One of the great things about building a platform like Patient Opinion is that people are always finding wonderful new of ways to use it that we have never thought of. Like the young couple using an addiction service who had a baby just 5 weeks old. They had had a few slip ups and used a bit of this and that other than their prescribed methadone. Terrified of having positive urines and loosing their beautiful new baby they could not ask their drug workers because then the cat might have been out of the bag. But at the same time they desperately wanted help.

The answer turned out to be sharing their story on Patient Opinion. They could see that the clinic was run by  PCAS who had a great record of responding to other requests on Patient Opinion, so they posted their story anonymously but publicly. That way they could get find out whether coming clean would end up with them loosing their baby. What is more everyone else can see the response too – which may be reassuring to other mums-to-be with an addiction problem. And one more vulnerable couple and baby helped to keep going, to not give up. 

Generic responses won’t do in these circumstances. Patients and service users need to know how this clinic, this medical director would handle the situation, not what NICE or the PCT recommends. And they will use the quality of the response to decide whether it’s to be trusted or yet more corporate speak.  Of course it’s not just substance misusers. If I had to have a coronary bypass graft, I’d want to know what the surgeon's mortality rate was and how many of these operations she did per year. But being British I’d be probably be too embarrassed to ask. But I would be happy to punt the question on Patient Opinion anonymously. And may be get an answer that helps everyone using that service.  

May be confidential conversations that can only be asked in public will turn out to be really common. And important.

We've previously blogged about the idea of "sousveillance" - the idea citizens can keep an eye on those with greater power in society, using what are now everyday tools such as video cameras, mobile phones, blogs, and, well, sites like Patient Opinion.

But it's always been a little bit theoretical. Not such a big deal.

But now, here comes an example of sousveillance where it really matters - and all done with texting.

Let's hope it works.

Watch.UsNow is a great video about how the web lets people take things into their own hands and just get on organise stuff. There’s Clay Shirky, Charlie Leadbetter, William Heath, Lee Bryant plus mums from netmums and many others all talking very good sense. Well worth a quick watch (and thanks to Jonty  at Demos's Progressive Conservatism project for bringing it to attention).  

But looking at it I realised that Patient Opinion doesn’t quite fit. And the reason is that we don’t ‘do community’ in the same way that netmums or Facebook or Couch Surfers do it. For them the community is the whole point – they are about giving people a place where they can do what they want in ways that they are passionate about. This is what Web 2.0 has been all about up to now and it’s releasing a wave of mutual help and support that will, for sure, change the world in just the ways that the Watch.UsNow video explains. 

You can easily imagine similar communities building around Patient Opinion with people discussing services for endometriosis or hospitals  in Wolverhampton. And of course we’ve talked long and hard about whether Patient Opinion should do this. Our worry is that such groups would quickly turn into moaning arenas or gravitate to the ‘let’s go beat them up’ approach. But perhaps we’re doing everyone a disservice by such assumptions and we should trust people more and go test it out. 

But there is also another reason why we don’t quite fit into the standard web 2.0 model and that’s because we’re focused on changing services whereas most of the standard bearers for  ‘web 2.0 is a revolution’ are focused (rightly) on their members interests. So netmums is about mums not primarily about services for mums. And Couch Surfers is about finding congenial  people to stay with for free in new cities, not about improving travel services.  

Patient Opinion together with sites like MySociety are doing something different – we’re trying to engage the service, to get busy staff to act in new ways. This is very different from setting up a community of users ‘outside’ the system and who are all too easily perceived by staff as being critical. So it is possible that vibrant communities of users might indeed make our  core task – improving services – harder not easier. 

This isn’t an either/or of course – sites that focus on mutual support or benefit and sites that want to change the system are both really worthwhile. But Patient Opinion’s task of changing the system by engaging many thousands of staff as well as  tens of thousands of users, is distinct for two key reasons. Firstly it creates a different sort of public value to groups focused on mutual support. Second if we are successful, it opens up different revenue streams beyond the old stalwart of advertising that everyone and his dog is trying to make a living from on the net. After all if we could help patients and carers initiate 10,000 service improvements a year this will create significant value for the NHS. If we could find ways to extract this value and feed it back into more patient-initiated change - now that would be exciting. Then there really would be money in them there pills!

Now that postings about mental health services are beginning to roll into Patient Opinion we’re starting to get into some really interesting issues. For example how to disentangle ‘paranoid ideation’ (as the psychiatrists would call it) from distressing events that really happened? Feelings of vulnerability and wondering if people are getting at us occur to everyone from time to time and for those who are acutely mentally ill these can become extreme. But some times some pretty awful things really do  happen in psychiatric wards or in the community and telling the difference between these two is never easy.  Sometimes people can be both psychiatrically very distressed and be experiencing very poor care which they have every right to complain about.  

Of course all providers of mental health struggle with similar issues when dealing with some complaints.  What is different for Patient Opinion is that published stories can be seen by anyone.  Since all we have to go on usually is the story itself we try and balance three different audiences:        

•  the needs and vulnerabilities of the service user who has posted
•   the needs of the staff and organisation
• the needs of future users of the service. They may benefit from frank disclosure of poor practice. Or be unnecessarily put off by feedback about a service that is based on delusions rather than on reality.

And keep the following principles in mind:

•  the ability of everyone, not matter how ill, to say useful things about their care
•  the need to highlight poor practice in ways that make improvement more, rather than less likely.
• our need to protect people who post stories whilst in a vulnerable state.   

In practice this means that such postings are first discussed by our editorial team which includes a GP and a mental health social worker. These are some of the most interesting and lively discussion we have as we try and balance all these rights and principles.  Quite often we edit postings (in line with our editorial policy),   aiming to focus the story on what actually happened and remove assertions about motive or beliefs about why the events happened.

Sometimes we email the service user back and say that we will publish the story but only after waiting 2 weeks and then checking back with them that they really do want their story published. This is a very productive route as often they change what they want to say over this period.

Finally we are thinking about whether for some of these stories are better suited to being shared with the Trust and the Care Quality Commission rather than publicly as these two organisations are better placed than we are to make these difficult judgement calls. Sharing them in this way could enable users’ voices to be heard whilst protecting them at vulnerable times.

But we know that we have not got all the answers. Any thoughts about how we could handle these situations better?       

Lots of organisations that we work with welcome Patient Opinion. But some see web-based feedback more as a trial than an opportunity.  Who needs web-based feedback when you've already got surveys, CQUINS, hand helds and your own internal system of PALS and complaints? The very things that appeal to patients and the public about Patient Opinion – that it is easy to use, free,  visible to everyone,  independent, impossible to control, and full of  anecdotes – are exactly the things that these trusts and managers fear.

Understandable but the problem with looking at the world (and Patient Opinion) in this way is that it assumes that because NHS organisations have been able to control feedback in the past they will still be able to do it in a world that is being re-shaped by forces much wider than the NHS, or government policy. We are used to running an NHS in which patients interact on our terms, use our complaint procedures, fill out our questionnaires – when now, out there on the web,  everyone  is already saying exactly what they think on their own terms.

Losing control of these internal procedures feels uncomfortable but actually represents a great opportunity. As a trust it means that something that was scarce and expensive – patient feedback – has suddenly become cheap and plentiful. Yes, that means news ways of working. Yes, it means that we have to respond in public rather than use complaints procedures that are bureaucratic, private and easier to control. But it also means it is now really easy  to involve every single team in the trust in hearing what patients are saying, reflecting on what it mean for good practice, and entering into a public conversations about what they are going to do to improve things.  And that has to be a change for the better.

Great to be part of the rebooting Britain release – even if I only managed to get there for the afternoon (due to having to do a surgery in the morning). And great that Patient Opinion got some good mentions from Jeremy Hunt, Lee Bryant and Charlie Leadbetter.

But was it a good day? Some people thought it didn’t reach far enough. But for me it was great to hear people like Lee holding forth on democracy. And Howard Rheingold who has been riding this territory out west for as long as anyone can remember and who signposted so much of it for so many of us.

I suppose at root the re-booting metaphor is a bit too easy to be a really useful key though. Turn off, wipe clean, switch on again is really not how humans or institutions work. A good hook to hang interesting stuff round but actually changing how the wetware works is much more interesting, absorbing and long-term than building the software and hardware.

And of course you can see Patient Opinion's contribution to the essays at The Independent.

According to the folks from Dr Foster the PPI industry – i.e. everyone in the NHS involved in PALS, complaints and 'engaging' the public - employs a cool 34,000 people in England and costs upwards of £600 million per year. Which makes you wonder. Especially as the government seems to ramp up the importance of engagement with one hand whilst disrupting it with multiple reorganisations with the other.

And  that word 'engagement' always strikes a strange note. Do they mean as in marriage? Or  gears? Or perhaps armies in battles?

In the last 2 weeks I’ve spent 3 different days discussing all this (which has been about 2 days 6 hours too much)  but the messages have been clear:  the discussion within the NHS has little new in it. It is all talk of systems, and processes and listening and diversity of strategies. Which is all good (if old) stuff.

But what is striking is how much the NHS exists in its own self referential box. Discussion of the world of voice outside the NHS (blogs, Youtube, Facebook etc) was conspicuous by its almost complete absence.  The fact that Twitter may be toppling the Iranian government sparks wonder at the power of these new fangled gizmos to do strange things to strange people in strange lands, but not the first hint of an idea that it won’t be long before the NHS gets subject to similar firestorms.

From a purely selfish point of view this is not all bad as it leaves Patient Opinion free to beaver away at getting ‘voice outside the NHS box’ working without anyone thinking that it is too important. From another perspective it’s fairly depressing – it's as though, at the time of Caxton and the invention of the printing press, everyone was busy saying ‘Books to engage the masses? Ah, no thanks, I’m a parchment person myself. Can’t beat a good quill and a tame scribe to get the message out, and the peasants just can't seem to get enough of those illuminated surveys we’re so good at’.

We quite often get stories that you would think demand instant action - for example Why was my dad left lying naked on the bed? or patients being able to see others urinating. But then nothing happens. In part this is because managers and staff see such things as regrettable rather than important. Sure, it shouldn’t have happened but nobody died and the real thing to get sorted is to make sure Mrs. Jones in Bed 5 doesn’t breach the 4 hour waiting target.

But in part it is because web-based feedback is so low-friction. For the first time comments are beginning to arrive at the speed of light (or at least the speed that we at Patient Opinion can handle them!) whilst the system designed to receive them moves with all the urgency of a sloth with toothache. The web makes transactions faster and reduces the transaction costs for citizens but it does not reduce the costs of responding for organisations nearly as much. In short web 2.0 is citizen-centric not organization-centric.  Faced with this the  temptation for organisations is to simply cut and paste formulaic replies. This plugs the managerial dyke but does nothing for the citizen or the service.  

From the point of view of service provider – any service provider, NHS or commercial, health or otherwise – this problem can only get worse as more and more people use the web to tell you what they think of you . Two outcomes are then possible. If most web-based feedback is ignored then citizens will tire of giving it and the flow will cease. Alternatively at least some organizations will re-organise themselves and really begin to listen and act on what their customers are saying. Organisations that are driven by sales and profits are likely to be more responsive but what will make public sector organisations responsive short of turning them all into profit centres and losing all the other, wider benefits of them being a public service?

Part of the answer here lies in seeing web-based feedback as lighter, less ponderous than more traditional feedback.  Citizens do this already of course – conversations on the web are just that: fast, transient, informal chatter.  But it’s hard for organisations – especially health service ones who are addicted to the iron cage of bureaucratic rationality (also known as systems, procedures and protocols). For them it’s as if all your life you’ve been building a zoo where all the animals are safely contained and ordered and know when it’s their feeding time and then suddenly you find your job is to play in a jazz band –and to do it fast, hip and on the public stage of web where everyone can see you.

The real answer to this conundrum may lie with front line staff who know in their hearts that real care, great care, always involves as much fluidity and creativity as it does protocols and procedures. Getting things right, giving personal care, has always been about relationships and relationships are perpetually in motion, conditional, responsive each to the other.

So the lessons for us is to try and get the stories on Patient Opinion directed to front line staff rather than middle managers.  And that front-line staff should be empowered to listen, respond and change as a result of these dialogues. In this model web-based feedback becomes a way to nudge, remind and renew the professional heart that has currently been obscured by 15 years of systematising, evidence-based care. Conversations with patients and families after the event, about what could have been better, then become the multiple, systematic drivers of better care. And the web-based exchanges that trigger these thousands of micro improvements can  be summed into reputational measures that rank wards and departments and hospitals for their actual, public, proven ability to listen and learn from those they serve.    Now that's what Lord Darzi would really like.

We started Patient Opinion because we thought that it would be great way to aggregate and direct the collective wisdom of patients and carers. Then we realised that it was better to think of Patient Opinion as a way to create thousands of transparent, structured conversations between patients and providers with us acting as a giant switch board getting stories and responses to just the right people.

But sitting in my GP’s chair, a final lesson emerges in all this: The power to tell and re-tell the story of illness is part of how we all make sense of the meaningless depredations of disease. Telling your story on the web offers, for those that want it, new ways to do this: Our son was just twelve days old when he died. Throughout this distressing time the staff on the Neonatal Unit were outstanding. They treated him with dignity throughout his short life..…  the staff made us feel that his life was as significant to them as it was to us. Nurse Jan made a print of his feet and hands and put them together in a card with some clippings of his hair. On Father’s Day there was some chocolate for me that was labelled from him. (Full posting) The telling of such stories, the ability to speak even whilst grieving, has therapeutic benefits.

Add the promise that by sharing what you have learnt you might be able to help improve a small part of the world for everyone and the sick are offered that most precious thing, the possibility of themselves being needed for their insights, of giving some thing back to the community of the well, just at the moment when they feel at their most powerless. That the new forms of web-based voice can go beyond the passivity of suffering, and begin to make sense of what had previously been meaningless is perhaps their greatest promise:  ‘Mum’s illness was awful but we helped change things for everyone!’

The act of helping others is consoling because it reconnects us at a time when we are at our most alone. For the first time improving services can  be driven by the intrinsic desire to find meaning within the experience of disease.  Multiplied by the hundred thousand as only the web can, these transparent, directed dialogues move us beyond exit and voice and offer new glimpses of redemption in a post-market world.

One service user describes why she likes Patient Opinion.