online feedback for adult social careAn evolution of Patient Opinion’s approach

james.munro@patientopinion.org.uk

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