'Who's involved?' view of practitioners/professionals involved in a patient's care

Hi Marc - Useful to display managing organisation and team for ASC. Practitioner is more difficult as ASC operates a bit like a ward - these days, a person is assigned someone to assess them, then their responsibility for the person can cease when that has been worked through.

The real issue though is that someone with complex health can have many involvements across health and care - social care, carers team, safeguarding, tissue viability, wound clinic, community nurse, community physio, reablement, memory clinic, GP, fracture clinic, outpatient atrial fib... The challenge we have is that a lot of this is held in S1 non GP units.

We were hearing today about Connecting Care where they display the people who have accessed a person's account as part of the summary screen. This is also an interesting way to surface some insight...

Yes, might be good to have a better look at what the feasible priorities might be.

Thanks, Sandra. Have reopened this one.

I think it's worth highlighting that we have planned some work in the social care panels to begin displaying practitioner and organisation contact information. This includes the following:

• Viewing owner contact information in the social care assessment panel

• Viewing performer contact information in the social care assessment panel

• Viewing managing organisation in the social care services panel

• Viewing care manager in the social care services panel

If the inclusion of these details doesn't solve your issue, I think it certainly sets a precedent for how we would. If you can provide a list of fields within panels where you would like name/contact information to display, in priority order, I think that would help us to establish the scope of this work.

Thanks

This comes up regularly as a requirement. I'd left this alone as I was hoping that TPP Non GP would help resolve a large part of this as the units would identify a lot of the involvements that social care in particular wanted to know about - physios, wound care etc. Agree with Laura's feedback on the detail.

Hi Toby,

I'm going to archive this idea as there's been no response on it in some time.

If priorities change and we need to re-activate this idea, let me know and I will change the status.

Thanks

Hi Toby,

Just running through some of the tickets marked as 'Awaiting feedback'.

Do we know if there was a consensus reached on this one?

Kind regards,

Marc

Our preferance would be to keep the main panel clean and uncluttered with just the primary practitioner, but with access to expand the additional practitioners involved

Hiya, I can appreciate this could be swamped quickly in those with complex needs and agree it should be limited to some degree. I think it would be a good conversation to have at our LLR clinical safety group meeting but my initial thoughts would be:

-Active encounters, those involved in their current care packages.

-Mental health the Care Coordinator or lead nurse named on the crisis care plan are key for avoiding unnecessary admission to acute. If they don't have a crisis care plan then

-Lead GP- in LLR, everyone has an assigned Lead GP at their practice- this would be useful but i'm not sure if other areas work by the same policy?

-Lead/assigned clinician on current episodes of care

-People open to Learning Disability services may have staff from different disciplines involved, usually SALT, OT, Physio etc- it would be good to be able to capture those names, to ensure they are easily accessible.

For me, in it basic form, would be the list of clinical/care staff who would need to attend an MDT meeting.

Hi

We can see how this could be useful, but as there are a few resources with participants, and (especially) over a long time period, this might simply swamp the user with data, but not necessarily useful information

Are you able to consider where the most value is please?

i.e. which resources and how these might be filtered, e.g.

• only Active Encounters of a specific type, within last x months

• only certain types of Episode of Care, and within a defined period

• appointments - may not be valuable?

• etc

thanks

p.s. it might be useful to open up this idea to the other ICSs