Personalisation of Social Care Pit Stop

PERSONALISATION OF
SOCIAL CARE PIT STOP
THE DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY
Event Journal
12th and 13th March 2015

Introduction
The Digital Catapult, which became operational in 2013, is a national
centre to rapidly advance the UK’s best digital ideas.
The specific aim of the Digital Catapult is to drive future economic growth
in the digital economy by unlocking value from proprietary data in faster,
better and more trusted ways.
The Digital Catapult is not a funding agency. Instead, it provides support
based upon available facilities, expertise and by bringing partners
together to help UK SMEs innovate at speed and with less risk so that
new digital products and services can be accelerated to market.

Introduction to the Pit Stop
Personalisation of Social Care Pit
Stop
This Pit Stop brought together innovators
with adult social care professionals,
experts, academics and existing
suppliers, to identify and solve some of
the critical issues facing the industry.
The purpose
To catalyse a group of people who, after
experiencing the opportunities to be
gained, would develop into a community
to extend these early ideas into real
solutions.
At the Pit Stop we bring together
startups, corporates, academics
and world-class experts for an
intense 2-day event with deep 1-
to-1 mentoring sessions and
meetings, to find and explore new
business opportunities, accelerate
the growth of new ideas and
together work to solve sector-wide
issues.

Matt Stroud and David Brewer
from the Digital Catapult
introduced the session
Background, purpose and objectives

Simon Gifford introduced the outline for the two days
Introduction
Scene setting
Problem
definition
Selection
Networking
DH
PechaKucha
PechaKucha
PechaKucha
Introduction
Ideation &
solution
Building pitch
Panel
Community &
close
PechaKucha
PechaKucha
PechaKucha
Day 1 Day 2

Agenda: Day 1
Morning
Introductions and purpose
 Matt Stroud: Digital Catapult
 David Brewer: Digital Catapult
 Simon Gifford: Atlantic
Matthew Birkenshaw: DH: Policy
Coffee break (10:30)
Dave Bell: Atlantic: Strategic issues
Problem definition and exploration
PechaKucha: Dominic Campbell, FutureGov
Lunch(12:30)
Afternoon
Problem definition (contd)
PechaKucha: Hannah Miller
Problem feedback
Problem ranking and team selection
PeckaKucha: Gary Oakfield, Merseyside Fire
Announce teams
Tea (16:00)
Networking formal
Networking informal
Close

Mathew Birkenshaw
Section Head of Adult Social Care Technology and Systems Policy
Department of Health
DH policy: technology in Social Care

David Bell
Director
Atlantic Customer Solutions
The challenges facing the sector

The teams then began exploring
five key problems
Assessments
Data capture
Optimising the use of assets
Information advice and purchasing
Addressing carer loneliness

The five problems selected
• Assessments
• Data capture
• Optimising the use of assets
• Information advice and purchasing
• Addressing carer loneliness

Work session 1:
Problem definition
Facilitator: Simon Gifford

Optimisation of the use of assets

Information advice and purchasing

Reducing the loneliness of carers

Dominic Campbell
Founder
FutureGov
Technology for good

Hannah Miller, OBE
Associate
Atlantic Customer Solutions
The challenge and the solutions

Ranking of challenges found them all to be
critical – and solvable!

Gary Oakfield
Prevention Group Manager
Merseyside Fire and Recue
From response to prevention

And networked …
The day and the network sessions were
separated by themed music:
• Proud: Heather Small
• Locomotive Breath: Jethro Tull
• Race against time: Ja Rule
• Forever Young: Alphaville
• Time after time: Cyndi Lauper
• In the end: Linin Park
• Time Warp: Rocky Horror
• Time: Pink Floyd
• One more time: Daft Punk

Day 2:
Problems to digital solutions
Day 2

Welcome, recap and direction of travel
David Brewer introduced the second day

Agenda: Day 2
Morning
Review and recap Day 1
PechaKucha: Joseph Connor, Expero Crede
Chirdeep Chhabra, Data Catalyser
PechaKucha: David Alexander, MyDex
Coffee break (10:30)
Ideation and solution development
Solution development
Lunch(12:30)
Afternoon
PechaKucha: Leonard Anderson, Kemuri
Preparation for panel
Panel pitch and surgery
Problem ranking and team selection
Tea (15:15)
Community development
Conclusions and wrap-up
Close

Dr. Leonard Anderson
CEO
Kemuri
Monitoring wellbeing

Joseph Connor
Founder
Expero Crede
Tracking your emotions

Chirdeep Chhabra
Senior Partnerships Manager
Digital Catapult
Data Catalyser:
Unlocking proprietary data

David Alexander
CEO
MyDex
Personal data stores

We started exploring the problems posed on Day 1 ….

Work session 2:
Ideation and solution development
Facilitator: Simon Gifford

Assessments and data sharing (2)

Using community assets and information
sharing

Innovate UK
Zahid Latif
Head of Healthcare
Funding sources

Panel session
Pitch and surgery

The teams presented their solutions …

… while the panel probed and challenged.

Feedback and next steps
David Brewer facilitated
the closing session.
A decision was made to
launch an interim
community to further
advance the ideas and
process.
It was also agreed to
enter all three solutions
into the Innovate UK call

Frank Sinatra’s “Fly me to the moon” accompanied the
move to some final networking…..
The space-themed music
interspersed the Day 2 sessions:
Space oddity: David Bowie
I believe I can fly: Ronan Keating
Walking on the moon: The Police
Space cowboy: Jamiroquai
Rocket man: Eton John
Fly me to the moon: Frank Sinatra

Appendices
Completed templates:
Problem definitions

Problem definition
Problem name: Assessments Problem reference number: 2
Stakeholders:
- People needing support, carers.
- Council - social care workers/managers
- Workers - GPS, occupational therapists, district nurses, benefits team,
housing team.
- Suppliers - home care workers/agencies, voluntary organisations,
lawyers.
- Assets - people with care needs, carers 3rd sector CVO, advocacy.
Problem: Number of assessments will increase but ironically
the assessment process is not person-centered. It is provider
focused, takes time, is often not fit for purpose and is easily at
risk to people ‘gaming the system’. It is top down, not bottom up
(The RAS is a ruse, its only the technical system of an already
skewed process).
Size: Massive - Care Act 2014 now introduces assessments for
carers who are largely hidden (largely hidden assessments,
backfilled onto system, so double the work!) (Integration issues).
Current solution: Different in different localities (not portable);
demand outstripping current model of supply; time consuming;
must be signed off by qualified social worker (but may lack
specialism in specific condition e.g. dementia; councils feel
anxious about meeting Care Act and JSNA targets; people in
receipt of care - how long waiting period and more anxiety;
responding to multiple requests for same data (poor customer
experience); no sharing of data e.g. with GPs/ health workers.
Gains: Client owned = redesign the assessment for end user
outcomes: the user owns the data, not solely the practitioner
(sharing consent); pro-active ownership of care plan; real time
changes (not episodic written in stone for a year). Multi-channel
offer - real time data - self-service outline - co-produced - informed
choice.
Pains: Not timely; poor customer experience (not personalised
outcome even if F2F meeting), duplication of info: repeating story,
annual assessment doesn’t respond to/ track changes in condition
(no real time data); hides the real story of the person’s situation;
defensive recording - it’s a legal document and process that aims to
control resources, not empower people to pro-actively own their own
care; lack of trust (by social workers, by recipient of care; data).
Customer jobs: Plot customer journey and re-design.
Education, info/advice advocacy for recipient of care. (national
communication strategy locally best fit).
Council - informed choice, story-based self-assessment, co-
produced community groups commissioned to support digital
capacity/ inclusion.
Based on Alex Osterwalder’s: Value Proposition Design
Is it really solvable?
Yes – but at what cost?
Visual Representation:
Current assessment system is a spider’s web made by 150
spiders…
In a strong wind with a fighter jet flying in adding turbulence ( >
flimsy).
Current system is not
sustainable but is
solvable
Social workers need
support to arm OBC or
direct payment care. Digital
part of this but need
interface development.
Evolution or
revolution of
assessment
process.
Reinvention? - no sharing
of best practice or data.
Do now: new
world =
prevention
savings

Problem definition
Problem name: Data Capture Problem reference number: 3
Stakeholders: Service users
ASC practitioners
LAs (maintaining performance targets)
Service providers
Health practitioners
Carers
Problem: Pressure of social workers carrying
out assessments, moving to a model of self-
assessment and maintaining quality and
consistency of data captured. How is this
info/data shared? Especially unstructured
data. Consent to share?
Size:
New clients: 2.1 million
Completed review: 1.4 million
Clients getting services: 1.2 million
Current solution: Social workers carrying out
assessments on paper then updating back office
systems later. Social workers carrying out their
own admin. Data sharing protocols managed
locally and sponsored By director of ASC.
Gains: Data captured is consistent. Data captured
is systematic. Some data is digested and usefully
shared.
Pains: Backlogs/higher case loads.
Poor use of resources
Lack of data sharing – incorrect use of Data
Protection Act
People die/end up in hospital because of poor
information sharing
Customer jobs:
1. Complete assessments, provision services,
maintain care plans (LA)
2. Self-assessment need, self provision of care
(service user)

How best to develop and sustain assets

Problem definition
Problem name: How best to develop and sustain assets Problem reference number: 4
Stakeholders:
Voluntary organisations
Service user
Local authority
Front line service providers
Problem:
- What do we mean by assets?
- What assets are held? How do we maximise asset potential?
- What benefit are we trying to achieve?
- What need are we addressing?
- How do we change patients perceptions/expectations?
- How to develop audience-base that this approach is ????
- Not being aware of what’s going on inside/outside authority
boundaries.
- Limited IT capacity.
- Lack of understanding of voluntary sector.
Size:
- One authority scalable nationally
Current solution:
- Uncoordinated/no sustainable models.
- Evidence based corporate social responsibility.
- Trials locally and nationally.
- Large reliance on government funding to kick-start efforts.
Gains:
- Faster Assessment.
- Better signposting for community users.
- More capacity and efficiency, return for our spend.
- Increased well-being in our Local communities.
Pains:
- Can only approach problem from local
perspective – requires local solution – can’t
mandate national solution.
- Sustainability requires funding
- Reluctance to engage
Customer jobs:
- Mapping existing capacity need
- Connect capacity to need
- Catalogue of signpost.

Problem definition
Problem name: Information, Advice & Purchasing Problem reference number: 5
Stakeholders: Care receipients
Friends/family
(Healthcare) professionals
Investigating care
Problem: Data currency
Information management
Digital exclusion
Geographic reach: parent/child
Education/marketing
Size: 200k enquiries/422k population. 5-30
minute call. 80% telephone contact.
10% of calls to web > £50k saving p.a. x 150
Las = £7.5m uk.
1 LA: 200k x 2.88 = £576k x 150 Las = £86.4m
SOCITM call cost £2.88
Current solution: Multiple info/advice
providers
Multiple advice solution
Phone dominated
No understanding of process - marketing or
education
Gains: X sector info sharing.
Demand management
Better understanding of process
Informed/better choices
Deflection, self-service
Reduction in cost for LA & INDI
Better care provision
Pains: More demands on individual:
- Info integration
- Financial management of care
Education and marketing
Customer jobs:
(Note: may wish to use separate flip chart)
YES!
Ideas/ opportunities -
Recommendation engines.
Third sector delivery info
model. Purchasing power of
market > funds delivery of
info/advice
X sector
working
innovation.
Data collection
and mining.

Reducing loneliness and isolation of carers

Problem definition
Problem name: Reducing loneliness/isolation of carers Problem reference number: 6
Stakeholders:
Las, GPs, family trust, carers & individuals,
families of carers and cared for.
Problem: How does society support and prevent the
loneliness of informal carers?
- To prevent myopic vision of needs of cared for
- It can happen over time
- It can exclude other helpers
- Leads to a secondary issue, further complications and
potentially intervention and IOS & S.
Size: Dementia unpaid care costs 11.6bn, 1.3bn
hours.
Problem is getting significantly worse.
Problem is defining numbers when some carers
don’t come forward.
Current solution: A statuary system fallen into
disuse and need for reassessment with Care
Act.
- Informal carers groups
- Carers information services
- Carers centres funded by voluntary
organisations and others
- GPs services
- Some potential LA financial support
Gains: Improved care for the cared for and
potentially a better long term outlook for care givers
reducing their dependency on system = reduction in
costs/ better outcomes.
Pains: Potential lack of engagement.
Denial there may be a problem. They don’t
know how big the problem is.
Data sharing.
Customer jobs: Better quality care for cared for at a
lower cost and most effective.
??? And ???
In relation to
problem.
Addressed
too late to
change
mindset.

Appendices
Completed templates:
Solutions

Problem solution – page 1
Problem name: Assessment & data transfer Reference number: 2 & 3
The solution (to users & buyers):
1. USER:
• Self-service (info pre-assessment)
• Self-assessment (or referral)
YES - ‘Futuregov’ experience (Surrey CC)
NO - set up care account
- Personalised ‘data store’ > diagnostic +
tools - needs, £, self-manage/PA
- Portable by person
2. COUNCIL:
• Demand management
• ??? ‘source of the truth’
• View of whole market
• ‘mixed market’ social value act
• Visibility of self funders (currently
invisible).
3. PROVIDERS:
• Engaged
• Visibility in market
• Future proofed H + ISC purchasing
power
• Reputation 9ratings by users) ‘Amazon’
careTechnology:
• Web enabled and multi-channel
(first filter)
• Data governance and security
Visual or other tangible) representation:
The solution: Shifting the market - focus
on care account as an opportunity for
change/transformation using:
• Self funders and their
contracted/commissioned providers as
a cohort to command, manage and
create a data set for future service
planning.
• Personal data sets owned by the
individual
• Potential users become visible
(currently they aren’t known until they
present at ASC door)
• Data capture and store for intelligence
and market for H & ASC.
 Intelligence
 Market
insight
Care
Advisor
Council
Assessment
Meets
???
Account
Care Cape
Evidence
LA
Services
Market
Providers
Assets
Assessment is massive - assessment of condition, £
assessment + H&S assessment for re-ablement. If we take
evolution approach - faster, consistent, accurate ??? read can
be improved by AI, with tech improver/enabler.

Problem name: Assessment & data transfer Problem reference number: 2 & 3
Risks and assumptions:
• Consistency/standards
• Pre-assessment - read across to formal???
• Info governance
• Security (IlM3 & PSN)
• Formal assessment is co-produced
• National communication strategy raises awareness
to care account
• Council wants to know about and plan for future
demand on service from self-funders
The solution: Care advisor plus
Business case: Demand Management
• Collated data, aggregating data  intelligence
• Saves £s (20:80 rule)
• Saves time 
• Customer journey/pro-active engagement.
• Provider/customer/council > health usage
• Vibrant market shaping + insight
• Visibility/transparency
• Quality ratings
Current solution: (top 3) person owned care
account.
• Demand outstripping demand
• Static/decreasing resource
• Inefficient/unsustainable resource
• Paper driven not shareable data
• No view of this market/self-funder needs.
Pain relievers:
• Personal data in realm of person
• Visibility:
‒ Providers
‒ Self-funders: needs, issues
‒ Access to intelligence
• Council (see sheet 1)
• Care cap evidence
• Poor experience
• Trust
Gain creators: ‘one version of truth’
• Data aggregation
• Less duplication
• Timely
• Engaging for customer
• Personalised, portable
• Flexible (with changes)
• Improved auditability
• Market stimulated
• Reducing friction of transaction
• Managed services e.g. ACAS.
Products and services:
Care advisor
Care account
Market place
Revenue model: Council/region could pump prime
(Care Act). Providers pay/subscribe? (%)
Competitive advantage:
• Person-focused, co-owned
• Not mandated by internal systems of council
• Manages demand out of council
‘’Fan
Dabby
Dosey’’
(Reduced
mortality - ‘no
stone unturned’
is a distant
memory)

Community assets; info and advice

Problem name: Community assets/ info and advice Problem reference number: 4+5
Digital map of everything gathered in one place
populated from data already exists, your local,
not council or boundaries.
Walking tour of assets
1. Councils don’t do they create the
conditions
2. Digital asset map - growth sources
3. Not just digital/walking maps
4. Sustainable, self-managed
5. Information about similar products
6. Together at ?
What does your customer say
about the proposed solution?
Technology: Your voice, community asset
A digital asset map - self-managed
• Quedos approached
• Galvanise the community/ local
• Offer financial incentives, government to
pump prime.
Visual or other tangible representation:The solution:
1. Problem - Gap analysis
• What needs are there?
• What I & A is available?
2. Is there a difference between formal and
informal assets
3. How to highlight the assets to the
community
4. How we can ensure someone with a need
is connected
Why no one solved it before?
• Barriers across structures (silo leadership,
not our job, east shunting) but now
replaced by cooperation e.g. MASH to fix
problems.
• Formal/approved signposting (LA, fire,
ambulance, GPs, voluntary sector) vs.
encourage community interest groups and
provide (I&A) > social engagement
approval.

Problem name: Reducing Loneliness of carers Problem reference number: 6
• Entry point - integration driven by shared
events on TV which can be scheduled -
TV tea trolley.
• Carer based TV/film club
• Connection
‒ User defined characteristics
‒ Who is watching the same?
‒ Friends and their friends
• Trusted network
‒ Levels of access
Technology:
Using TV - tech everyone is familiar with.
But this is seen as the basic stage solution.
Moves onto more conventional web
solutions.
Visual or other tangible representation:The solution:
- Got to work in the home
• Seamless & useable by people
not tech savy
• Secure, reliable (work in a crisis)
- Two way interactive
• Facilitate connection when they
want to
- Configure based on content
- Ability to express themselves to drive
engagement
- Information access
• What is available, entitlement,
help, guides
- Makes economic and social sense
• Works for self-funders - local
authorities
- Allows informal care networks to???
• monitor

Brainstorm (ideas only)
Do we really
understand the
problem?
What are the root
causes?
What are the
underlying issues?
Can we break it
down to smaller
problems?
Why is it a
problem?
Why has no one
solved it before?
What are the
obstacles?
Are there data
issues?
Draw the process –
insights?
What might the
ideal solution
look like?
What are the
options?
Is it related to
other problems?
The problem

Some key challenge areas
1. Assessments & RAS
2. Data capture, privacy & security
3. Care accounts and use of funds
4. Predicting costs and market shaping
5. Information, advice & purchasing
6. Safeguarding and monitoring (after direct payments)
7. Optimising use of "assets” eg universal services and voluntary sector
8. Alternative services eg telecare, wearables, etc
9. Handovers and boundaries

Problem definition
Problem name: _______________________ Problem reference number: _________
Stakeholders:
• Who has the problem? (customers)
• Customer segments
• Who else is impacted?
• Who wants it solved?
• How are Service users impacted?
Problem:
• What is the problem (define)?
• 140 characters
• Fuller definition
• Who does it affect?
• When does it occur?
Size:
• How big is the problem?
• Quantify the benefit if solved?
• How many are affected?
• Is the problem getting worse?
• Are there indirect benefits?
Current solution:
• How is it currently being handled?
• How good is the solution?
• What are the problems with the solution?
• Is there any group working on this at
present?
Gains:
• What outcomes & benefits does the
customer want?
• Rank: essential to nice-to-have.
Pains:
• What annoys the customer when trying to
get the job done?
• Rank: extreme to moderate
Customer jobs:
• What is it the customer is trying to get
done?
• Rank: important to insignificant
(Note; may wish to use separate flip chart)

• Describe the solution in detail to the
customer (user)
• Describe the solution to the economic
buyer (eg finance, procurement)
• Describe the solution to the end-user.
Technology:
• What underlying digital technology
unlocks the solution?
• What data is required / produced?
• What are the data issues?
• Can the TDH help?
Visual or other tangible) representation: (may
use other media)
Demonstrate how it may be used to the customer
eg wire-frame, prototype.
The solution:
• Describe the solution in detail
• What does it do?
• How does it do it?
• What makes it different?
• Describe the process of use

• What are the major assumptions you have
made in developing the solution?
• What are the major risks?
• How could you test them before
developing a full product?
The solution:
• Describe the solution in 3 lines or less.
• Draw a simple picture of the product
being used by customers
Business case:
• At the highest level, describe the benefits
and costs of the solution?
• Who would buy it and for how much?
• How long will it take to produce?
• How much and what type of
resource/skills will it require?
Current solution:
• In what way is it better than the current
solution?
• In what way is it worse than the current
solution?
Pain relievers:
• How (and which) pains will we relieve?
• Rank: essential to nice-to-have.
Gain creators:
• How (and which) benefits and outcomes will
we produce?
• Rank: essential to nice-to-have
• What are all the components of the product?
• Rank: essential to nice-to-have
What does the end-user say
Revenue model:
• What is the revenue model?
• Who pays and how?
• If you were to commercialize this, what
would be the competitive advantage?

Problem definition
Problem name: Time and labour required by assessments Problem reference number: A1
Stakeholders:
Service user; carers; Care Managers;
providers; LA management; Health
services;
Problem:
Time required to assess; and backlog of
assessments (worsened by the Care Act).
Size:
200,000 assessments required pa @ £100
each is a £20m job.
10% saving is worth £2 million pa excluding
indirect benefits.
Current solution:
S/U supported in completing application; care
managers review and capture; health input
sought; carer consideration given; financial
assessment conducted; RAS run. Leads to
development of support plan approved by
panel (see drawing of process
Gains:
Data input accurate when done timeously;
fairness to users with consistency; carers can
receive an assessment; social workers used in
areas that match skills; less duplication of
activity ;
Pains:
Customer jobs:
Complete assessments (and reviews) for
service users when required.
Is it really solvable? YES
(Note: may wish to use separate flip chart)
Shortage of care managers / social workers;
admin tasks not completed; inconsistencies in
results; need for panels;

Solution name: AI based assessments Problem reference number: A1
Users: a fair system that provides the same
result across the country.
Buyers: Reduce Care Workers review time
by 60% and better data capture.
System may be extended to other user
groups, incorporate Health and to further
populate support plans.
Technology:
Common software across all LA’s with data
sharing at individual level Interface built to
care systems.
Visual or other tangible) representation: (may
use other media)
The solution:
Artificial intelligence based solution.
Works from a common (nation-wide)
input form that may be self-administered
or supported by non-qualified worker.
System “learns” from all assessments
conducted around country..
Produces exceptions for those requiring
detailed review by qualified social
worker.
Data captured directly into LA Care
system and Care Plan partially pre-
populated.

Solution name: AI based assessments Problem reference number: A1
Technology is possible?
Will obtain national coordination
Acceptable to social care
Data problems can be overcome
The solution:
AI based national assessment system
Business case:
Cost to produce £250k and annual cost
£100k.
Annual benefit £2m
Many non-quantified benefits
Current solution:
Better than current as it is less expensive,
more consistent and frees up social worker
capacity.
Worse: may have backlash against non-
human nature
Pain relievers:
Reduces cost of assessments
Reduces poor data capture
Frees up social worker capacity
Gain creators:
Obtain benefit from shared data
Fairer system for all
Can increase number of assessments
conducted
Standard assessment input with self –
assessment capacity; AI driven assessment
which improves over time
I think it is fairer and I will not
get left waiting for my review
Revenue model:
LA’s pay a fee per assessment
Likely resistance to a duplicated model
unless significant benefits

Personalisation of Social Care Pit Stop

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Personalisation of Social Care Pit Stop

Similar to Personalisation of Social Care Pit Stop (20)

More from Digital Catapult

More from Digital Catapult (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Personalisation of Social Care Pit Stop

Editor's Notes