceptionally difficult. Even in the the most simple unit there is little or no resource to chase outcomes and no IT infrastructure to support it. Very often we have no idea even of the prevalence of a particular problem. None of this chat about transparency, outcomes and so on are new ideas - it is fundamental to learning to know outcomes and discuss them - for clinicians never mind patients (I have never met one who has made an app - and certainly I would not dream to presume to know what the entire patient database of the UK does or does not want).
    However to have good accurate outcome data requires very significant investment in time and money as well as commitment from all involved. Collecting accurate outcomes for a rigorously designed clinical trial will teach anyone how hard that can be.
    No doubt information will be gathered on poorly collected and inaccurate outcomes and this will be used to make policy. Those interpreting it will no doubt be unaware of the shortcomings - in the same way the limitations and inherent bias of systematic reviews is always passed over as if they were sent from god - forgetting the inclusion criteria can be cooked up over a couple of pints in a bar.
    All good fun.

  • paul

    8 January 2013

    "Our self-interest and secrecy has served us well, but healthcare poorly."

    That is exactly what will happen if the greedy capitalists take over health care. Capitalism bad master good servant - time for the 1% to serve the 99% and not the other way round

  •  
  •  

Have your say

Want to comment on something you have read or share your views with others?

ArrowEmail us

Join the reconfiguration debate

With controversial reconfigurations happening across the UK, we have launched a blog to debate reconfigurations as they emerge.

ArrowJoin the debate