Apparently when a message is put alongside a cardboard cut-out of a person it is more likely to be noticed and actioned. How the message is relayed to the ‘customer’ matters. This has implications for the sort of results we seek in health care. I am sure the reader could think of many ways this observation can be deployed to improve outcomes in healthcare, just as retail and law enforcement organisations use the concept to communicate with their customers. For example, would you consider having a full sized cardboard representation of a doctor in your practice encouraging people to have their children immunized? Richard Wortley offers some other interesting insights and strategies for behaviour change albeit in the context of law enforcement. What healthcare needs is interventions and ideas, whatever their provenance.
The observations and insights of your staff and colleagues are often, if not always, more valid than so-called ‘big data’. Big data sets are often used for some other purpose (e.g. healthcare administration) and then extrapolated to understand why people are referred inappropriately or prescribed the wrong drugs. More often than not without reference to the people who collected the data in the first place. It is even more fashionable to ‘link’ this data to other information collected for yet another purpose ( e.g. cancer registry). The results may lead to dubious conclusions and wide-ranging policy changes endorsed by a professor or two who have never been on the shop floor, or at least not recently.
‘Big data’ may be easy to collect, despite the limitations of its validity, it offers substantial numbers for a statistician to ‘crunch’. National conferences are now themed on ‘big data’, there are substantial grants available to those who choose this ‘methodology’ for their research endeavours. Meanwhile, the local and contextualized reflections and observations of those delivering health care are seldom accorded the same credibility. The desire for a fast and cheap solution to the increasing cost of healthcare drives funders to throw dollars at anyone who promises a quick-fix and can cite a p-value.
Here the business literature may be relevant:
The study identified a number of factors that influence the success or inhibit progress in terms of performance and sustainable improvement. The findings identify what companies perceive to be inhibitors and enablers for sustainability, within 21 companies who have conducted process improvement (PI) activities using a common intervention approach…..The general and cultural nature of the identified enablers indicates that managers perceive progressing PI activities are reliant on a change of culture within their organisations in parallel with “up‐skilling” the technical knowledge of employees for change to be successfully enacted. The lack of specific processes to change culture, identified in the enablers, also indicates that managers do not know what to do to change their cultures or how best to deal with the inherently challenging and demanding nature of process improvement with shop floor operators. Rich and Bateman
Sounds like healthcare. Perhaps the methodologies deployed in successful care studies hint at a better approach. No big database was dissected in this example which resulted in sustained business performance in an Australian company:
Using data collected through in-depth interviews, the case study describes how the company progressed from an earlier initiative based on quality control to the present initiatives that emphasize customer focus, product development, and innovation. Several important insights are drawn from the case study, including the importance of aligning the quality programmes or initiatives with a clear strategic focus. Prajogo and Sohal
Stand by for the launch of a new academic forum which will focus on the patient experience as the driver of innovation.
Picture by Aranami