Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Clinical Intelligence

How to support patient-centred care: roof of the House of Care framework

Ollie Hart and Karen Eastman
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 164-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X684229
Ollie Hart
Sloan Medical Centre; commissioning lead for Person Centred Care, Sheffield.
Roles: GP partner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen Eastman
The Brow Surgery, Pain Management GPwSI; clinical director, Horsham and Mid Sussex CCG, Crawley.
Roles: GP partner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Previous articles have described the differing aspects of the House of Care framework and how it can describe a system for delivering patient-centred care (PCC).1–3 This article focuses on the roof of the house. These are the tools and organisational processes that protect and facilitate this new type of patient–professional relationship. This article tells the story of two clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), and their experience of those factors that have helped PCC to happen.

CARE PLANNING IN PRIMARY CARE

Sheffield CCG is in the second year of an evolving programme (planned for 5 years) to support PCC in primary care. Over 80 GP practices have signed up to a locally commissioned service. It was designed to add value to the ‘avoiding unplanned admission’ directed enhanced services (DES)4 by encouraging a more in-depth focus on the highest-risk patients. It initially started with an incentivised care planning programme. GP practices were paid per care plan, with a purpose-built computer template designed to assist the process. However, there was large variation in the quality of the care plans. Feedback from the first year from patients and clinicians highlighted a significant learning need around how to design and deliver a collaborative care plan that supported self-management.

Year 2 has focused on education of primary care teams around process and delivery. It also sought to introduce the patient activation measure (PAM)5 as a facilitating tool to assist the care planning process. Practices were given some freedom to choose the most relevant cohort of patients to work with. A multidisciplinary support team continues to provide ongoing support, tailored to individual practice needs. The intention is for future years to build on experience and introduce new skills and systems for supporting self-management and shared decision making. Practices will be encouraged to capture changing activation levels and report on what they think they are doing that influences these changes.

TAILORED HEALTH COACHING

In Horsham and Mid Sussex CCG, in May 2015, we launched our newest service, ‘tailored health coaching’.6 Its aim was to enhance our PCC offer to our population. This is a telephone-based opportunity for a patient living with any long-term condition to work with a coach. To empower them to take control, the patient identifies what it is that is important to them rather than what we think may be important.

Patients are proactively identified using the risk stratification tool, Docobo.7 This identifies those of medium risk of admission (range 45–65%) using both primary and secondary care data. They are then invited to take part in the service by way of an opt-out consent letter, to improve the likelihood of inclusion for those who are less motivated.

The approach that the coach takes with that patient is tailored according to their PAM, which has been demonstrated to improve outcomes.8 The PAM represents a measure of that patient’s knowledge, skills, and confidence to self-manage.

Patients with higher levels of activation may just need ‘signposting’ to a local directory of services (menu of care IT platform)9 that covers a range of medical and non-medical self-help resources. These include self-referral to psychological support, e-learning opportunities about various conditions, social care information, housing and financial support, and third-sector support groups.

The coach, however, may need to spend longer with people who have lower levels of activation, building confidence, and co-generating smaller and more manageable goals that nourish success in self-management.

The wellbeing goals and plans are captured for the patient, coach, and GP to see and interact with. The service is being evaluated by capturing pre- and post-PAM, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scores (WEMWBS),10 Docobo risk scores, and healthcare utilisation spend.

Our coaches come from a variety of backgrounds including working in the fields of mental health, learning difficulties, and chronic disease management, as well as health psychology. They are non-clinicians as we specifically wanted a holistic rather than health-centric offer. They provide the service both in and out of core hours.

The initial 6-month review has shown an improvement in WEMWBS and PAM scores. We await further qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data.

LEARNING POINTS

These examples illustrate the evolving learning journey of system change. We recognise that the tools and organisational processes that support PCC need to evolve alongside a stepwise progression in ways of thinking and doing. We suggest some key features of a good ‘roof’.

Ownership

You have the best chance of success if the people working at the ‘coal face’ own the vision of what you are trying to achieve. This is best achieved by co-producing the programme of support and allowing all involved some degree of autonomy in how they deliver or receive services.

Measurement

We need good measures of how the system (professionals, patients, and structures) supports PCC. Quality improvement methodologies highlight the need to capture meaningful measures, including evidence of unintended consequences, and to react to what these measures tell us. This iterative learning process is often described as a plan–do–study–act cycle. In our experience we observe that the NHS often does plan–do, but often does not complete the study–act part, which is usually the most valuable and insightful.

Tailoring your support according to need

Whenever you are trying to introduce new ways of doing things, you need to know where those involved are starting from. You can then tailor your training and support to match the need. This applies both to developing new systems of care or interacting with patients. In this context GPs are probably best placed to support patients with highly complex multiple conditions. However, great care should be taken to avoid a very ‘medical approach’ with patients who are generally overwhelmed with life (low activation level). In this situation a peer support or voluntary sector worker might be better able to support the patient until they are more ready to focus on their medical needs.

New skills

PCC is different, with much more focus on patients leading their own problem solving, even if this involves very small steps. Skills such as motivational interviewing, goal setting, and coaching support this different approach. However, these are often not core skills in healthcare training, where the model of training is still very disease focused.

Faith in the longevity of commitment

PCC is a new paradigm of delivering care. It takes time to embed the ideas, generate the necessary skills and confidence, and appreciate the benefits. It helps to have contracts and programmes that commit to medium-/long-term consistency.

Good IT

This can be a great facilitator when it works well. Templates that promote the use of consistent codes, and prompt goal setting and coaching approaches, can be useful tools. They can also facilitate the auto-population of summaries for patients and clinicians. Ultimately encouraging patients to access their own NHS notes, with guidance on how to use them effectively, can empower them to own and interact with the records kept about them.

Contract and culture change

Contracts that incentivise changes can be very useful in supporting the adoption of a PCC approach. They often underpin financial incentives to deliver specific outcomes and key performance indicators. However, this alone is not enough. As Don Berwick observed, ‘Culture trumps rules’,11 and real change only happens when the culture of the system evolves to adopt that new way of working as the normal way of working.

In summary, moving to a PCC approach is difficult and takes consistent and persistent effort. This article highlights some tools and behaviours that can facilitate this challenging transition. We welcome the ongoing debate, and hope collective experience will feed into continuous learning for the PCC approach.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; not externally peer reviewed.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received January 28, 2016.
  • Accepted February 1, 2016.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2016

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mathers N,
    2. Paynton D
    (2015) Rhetoric and reality in person-centred care: introducing the House of Care framework. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp16X683077.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.
    1. Sauvage J,
    2. Ahluwalia S
    (2015) Health and care professionals committed to partnership working: right wall of the House of Care framework. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp16X683389.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Chambers E,
    2. Coleman K
    (2016) Enablers and barriers for engaged, informed individuals and carers: left wall of the House of Care framework. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp16X683797.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. NHS England
    (2014) Enhanced service specification Avoiding unplanned admissions: proactive case finding and patient review for vulnerable people, https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/avoid-unplanned-admissions.pdf (accessed 1 Feb 2016).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hibbard JH,
    2. Stockard J,
    3. Mahoney ER,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res 39(4 Pt 1):1005–1026.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Armstrong N,
    2. Tarrant C,
    3. Martin G,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Independent evaluation of the feasibility of using the Patient Activation Measure in the NHS in England: early findings. NHS England, https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/pam-evaluation.pdf (accessed 3 Feb 2016).
  7. 7.↵
    1. Docobo
    Intelligence and risk. http://www.docobo.co.uk/docobo-intelligence-and-risk.html (accessed 1 Feb 2016).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hibbard JH,
    2. Greene J,
    3. Tusler M
    (2009) Improving the outcomes of disease management by tailoring care to the patient’s level of activation. Am J Manag Care 15(6):353–360.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Horsham and Mid Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group
    Living well with a long term health condition. http://www.horshamandmidsussexccg.nhs.uk/your-health/health-coaches/ (accessed 1 Feb 2016).
  10. 10.↵
    1. Warwick Medical School Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)
    , www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/research/platform/wemwbs/ (accessed 1 Feb 2016).
  11. 11.↵
    (2013) A promise to learn — a commitment to act: improving the safety of patients in England, National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England (DH, London) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226703/Berwick_Report.pdf (accessed 3 Feb 2016).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 66 (644)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 66, Issue 644
March 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How to support patient-centred care: roof of the House of Care framework
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
How to support patient-centred care: roof of the House of Care framework
Ollie Hart, Karen Eastman
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 164-165. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X684229

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
How to support patient-centred care: roof of the House of Care framework
Ollie Hart, Karen Eastman
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 164-165. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X684229
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • CARE PLANNING IN PRIMARY CARE
    • TAILORED HEALTH COACHING
    • LEARNING POINTS
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • How to manage low testosterone level in men: a guide for primary care
  • Hyperparathyroidism (primary) NICE guideline: diagnosis, assessment, and initial management
  • The atypical presentation of COVID-19 as gastrointestinal disease: key points for primary care
Show more Clinical Intelligence

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242