5. Health land expenditure
OECD average
2000 2010
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
% of GDP
OECD Health Data 2013
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
6. Health land expenditure
1
2
3 4 5 6 7
0 CC (no chronic conditions )
8 CC
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 +85
100
75
50
25
0
% of people by age
Data for Southampton city 2012
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
7. Health land expenditure
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
Life expentancy
OECD Health Data 2013
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
8. 30% of health
spending
is intended to be
ineffective or
unnecessary care,
resulting from the
impact of medical
errors & redundancy
procedures*
inefficiencies
Health land
* Elliott Fisher & John E. Wennberg
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
9. Ehealth opportunities
Augmented
Learning services
communities
Data/Time/Space
Management
Health land
Accelerated
Collective Knowledge
intelligence
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
10. DTS management
Adena Regional Medical Center
distances
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
24. Collective intelligence big data
Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Google & C. Disease Control & Prevention. Nature 2009
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
28. Collaborative design of health models
Case
Selection of chronic care
indicators
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
29. Selection of chronic care Indicators
1
Model
Revision of the
proposed model
of indicators
2
Profile
Personal
experience and
knowledge
3
Round
Votes and
opinions for
consensus
4
Evaluation
Usability and
utility of the
consensus
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
30. Selection of chronic care Indicators
We ask you to answer for each indicator the questions proposed.
1/36
% of patients
enrolled in
“Adherence to the
pharmacological
treatment”
Program
Which is the level of relevance of this indicator
Low High
1 2 3 4 5 6
Capacity to calculate affectively this indicator?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Very limited
Feasible
Is this indicator important for the patient?
Not at all To much
1 2 3 4 5 6
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
31. N: 37
1 2 3 4 5 6
Selection of chronic care Indicators
We ask you to answer for each indicator the questions proposed.
1/36
% of patients
enrolled in
“Adherence to the
pharmacological
treatment”
Program
Which is the level of relevance of this indicator
Low High
1 2 3 4 5 6
Capacity to calculate affectively this indicator?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Very limited
Feasible
Is this indicator important for the patient?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Not at all
To much
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
32. N: 37
1 2 3 4 5 6
Selection of chronic care Indicators
We ask you to answer for each indicator the questions proposed.
1/36
% of patients
enrolled in
“Adherence to the
pharmacological
treatment”
Program
Which is the level of relevance of this indicator
Low High
1 2 3 4 5 6
Capacity to calculate affectively this indicator?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Very limited
Feasible
Is this indicator important for the patient?
Not at all To much
1 2 3 4 5 6
N: 37
1 2 3 4 5 6
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
33. N: 37
1 2 3 4 5 6
Selection of chronic care Indicators
We ask you to answer for each indicator the questions proposed.
1/36
% of patients
enrolled in
“Adherence to the
pharmacological
treatment”
Program
Which is the level of relevance of this indicator
Low High
1 2 3 4 5 6
Capacity to calculate affectively this indicator?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Very limited
Feasible
Is this indicator important for the patient?
Not at all To much
1 2 3 4 5 6
N: 37
1 2 3 4 5 6
N: 37
1 2 3 4 5 6
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
34. Selection of chronic care Indicators
Clinic Management Planning Weighting of your
answers according to
your personal profile of
knowledge and
experience
Clinic
Management
Planning
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
35. Selection of chronic care Indicators
Meta results
Communicating chronic management strategy (Learning).
Alignment of the system via consensus (Decision Making).
Collaboration for the establishment of priority indicators.
Broad participation of healthcare professionals in
identifying needs and opportunities.
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
36. Selection of chronic care Indicators
Publication
Paper in press …
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
37. Collaborative design of health models
Innovation participative space
Case
Primary Care Innovation
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
40. Collaborative design of health models
Innovation participative space
Consensus on clinical cases.
Case
Training on mental health
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
41. Training on mental health
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
42. Training on mental health
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
43. Methods of application
Delphi Express Continuous
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
44. Conclusions
1. In the health area, professionals respond
positively to the model of HC participation
2. The HC process is efficient and operational as
shown by satisfaction levels and perception of
involvement.
3. Professionals perceive that they provide value
with their participation.
4. The results of participation are considered
useful and relevant contributions.
thepracticeofinnovation.net eHealth Opportunities
Editor's Notes
4
5
6
7
8
Aquí veiem la pantalla inicial del sistema …
Això (aplicació) es va fer tres vegades
A la prova pilot 25 persones in situ van en una hora passar de 85 a 52 indicadors … Per cada indicador es varen consensuar 5 preguntes
A la 1ª onada unes 100 persones, però treballant asincronament van passar de 52 a 36 … les mateixes 5 preguntes
I finalment a la 2ª onada ( 3ª aplicació) 415 persones varen passar de 36 a 11 en 3 preguntes per indicador
Després comentem les altres rondes …
Aquí veiem la pantalla inicial del sistema …
Això (aplicació) es va fer tres vegades
A la prova pilot 25 persones in situ van en una hora passar de 85 a 52 indicadors … Per cada indicador es varen consensuar 5 preguntes
A la 1ª onada unes 100 persones, però treballant asincronament van passar de 52 a 36 … les mateixes 5 preguntes
I finalment a la 2ª onada ( 3ª aplicació) 415 persones varen passar de 36 a 11 en 3 preguntes per indicador
Després comentem les altres rondes …
Aquí veiem la pantalla inicial del sistema …
Això (aplicació) es va fer tres vegades
A la prova pilot 25 persones in situ van en una hora passar de 85 a 52 indicadors … Per cada indicador es varen consensuar 5 preguntes
A la 1ª onada unes 100 persones, però treballant asincronament van passar de 52 a 36 … les mateixes 5 preguntes
I finalment a la 2ª onada ( 3ª aplicació) 415 persones varen passar de 36 a 11 en 3 preguntes per indicador
Després comentem les altres rondes …
Aquí veiem la pantalla inicial del sistema …
Això (aplicació) es va fer tres vegades
A la prova pilot 25 persones in situ van en una hora passar de 85 a 52 indicadors … Per cada indicador es varen consensuar 5 preguntes
A la 1ª onada unes 100 persones, però treballant asincronament van passar de 52 a 36 … les mateixes 5 preguntes
I finalment a la 2ª onada ( 3ª aplicació) 415 persones varen passar de 36 a 11 en 3 preguntes per indicador
Després comentem les altres rondes …