online feedback for adult social care an evolution of patient opinion’s approach...
TRANSCRIPT
online feedback for adult social careAn evolution of Patient Opinion’s approach
Imagine a world where
• Service users and carers can give honest feedback safely and easily
• Staff know how their care is experienced• Services can make constant improvements
based on feedback• Everyone can see how you are listening and
changing in response
Care Opinion in brief
• Online narrative feedbacko From any user, carer, relativeo About a specific serviceo Moderated and public
• Relevant agencies are alertedo May post responseso May show actions takeno May create reports
Story Response Response Response Change
Responses may be from provider, commissioner, regulator, HealthWatch etc
Author may also add further responses
All participants kept informed by email alerts
Empowerment
Being heard
Going on the record
Transparency
Responsiveness
Learning
Service improvement
Staff/org development
Culture change
Our moderation principles
• Enable a clear, timely, public, constructive conversation about care
• Make giving feedback safe and easy for patients, service users and carers
• Encourage authentic feedback, based in personal experience
• Treat staff legally and fairly
Issues in our care home pilot
• protecting user identity, when services are small or residential, or feedback is posted by a carer or relative
• avoiding staff defamation• achieving worthwhile volumes of feedback• ensuring feedback notification can exist where
email/online access/skills are limited• the risk of bias if the publication of negative
feedback is blocked by legal threat
Proposed CO moderation: 1Story
PO moderation
Reject
Provider
Not publishPublish
Safeguarding
Proposed CO moderation: 2Story
PO moderation Provider
RestrictedPublish
Public interest body
Reason
Comment
Existing approaches Care Opinion's approach
Centralised Centralised and distributed
All or nothing Levels of publication
Moderator takes entire publication risk Publication risk is shared
No role for national or local quality/regulatory agencies
National/local agencies have a role in monitoring provider transparency
Involvement of providers is relatively unimportant
Involvement of providers is important
Relationship with providers may become adversarial
Relationship with providers aims to be collaborative
Key aim is consumer information in a competitive market
Key aim is quality improvement and enabling users/carers to make a difference
Moderation, in brief
Potential benefits• A voice for you and your users• Celebrating successes• Professional satisfaction and pride• Increasing the profile of good care• Sharing good practice• Improving own services• Saving money• Stories for professional development and reflection
within the team
From April 2013, we will also pool the comments from high-quality feedback websites onto a feedback area of the provider quality profile
Caring for our future: reforming care and supportJuly 2012