At last, a consumer-led NHS?
Richard Smith hears Tim Kelsey’s vision for an open NHS in which patients are an asset, not a liability
The two driving principles of the NHS Commissioning Board are transparency and participation. If they are applied radically then they can transform the NHS, said Tim Kelsey, the board’s national director of patients and information for the board at a meeting of the relaunched Cambridge Health Network this week.
Kelsey envisions an NHS where patients are empowered through data to become consumers who shape the NHS and are more responsible for their own health. In words that he didn’t use but I heard for the first time yesterday, patients are seen as assets not liabilities.
Perhaps the clearest indication that this is not the familiar empty rhetoric is that Kelsey was appointed to the job. A former investigative journalist and war correspondent, he founded the company Dr Foster when his GP was unable to give him and his wife any information on where his first child might be born. Dr Foster used routine NHS data to inform healthcare in a way that hadn’t been done before, shaming public health and the NHS itself.
Later Kelsey, who is irrepressible and always smiling, became the government’s transparency tsar - committed to releasing government data both to improve public services and create new businesses.
The NHS bank
Kelsey’s new position combines many more traditional roles like chief technology officer, chief information officer and head of marketing and communications. It includes public involvement, press relations, and the cursed Connecting for Health.
Another reason that the commissioning board might succeed in transforming the NHS is that for the first time in its life, said Kelsey, it’s “unconflicted” - in that, it doesn’t have responsibility for the delivery of services. It’s the “NHS bank” and if it found services in England unsatisfactory could move them to Boston or Abu Dhabi (“not that it’s going to do that,” he added hurriedly).
Now, believes Kelsey, is the time to transform the NHS because otherwise it is going to run out of money. We may be close, he suggested, to rationing of drugs and closure of hospitals. If patients become active consumers then cost might be contained - as was argued by the banker Derek Wanless in his analysis of how to keep the NHS affordable in his report for the Treasury in 2002.
Data deficit
The first and most essential step in achieving the new vision is to create decent data on what is happening in the NHS. Current data, said Kelsey, is poor. We know almost nothing about outcomes in primary care, which is a serious problem in that the commissioning board is required by law to commission outcomes. Some in the audience might have wondered whether the GP quality and outcomes framework didn’t supply good data on primary care, but Kelsey is talking about data on individual patients (anonymised, of course) in as close to real time as can be managed.
He gave the example that 2,500 patients with dementia may be killed by GPs prescribing antipsychotics: we know how many antispychotics individual GPs prescribe, and we might know in some practices which patients have dementia - but we do not know which of these patients are prescribed antipsychotics.
Data on secondary care is no better, said Kelsey, in that they contain no useful clinical data. We do not know, for instance, which drugs work in reality - as opposed to in clinical trials. He spoke with a smile of visiting a hospital that had 300 pharmacy databases that do not speak to each other.
The aim is to have better data with primary and secondary care linked together by April 2013, and, he said, it is not really the board’s problem if GPs and hospitals cannot tell it what is going on. They will want to be commissioned and must supply by law data on outcomes.
I wondered if Kelsey wasn’t being overambitious here, and perhaps he was deliberately overstating his case to generate momentum. He seems to think that a combination of keeping data in the cloud and making it open access will allow the NHS to do by next year what it has never done before. But I thought back to the meeting on stratified medicine that I attended two weeks ago where there was much talk of the inadequacy of data and the complete absence of the clinical informaticists to find ways to stitch databases together and create useful data sources.
Rich complaining culture
The second step in Kelsey’s vision is transparency, to “get the data out there,” so that individuals and organisations, including companies, can use the data to improve safety, quality, and responsiveness—and build businesses. He urged the audience to look at the website of Code for America, whose mission is to “help governments work better for everyone with the people and the power of the web. Through our Fellowship Accelerator and Brigade, we’re building a network of cities, citizens, community groups and startups, all equally committed to reimagining government for the 21st century.”
Kelsey sees a Code for Health and wants not hundreds but hundreds of thousands to use the data. He’d like to teach people to code, pointing out that you can build an app after three days of training.
Participation is the third step, and Kelsey described how in New York City some 90,000 people a day report on problems in the city - scaffolding that’s not safe, bins that are not emptied. The city is increasingly run in response to real time data, and Kelsey wants the same for the NHS. “The rich complaining culture” of the British could be very useful.
The next step is patient control. The constant analogy is with online banking. Increasingly nobody goes to a bank and nobody writes a cheque. Banks - and eventually hospitals - can be turned into restaurants or hotels. The hope is that such developments in the NHS can have an important effect on productivity. Kelsey wants to see an app store with 100 apps from next April. “But what’s the business model for companies to produce these apps?” asked somebody in the audience: “Who will pay?” That good question needs more thought, answered Kelsey.
Going paperless
A paperless NHS - perhaps by April 2015 - is the last part of Kelsey’s vision. Why is it that secondary care is still using tatty paper records and consultants are writing to GPs rather than emailing patients?
Kelsey’s vision is still evolving, which is one reason why he wanted to share it with the Cambridge Health Network. He is well aware that not everybody shares his vision and started by telling the story of talking to 300 NHS people working on cancer and a doctor telling him: “Mr Kelsey, you are a visionary, and I frankly find your vision complete nonsense.” Another doctor said: “Patients just want to see a doctor.” Yet another doctor was quoted as saying “I will never use a computer.” to which Kelsey responded “He shouldn’t be a doctor.”
The audience of the Cambridge Health Network, which includes a goodly number of entrepreneurs from both the public and private sectors, was generally enthusiastic about Kelsey’s vision, but one young doctor, while sharing the enthusiasm, was worried about changing the culture. He said how he worked with six other surgical registrars and had asked for a computer—one between seven. “Why do you need a computer?” was the response from the hospital manager.
He also told the story of a friend high up in information technology who had sickness in the family but didn’t use IT at all when seeking care. When asked why not he said “it’s not what you do in healthcare”. In other words, there will need to be cultural changes among doctors, managers, and patients.
There needs to be, concluded Kelsey, an unarguable benefits case for collecting and releasing NHS data—a case that is made to clinicians and the public. There will also need to be lots of products and services produced from the data. The vision is more likely to be achieved by “pull” from patient and consumers than “push” from policymakers at the top of the NHS, and to that end Kelsey would like to see the NHS become a social movement.
Legacy planning
A wholly unscientific but still interesting poll of people attending the meeting asked what Kelsey’s legacy should be: 46 per cent said joined-up patient data across all providers, 28 per cent said more people using online healthcare than online banking, 18 per cent said universal patient access to their own records, 5 per cent a paperless NHS, 3 per cent 1,000 apps built by NHS employees, and 0 per cent three million followers on Twitter for David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS Commissioning Board.
Richard Smith is a member of the Cambridge Health Network, which is free. He has known Tim Kelsey for around 15 years, He is also chair of Patients Know Best, a start-up that uses IT to enhance patient-clinician relationships and might well flourish in the NHS that Kelsey envisions.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.






Readers' comments (5)
Richard Grimes | 24-Oct-2012 2:58 pm
I will ignore the use of the word "consumers": we all know that they are patients and some people use that word to taunt those of us who are patients. My issue is the phrase "empowered through data". This, by its nature, will exclude a large number of people. It worries me that that is not clear to the man at the top.
Let me set my stall. I have been a software developer for 30 years and I have trained, and written training material for developers for 20 years. I am what the technology companies call an "early adopter". I am no Luddite: I do see the advantages of technology.
But I also see how technology can exclude people if it is applied inappropriately. I have no evidence from the NCB's direction of travel that they are making any attempts to apply technology appropriately. In fact, it appears to me that they are expecting patients to be dragged along behind them. If patients were truly "consumers" they would switch to another provider. If the NCB were truly delivering to "consumers" they would stop and review their strategy.
I can accept that use of technology in the NHS by employees can be imposed top-down: afterall, if it is a condition of their employment, staff must comply. But any patient use of technology in the NHS must be bottom-up. Find out what patients want, and what they will use. A wild stab in the dark from the world's greatest visionary can be very costly when you are talking about an organisation as large as the NHS. I have worked on distributed systems and I have seen first hand what happens when someone's vision becomes someone else's nightmare.
The two examples that Kelsey gave have nothing to do with patients being "empowered": GP practice or secondary outcomes are the responsibilities of commissioners and regulators. We have had commissioning for nigh-on two decades, yet apparently commissioners do not have a clue whether the work they are paying for is actually useful. Why should making patients be "responsible" for reading this data make the services any better? Surely we have to get commissioners to do their job effectively first? This is the woolly thinking that concerns me: commissioners have not been able to get the data, or improve the service through data (according to Kelsey), yet the approach seems to be to ignore those who can make a difference and get patients to do it instead.
The comments about a paperless office made me smile. Last week, the practice manager at my local GP looked weary and when I asked why she pointed out the bundles of consultant letters she had just received. The practice is paperless and they scan in every letter. But this was beyond the pail. The local acute trust had delivered two months of letters in one go. This means that patients' notes are out of date and will be for weeks to come as the letters are scanned. Why isn't the trust paperless? And why do they save all the letters like this? The NCB should be getting a grip on how NHS organisations communicate with each other, this is something that can be solved with some good old top-down management. But instead, we hear that their focus is turning us into trip-advisor obsessed "consumers".
As to Code for America: don't get me started. I have many US coder colleagues and they regard the project in uncomplimentary terms. I've had a look at the site and my immediate impressions are: it's out of date and the events they run are irrelevant. I do not find courses on the most popular ways to develop code: Javascript, HTML, CSS, Java, .NET,
C++. I do not find courses in basic database design, nor basic networking. All I find are courses on niche products that someone wants to sell. Major fail.
Kelsey's plan is to get someone skilled in one discipline "having a go" at another. I wonder if he would like me, a skilled coder, to have a go at some surgery? I thought not, but it is acceptable the other way around? One thing we know that works in the NHS is a multi-disciplinary team approach. Why can't we apply the same principle to data? By all means get some clinicians involved, but coding? Nah. Leave that to the people who can produce efficient, secure and bug-free code. If we have a "Code for Health" the result will be lots of half finished, buggy code that will be vectors for viruses or leaking data. Oh and will they be accessible? As I said above, applying technology in an inappropriate way will exclude people, and it takes a lot of design and usability studies to ensure that apps are accessible.
"pointing out that you can build an app after three days of training"
Yeah, right, thanks Mr K for insulting thousands of professional coders who you appear to think have skills that can be achieved in three days. Do you really want your vision to be successful? if so, then don't insult the very people who can deliver it for you.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Dr Paul Worthington | 25-Oct-2012 3:44 pm
On the paperless office; I recall meeting with a GP who spointed to the empty sweep of his desk, which contained only a computer and a phone and said "I run a paperless office - why can't evryone else ?". Yet he was sat 20 feet from a practice admin and reception area which was stuiffed to the gunnels with patient's notes......
Unsuitable or offensive?
annsey | 25-Oct-2012 4:09 pm
Thanks Richard, for a critique as interesting as the article -' inspirational leaders' rarely deliver reality!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Shane Gordon | 25-Oct-2012 4:56 pm
It is good to see that Tim Kelsey has a strong vision for how to make the NHS more transparent. I support Richard Grimes' caution that data can exclude as well as include, however access to data is surely preferable to continued ignorance, even if effort is required to make sense of it.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 26-Oct-2012 3:56 pm
Data is not necessarily a boon if the cost of its collection and interpretation weigh the value of it.
What percentage of current health expenditure is spent on data-collection? Probably far too much, and Tim Kelsey is seeking to increase it still further.
Unsuitable or offensive?