HealthPartners: Consumer-Focused Mission and Collaborative Approach Support Ambitious Performance Improvement Agenda

Presents a case study of a nonprofit healthcare organization that exhibits the six attributes of an ideal healthcare delivery system as defined by the Fund, including information continuity, care coordination and transitions, and system accountability

Opportunities for information sharing: case studies

Personal information provided to government and non-government service providers is highly sensitive. Appropriate collection, management and storage of personal information are critical elements to citizen trust in the public sector. However, misconceptions about the frameworks governing sharing personal information can impact on the coordination of services, case management and policy development.   The NSW Department of Premier & Cabinet engaged the Social Policy Research Centre to develop three case studies that identified the challenges to sharing information appropriately, and the opportunities for better personal information sharing between government agencies and non-government organisations. Improved sharing of personal information in these areas can support more effective policy development, leading to improved service delivery performance and coordination.   The Social Policy Research Centre identified the legislative and policy framework for each case study, conducted qualitative research on the interpretation of this framework, and developed three case study reports

Confidential genetic testing and electronic health records: A survey of current practices among Huntington disease testing centers

BACKGROUND: Clinical care teams providing presymptomatic genetic testing often employ advanced confidentiality practices for documentation and result storage. However, patient requests for increased confidentiality may be in conflict with the legal obligations of medical providers to document patient care activities in the electronic health record (EHR). Huntington disease presents a representative case study for investigating the ways centers currently balance the requirements of EHRs with the privacy demands of patients seeking presymptomatic genetic testing. METHODS: We surveyed 23 HD centers (53% response rate) regarding their use of the EHR for presymptomatic HD testing. RESULTS: Our survey revealed that clinical care teams and laboratories have each developed their own practices, which are cumbersome and often include EHR avoidance. We found that a majority of HD care teams record appointments in the EHR (91%), often using vague notes. Approximately half of the care teams (52%) keep presymptomatic results of out of the EHR. CONCLUSION: As genetic knowledge grows, linking more genes to late-onset conditions, institutions will benefit from having professional recommendations to guide development of policies for EHR documentation of presymptomatic genetic results. Policies must be sensitive to the ethical differences and patient demands for presymptomatic genetic testing compared to those undergoing confirmatory genetic testing

Caring for the patient, caring for the record: an ethnographic study of 'back office' work in upholding quality of care in general practice

© 2015 Swinglehurst and Greenhalgh; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Additional file 1: Box 1. Field notes on summarising (Clover Surgery). Box 2. Extract of document prepared for GPs by summarisers at Clover Surgery. Box 3. Fieldnotes on coding incoming post, Clover (original notes edited for brevity).This work was funded by a research grant from the UK Medical Research Council (Healthcare Electronic Records in Organisations 07/133) and a National Institute of Health Research doctoral fellowship award for DS (RDA/03/07/076). The funders were not involved in the selection or analysis of data nor did they make any contribution to the content of the final manuscript

Police Knowledge Exchange: Full Report 2018

[Executive Summary] This report was commissioned to explore the enablers and barriers to sharing within and between police forces and between police forces and partners, including the public. This was completed from an interdisciplinary review of international literature covering sharing, knowledge exchange, learning and organisational learning. The literature broke down into four main factors; who, why, what and how. An introduction to the literature is presented with ‘Who’ is sharing which considers both personal identity and different institutional issues. The ‘Why’ literature covers issues of cultural and community motivators and barriers. The ‘What’ segment reviews concepts of data, information and knowledge and related legislative issues. Finally, the ‘how’ section spans face to face sharing approaches to technologies that produce both enablers and barriers. A series of 42 in-depth interviews and focus groups were completed and combined with 47 survey responses . The aim of the interviews, focus groups and survey was to show perceptions and beliefs around knowledge sharing from a small sample across policing in order to complement the findings from the literature review. The survey was adapted from a standardised questionnaire (Biggs, 1987). The Biggs questionnaire focused on what motivated students to learn and how they approached their learning. Our adapted survey looked at what motivated police to share, and how they approached sharing. The responses showed a trend, across the police, towards a motivation for sharing to develop a deeper understanding of issues. However, the approaches and the strategies they used to share with others, which were primarily driven by achieving and surface approaches (to get promoted and get the job done). According to Biggs (1987) this could leave them discontented as they never progress to a deeper understanding of issues. Scaffolding sharing within the police through processes that are clearly defined, effective and valued could help to overcome these issues. Within the interviews and focus group findings a similar structured approach to sharing was adopted. Within the ‘who’ section some key aspects around personal relationships, reciprocity and reputation were identified. The ‘why’ the police share was one of the largest discussion points. Not only was there a deep motivation to solve key policing issues there was an approach of reciprocity. Police sharing was deeply motivated to support ‘good practice’ in the prevention and detection of crime. However, a sharing barrier was identified in the parity of value given to different types of knowledge for example between professional judgement and research evidence knowledge. Sharing was achieved when there were reciprocal benefits, in particular with personal networks or face to face sharing which was noted as ‘safe’. Again, this was inhibited by misunderstandings around the ‘risks’ of sharing, frequently attributed to data protection legislation; producing cautious reactions and as an avoidance tactic to save time and effort sharing. However, a divide was noted between technical users and those who avoided any online systems for sharing; often due to poorly designed systems and a lack of confidence in how to use systems. The police culture was identified as being risk-adverse, and competitive due to multiple factors, a lack of supported time to share, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) reviews and promotion criteria. The result was perceived to be a poor cultural ability to learn from mistakes and a likelihood to repeat errors. A set of strategic recommendations are given and include the use of a sharing authorised professional practice for HMIC reviews, sharing networks and training. A further set of operational recommendations are given such as; sharing impact cases for evidence based practice, data sharing officers and evaluating mechanisms for sharing. This full report is supported by the Police Knowledge Exchange Summary Report 2018 which gives an overview of the findings and recommendations

Recording Victim Video Statements as Evidence to Advance Legal Outcomes in Family Violence Cases (ReVEAL)

This Implementation Guide provides an overview of the video-recording practices currently in place across several Texas jurisdictions. It provides guidance and considerations for jurisdictions in the collection and use of video evidence in family violence cases. This guide is divided into seven sections, including this Background and Overview. The second section includes information for law enforcement on the purpose of video statements, how to develop and implement a video program, and considerations for sustaining a program. The third section focuses on prosecutorial practices for the use of video statements including legal considerations, coordination with partners, and victim engagement around the video statement. The fourth section provides specific information for victim advocates and includes considerations for victim privacy and confidentiality. The fifth section focuses on technology and equipment, with information on type of equipment, technology infrastructure, and efficient transfer of evidence between agencies. The sixth section is the Summary Report of the ReVEAL project. The Summary Report is a technical overview of the evaluation that includes major findings and links to the ReVEAL reports that were previously released. The seventh and final section is comprised of the appendices and provides sample protocols, site overviews, equipment charts, and additional resources that may be helpful to users of this guide. Throughout this guide, there are several examples of cases and practices that illustrate the specific issues that may present themselves when launching a video-recording program. These examples highlight the complexities of the practice while using real world examples of how video impacts family violence cases, victim safety, and privacy.IC2 Institut