It was fascinating to see how the three speakers had developed very similar themes without any prior consultation. The key themes were:
• How much everyone, from very different organisations, had in common in terms of KIM challenges – especially resource pressures – achieving more with less.
• Organisational and political change being a constant influence on KIM strategies and implementation.
• Moving from information paucity – through information overload – to useable and actionable information. Still a way to go on that one but the recently launched information standard may be part of the solution.
• Quality of data and information. Essential for good decision making by heath and social care professionals and by patients, and for maintaining confidence in KIM systems.
• Tensions around ownership of information, the need to share information, knowledge and best practice but the barriers and problems of doing so.
• Creation, use and accessibility of information. The shift in authority from the clinical specialist to ‘the expert patient’.
• The crucial importance of partnerships in a very fragmented environment – crucial to the development of new services, bids for research money, making information widely available without the duplication of effort.• Moving from information destinations to access to knowledge assets – the Total Place concept.
A summary of the presentations will be available shortly. Meanwhile – a few highlights.
Helen, who has with a range of experience across different parts of the health scene started her presentation by saying she had no expertise in the KIM area but went on to give a clear and precise demonstration of why information, and the way it is handled, has a profound effect. Drawing on her experiences of working in a Tsunami hit area and in a hospital trust which had suffered a major emergency, Helen illustrated graphically very familiar scenarios where the starting point is a total lack, or paucity, of information which moves rapidly to information deluge and overload. Managing that flow is crucial if information is to be actionable – to contribute to corporate and individual knowledge.Bob questioned the definition of ‘public health’ which is the umbrella phrase that TFPL had used in developing this event. In Bob’s view, 'public health means the health of the population or nation, for example, managing swine flu’. In absolute terms this is really managing the health of people – 'personal health’. This reflected the theme of who creates and owns information – how it is used – who has authority. His experience with one of the largest web sites in Europe, and its aim to inform and empower patients and carers, caused him to question whether KIM specialists should be moving away from providing information destinations to facilitating access to knowledge assets.
Kate provided a view of the challenges of working in partnership with many organisations to provide an independent source of information on all aspects of cancer. She thought that the recent launch of the information standard, which aims 'to improve user experience by certifying reliable producers of health and social care information', would go a long way to ensure quality and exchange of information. However, the implications of enabling the diverse range of organisations providing information to achieve the Kitemark could be huge unless they found some mechanism of helping the smaller organisations. She also discussed the issues around syndication.
Some of these themes, and others identified at the event, are likely to be picked up at future Health SIG meetings. Topics for TFPL Connect SIG events are selected by the members and suggestions via the blog or to lucy.frost@tfpl.com or vivienne.winterman @tfpl.com are welcomed.Angela Abell
Senior Associate Consultant
Comments