Patchwork Featured in Report on Building Tech-Powered Public Services

Building Tech-Powered Public Serbices

Building Tech-Powered Public Services is a new report published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), looking at digital innovations in health and social care.

There are 7 major case studies in the report, including Patchwork. The other case studies are Casserole Club (a community that links people who like cooking with their neighbours who are in need of a hot meal), ADL SmartcareMental ElfPatient Opinion, The Digital Pen and form system and Woodland Wiggle.

These grassroots projects focus on the frontline experience of delivering and receiving public services, and avoid some of the pitfalls of top-down IT projects.

Sarah Bickerstaffe, the report’s author, answers two main questions:

Can technology improve the experience of people using public services?

“Technology can improve people’s experience of receiving public services, just as it has improved the user experience in so many other sectors. In health and social care particularly, the era of chronic conditions – which cannot be cured and are caused in large part by lifestyle factors – means that technology can play a critical role in placing power, responsibility and control in the hands of individuals to help them manage their own health.”

Could tech-powered public services be an affordable, sustainable solution to some of the challenges of austerity?

“Technology can also help to bear down on bureaucracy and ensure that the transactional elements of public services are as efficient as possible. More significantly, it can make a contribution to delivering more preventative services that stop or delay problems escalating, costing the taxpayer more downstream.”

There were clear and consistent lessons on how to successfully implement tech innovations in public services, which is covered on the FutureGov blog.

Here is the full Patchwork case study, but we encourage you to download the full report on the IPPR website.

Patchwork

Patchwork emerged when FutureGov founder Dominic Campbell watched a documentary on the catastrophic failings in care in the ‘Baby P’ case.

Campbell had experience working in local government as a head of back office strategy, as well as experience of implementing big IT systems.

He explains that while working within local government he became disillusioned by technology consisting of ‘inelegant inhuman systems that make you rewire your brain rather than fitting into the world around you’.

He was astonished that the terrible circumstances around Baby P were able to come about ‘in an era of Facebook’, when the general public can be so closely connected to one another .Campbell explains that he wondered:

‘How can one case worker not know what another might be concerned with?… I found information governance wouldn’t let us share information within ourselves, let alone across organisations … so putting that together with the [Baby P] documentary I thought “I know it doesn’ t have to be this way”.’

Instead, he became interested in the potential of:

‘… using modern open source networked technology to work in areas like CRM [customer relation management] and case management in particular – so a lot around case records and joining the dots a lot of the time between silos of information in the public sector to make sure that the public sector is working as well as possible and also empowering practitioners to do the best job possible.’

This process saw the founding of FutureGov, set up around five years ago, to begin to think about new ways of developing technology for and with the public sector.

The organisation benefitted from early Nesta investment, and used this to spend six months testing the Patchwork hypothesis with Lichfield in Staffordshire.

This process began with 12 weeks of design interventions and roughly 8–10 weeks of prototyping. Campbell explains:

‘We think that design research is totally fundamental to articulating the problem accurately … [Patchwork] has been going on for about three and a half years now, and I would say that a year and a half of that at least has been around design research of one form or another. In that first six months [design research] was two-thirds of it. Easily 50 per cent of our time.’

Following a pilot of the project in Lichfield, FutureGov expanded the process and went on to develop Patchwork in Brighton and Surr ey local authorities.

Impact

Quality of care: In connecting different practitioners around a child or family that they are working with, Patchwork can lead to better, more complete decisions and earlier interventions.

Practitioners can express concerns and add comments and observations, all without sharing confidential case information. In cr eating a ‘social network-like’ environment around an individual, outside agencies, GPs, local authority practitioners, education services and other health practitioners can see who else is working with the child or family in question, and get in touch with queries or comments.

A user -centred design process ensures that the programme is tailored to suit the users and that the various levels of team are satisfied with its use, meaning a more efficient take-up.

Productivity: Patchwork can save time for frontline staff, avoiding the need to spend time calling around to find out who is dealing with a child or family .

It can help to build relationships between health and social care agencies and enable earlier intervention to prevent problems developing and worsening.

Insofar as it pr events children and families from developing a need for more intensive public services, such as hospital stays or foster care, Patchwork has the potential to have a big impact on productivity, but it is very difficult to quantify the potential savings fr om avoiding future costs.

Wider lessons

For FutureGov, the first problems were a lack of trust and of basic contemporary and social technology literacy. So Campbell says that their initial work was around:

‘… teaching them the basics, just trying to get them to get back … to the possibility of major corporate transformation through social technology. But they were so behind you had to show them the basics and make the market before they could even imagine that it was trustworthy enough to do something serious with.’

FutureGov also encountered specific resistance in the working culture of the local authorities to the idea of transparency.

Campbell talks about how digital technology ‘codifies’ practice – how normal, logical practice quite often happens outside of official frameworks of behaviour.

Putting this into a system as a supported behaviour acknowledges practices that everyone does in day-to-day work, but no one talks about.

These are actions that officially might be frowned upon but are taken because the practitioner believes them to be in the best interest of the service user.

Exposing these practices can be incredibly disruptive:

‘Patchwork is so challenging as a change to working, in ways we didn’ t even realise … people moan about the silos [of information on cases] when they’re in them and how disruptive they are to services, but if you give them the opportunity to join up those silos you realise that kind of openness and connectivity terrifies them … It’s like going from dark to light overnight, you’ve gone from “this is my case, it’s locked down, I know I’m the only person who can see this stuff, I can write whatever I want about this individual” to the next moment where, for example, the drug and alcohol team are terrified because even though there’s no information sharing (it’s just a way of connecting practitioners) the police and JobCentre can see that they’ve also got a connection to that client. That’s suddenly … a new level of transparency and openness that they’re just not used to.’

Frontline workers also sometimes felt that they did not have the capacity needed to learn how to use a new technology.

While the Patchwork software is timesaving, learning how to work with it does require an initial time investment. An internal evaluation document produced by FutureGov notes that a significant response from practitioners (especially around the adoption of technology while ‘in development’) was a concern about a lack of time.

‘Another participant saw this as an additional administrative task that duplicated work already undertaken for their own agency/service requirements by stating that s/he had already ‘a lot of admin tasks for our own record keeping’. It became apparent that participants ‘only [saw] this as a pilot’ and thus the amount of ef fort given to contribute and maintain Patchwork when balancing challenging workloads was reduced. One participant summed this up by stating ‘ if other people don’t get in involved maybe we haven’t got to do it ’. Some practitioners made it clear that they were ‘told’ to work with Patchwork, but workloads prohibited any deep engagement. Notwithstanding the ease of use of Patchwork … participants felt it was difficult to remember to log on and contribute to the system. They proposed that it has not yet become automatic to go to Patchwork as part of their daily work, suggesting if it were to be a substantial part of their working practice, rather than a pilot, it would become more  automatic.’

Campbell believes that educating public sector workers on the process of user-centred design will help to overcome the perception that existing workloads make the adoption of new technology impossible: involvement in the development process requires investment of time, but develops a better, more efficient product.

From the perspective of a technology developer, having team members with public sector experience was important. FutureGov relied heavily on this expertise to find an authority with which to begin a pilot, when they received an initial grant with the provison that they were to spend it within a matter of months.

‘But if you were outside of the kind of network we have, I just don’t know where you would start’.

For this reason, FutureGov are also involved in setting up a platform called Simpl, described as ‘an ideas crowd-sourcing platform’ – which ‘surfaces good ideas’ – solutions to problems that practitioners and public alike can highlight, and crucially ‘in one place’ that councils can look at. Employing people with experience of the public sector means they have a shared language and a meeting point when it comes to the design and development process.

It was also important for product development, as it provided an understanding of the context in which products would be used.

‘The thing that drives me most nuts about the “cool kids” who are getting into this space now is that they haven’ t got the patience to go and engage with councils and practitioners, and therefore they build things that are kind of right – because [they] lead with technology rather than design.’

This ‘kind of right’ innovation feeds the resistance in the public sector to technology that is unwieldy or ‘fashionable’ but not, ultimately, useful.

Looking at Patchwork in action, Campbell notes the difficulty in quantifying impact when interventions are designed primarily to prevent future problems occurring.

‘It’s a preventative tool, so working out how many issues you prevented a vulnerable adult having, or how many kids you protected, it’s challenging, but it’s stuff we’re getting very heavy on, demonstrating impact … It’s vital, especially if we’re talking about new creative social technology too, which is more about social capital – more nebulous … I think the evaluation framework for this stuff is still to be born. There’s nothing good out there, yet – probably because most councils aren’t working in that way yet.’

Building a sound business case, based on a proof of concept, pilot evidence and strong evaluation techniques, is crucial.

Once the business case is ready, exposure to key decision-makers in procurement and public sector innovation is also incredibly important.

This is still a problem for FutureGov:

‘I see people like Jeremy Hunt paying £9.2 million for a child protection system for NHS and A&E hospitals, to join them up (but not to councils) and I know that with a third of that we could offer Patchwork to the whole country: A&E, council, social care team, whatever you wanted.

So when I see that, that’s when I realise you have to connect to the top level … the people who cost out those ridiculous £9.2 million budgets. There isn’t an opportunity for new entrants at that scale.’

Making Patchwork Happen in Brighton and Hove

Thanks go to Paul Brewer, Head of Performance for Children’s Services in Brighton and Hove Council, for writing this guest post for us.  As well as leading on all things performance for Children’s Services, Paul has also been leading the Patchwork project in Brighton and Hove.  

He has been involved with the project from the very beginning and here he shares some of his thinking about what it takes to make Patchwork happen on the ground.

 Patchwork is not a technology project…

Patchwork is an incredibly interesting and challenging project to work on. I remember back at Brighton & Hove’s launch event in November 2011, Carrie from Futuregov put up a slide of a road stretching out to the horizon, talking about how Patchwork was not a technology project.  Well, that was so true!

It is about connections across agencies

In the period since, I’ve seen some amazing connections made between different practitioner groups, deep discussion about the nature of multi-agency working and growing confidence around the need to get on and share information to help provide the best care.

Patchwork has also helped bring support services from different organisations together. Having a real thing to discuss and implement has been really galvanizing and helped lots of people move away from abstractions. It really hasn’t been easy at times, but I guess that’s when you know something is helping you change and make breakthroughs.

Because Patchwork is about creating the professional network in an area, the stakeholder map is large and varied. We’ve done a lot of work in Brighton & Hove engaging with organisations by finding ways to explain Patchwork that make the most sense to them, and this seems to have worked. We have a satisfyingly long and varied list of engaged organisations and practitioners.

It’s been really helpful to…

Ask people what benefits they see arising from Patchwork really helps. They can think about their own work and realize for themselves how Patchwork could help.  This approach has also helped us figure out which groups of organisations should go live at the same time. For example, we’re pulling together a bunch of organisations that deal with adult mental health and substance misuse, both statutory and community and voluntary sector.

Spending time with the different stakeholders within organisations has been invaluable.  It’s not enough to get the support of only the Chief Executive, although that is very helpful! It’s been really beneficial to give others dedicated time, and listen to their perspectives and address their concerns.

Avoiding forcing Patchwork on people by making it “mandatory” has also been the right approach. Forcing things through doesn’t work in the long run.  We’re doing lots to encourage use and are making sure certain types of involvement (such as children with a child protection social worker) can always be found, to help make the benefits really clear.

And in a nutshell

I think the engagement journey in Brighton & Hove has been about confidence in the Patchwork idea and a respectful but unswerving persistence.  Seeing people move from skepticism or cynicism and into trust and enthusiasm is amazing.  And I think this come from finding ways to give the thing away, so that people can feel it can be theirs too.  Their own “no-brainer”.

Oh, and being able to talk very precisely about the law and privacy definitely helps.

If you want to know more about the Brighton and Hove experience you can check out their website, or contact us here at FutureGov and we will be happy to help.  It would also be great to hear whether you enjoyed this post as we line up some more guest posts for Patchwork.

Patchwork goes global as pilot kicks off in Victoria, Australia

mav2

In our first major step into working with local public services outside of the UK, Patchwork will be launching in Australia over coming months, kicking off a pilot with a consortium of councils thanks to our partners MAV (or Municipal Association of Victoria) and a number of local councils.

Originally designed with frontline practitioners in Lichfield and Staffordshire, Patchwork will soon be used by local government 11 time zones and 24 hours travel away in Victoria, Australia.

Over the next four months we will be focused on training up a cohort of early adopters and enthusiasts to see how Patchwork can help to better coordinate their work in supporting families and young people to provide them with the best possible support. A team headed up by Patchwork lead Kirsty Elderton will work with practitioners to get the councils up and running and making the most of the system, improving ways of working and outcomes in the process.

Working alongside Kirsty are our Aussie design partners, DMA. Mel and Justin will work with Kirsty to both support the roll out, evaluate the impact but also take a specific look at Maternal and Child Health Services, mapping out where technology and service change could help a rethink in how M&CH practitioners are supported to do their job.

We’ll be blogging progress as we go, but for now here’s the press release circulated by MAV today.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Patchwork to pilot more connected family and youth services

19 March 2013

A new pilot project will work with a consortium of councils to transform the way governments interact with vulnerable families in maternal and child health, and youth services.

Cr Bill McArthur, President of the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) said Patchwork was a simple social technology solution to connect staff from different agencies working with clients in common.

“FutureGov, a leader in technology-led public service change will this week meet with Melbourne councils who have expressed in-principle support to participate in the MAV-funded Patchwork pilot.

“We hope to build on the success of the original UK Patchwork project developed by FutureGov.

“Using a simple web application, UK families have benefited from the administration efficiencies of agencies sharing and updating information when working with the same vulnerable clients.

“Patchwork can improve collaboration, offer joined-up services from multiple agencies, lead to earlier intervention where required, and deliver better outcomes for families.

“It builds a full picture of client needs while also achieving time and cost savings.

“While the MAV’s initial focus will be on maternal and child health, and youth services in pilot municipalities, the project is potentially applicable to a wide range of human service areas in which councils are involved.

“Once the pilot is complete, we will explore the opportunity to roll it out to all Victorian councils, and to create links with other public sector and community agencies.

“We have also briefed several State Government departments interested in being a part of the pilot,” he said.

The UK company FutureGov uses design, technology and change to rethink how local public services are delivered. Dominic Campbell, FutureGov’s founder is in Australia from 18 to 22 March to discuss the Melbourne Patchwork pilot with the MAV, interested councils and State Government departments.

Dominic Campbell said the FutureGov team was passionate about local government and excited at the opportunity to work with forward-thinking colleagues at the MAV and councils in Victoria to implement an innovative solution to joining up local public services.

“There is a real opportunity to rethink how frontline services are supported through well designed, user friendly technology and we hope to help play a part in this in Victoria,” he said.

Kirsty Elderton, Patchwork Program Manager will be in Australia to work intensively with pilot councils and other program partners from April to July.

– Ends –

For more information about Patchwork: http://patchworkhq.com 

Contact the MAV President, Cr Bill McArthur on 0437 984 793 or MAV Communications on (03) 9667 5521.

 

Patchwork now available to all local authorities to support work with children and families

It’s three years to the month since we first shared our idea with the world. Today sees us celebrate the launch of version one of Patchwork at our Working with Troubled Families event.

Today really marks the start of a new phase for Patchwork. The official, post-pilot launch. Yes you heard it right. The launch to market of Patchwork – the multi-agency app.

The last three years have seen us take an idea, work with practitioners and their clients to test the concept, understand the complexities of multi-agency working, overcome information sharing and consent challenges and design something which elegantly starts to reinvent how technology can support practitioners to do an even better job of safeguarding children and older adults and supporting families.

We’ve come a long way in the last year in particular thanks to support from our funding and implementation partners. We’ve built on the pilots in both Staffordshire and Brighton, and included lots of feedback from frontline practitioners who have been using Patchwork As well as responding to specific requests around the what and the how of the technology, there has been a complete overhaul of app’s design, user experience and security.

We’re also delighted to announce that for version one we’ll be working with SCC to provide an appropriately secure service for Patchwork users building on their government grade cloud infrastructure.

Todays launch event will feature a panel of speakers from local government as well as independent experts in Children’s Social Care. They will share their stories about untangling the complexities of the troubled families and safeguarding agendas and explore new approaches being used around the country. We will also showcase version one of Patchwork and discuss how digital technology of this kind can be used to support these agendas.

And the hard work doesn’t stop here. As version one is rolled out to our partner authorities, Staffordshire and Brighton and Hove, the development of Patchwork will continue to remain an open and collaborative process that has users at it’s heart. We already have a long wish-list of requests for post-version one that we’re ready to get started on – and we expect they’ll be a lot more. A key priority over the Autumn is to develop Patchwork so that it can be used as a tool to support the Troubled Families agenda. Visualising the team around the family has been a key ask from practitioners, and it’s something that we are committed to developing for the New Year. So watch this space!

Last but most definitely not least – the thank yous

So many people, so much generosity and so much support in helping us get this far. Forgive me for sticking (mostly) to the headline supporters of the project. I would love to list each and every person who has played a role by name but I may save that for another blog post. You know who you are, we do too. And we can’t thank you enough.

In chronological order, thank you…

Round table participants
ECDP
Westminster City Council
NESTA
Lichfield District Council, Staffordshire and other local partners
Brighton and Hove City Council
Nominet
SCC

And most of all thank you to my devoted and hardworking team at FutureGov who have gone above and beyond to make today a reality.

We’re at the end of the beginning. Now onwards…

What are we up to over the summer?

Busy old times here at PatchworkHQ. We’ve reached that point in the project where all the hard work is coming together but there’s still a tonne of stuff to do before we can finally take a breather. A heady mixture of pressure and excitement that makes Patchwork such a great project to work on.

So what have we been up to over the summer?

Were building up to the launch of version 1 of Patchwork on 27 September, yey!! Keep the date free – details coming soon.

Getting to this point has been the result of lots of hard work from the Patchwork team and amazing support from our local authority pilots.

It’s been a particularly intense time for the development team, who’ve spent the last few months getting from a prototype version of the app to version 1. This work has built on the pilots of the software run in Brighton and Staffordshire, and has included lots of feedback from front-line practitioners who have been using the software during these pilots. There are still a busy few weeks ahead for the tech team, undertaking quality assurance and testing but we’re nearly there now. This means we’ll be able to offer version 1 to any area that would like to work with us from September.

Also on the techie side of things, we’re about to go through the tender to be part of the G-Cloud supplier community. This would mean that Patchwork would be available to buy through the G-Cloud store shortly.  So watch this space.

We continue to work with Staffordshire County Council and its partners and Brighton & Hove City to support the change process and get more people on Patchwork. We are also looking ahead to future development of the app, taking into account what users have told us would be useful. A key part of this will be to look at how Patchwork can be used as a tool to support the troubled families agenda. We’ll be working with our local authority partners to make this happen over the Autumn period.

So that’s we’re working on. Just as well the sun has decided not to show it’s face this summer….

So. Does it work? Learning from early evaluation results in Staffordshire

LWT_Training

Hard to believe that we’ve now been piloting Patchwork in some teams in Lichfield District for nearly 6 months – but we have, and we’re now starting to evaluate it and see what we need to do to better improve the tool.

The first step in this was to get users from both the Let’s Work Together and Supporting Families projects – from all organisations – together into a workshop to start trying to find out their views of patchwork, how they’d used it and whether they’d found any problems.

And so it was in the first week of April we got together a mixture of careers advisors, social housing officers, school nurses, positive activities workers, housing officers and people from the Local Support Teams in a room along with our external evaluation team. Over the few hours of the session, everyone was encouraged – anonymously – to provide their feedback and make their suggestions for what could be improved.

I was lucky enough to sit in on the session and hear first-hand the comments of users – all of whom had to continue to provide excellent service to clients whilst trialling the tool for us. Fortunately any  nervousness I had beforehand about what they might say was unfounded. There was universal agreement that Patchwork as a tool was easy to use and practitioners could immediately see the benefits of it, not least because some of them in the room had actively been involved in designing it. We discussed whether the users wanted it, and the good news is “This pilot – practitioners have immediate buy in”, and the message was “we don’t need systems to talk to each other, we need people to talk to each other”. They told us how easy it was to add clients and maintain their own contact details – and how simple and user friendly the whole thing was. One practitioner said how he was surprised at how easy it was to add clients – “it only takes about 30seconds” – at which point another added, “yeah, I just added four before coming over here this morning”.

It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows. The biggest problem staff had was around talking to the clients themselves about the tool and getting their consent to be added. We discussed at length why this might be and it seems there’s no single answer; it ranged from some client’s fears of “big brother” type technology to some young adults worrying that their parents might be made aware of the services they were using. But this reveals there’s work to be done to simplify what approval is needed before clients are added – and providing material to help practitioners answer some of these challenges when they’re raised.

We also talked about where next for Patchwork and the main message was around linking it to the Troubled Families agenda coming from Communities and Local Government and other central government departments. Practitioners recognise that a child or young adult is deeply affected by their family (however that term can be defined) and we discussed whether this could be built in – “it’s the piece of the puzzle that’s missing”.

There’s lots and lots to work through to see how and whether this can be done, but the team are already going away and discussing what this might look like, what it means technically for the tool and – perhaps most critically – what it means for information sharing.

We’re still evaluating – looking at the anonymous data to provide some stats around how Patchwork’s been used; talking to more and more people about how they used it and what they thought; and trying this all together in terms of any changes that need to be made in moving to version one of the tool.

As we work through these things, there’ll be more updates here.

‘I’d rather go to jail for sharing too much information than not enough’

Image: Paolo Marconi

Talking to a room full of child protection practitioners at the launch of our work with Brighton and Hove City Council recently, I outlined the story of Patchwork to date.  The response was great – I couldn’t have hoped for more enthusiasm and participation from everyone there.  We had a full house and even a potential fire hazard at one point, until we made more space for the nearly 90 practitioners that turned up.

It was a proud moment sharing our journey with Patchwork so far and it’s clear that designing the app with practitioners instead of at them has led to a product that meets their needs.  No one questioned the point of Patchwork – all the questions were asking what it does and what more it could do (answer: plenty!).

As you can imagine, a lot of the questions were about information security.  Is it open to just anyone?  How do you stop people randomly searching for others?  And of course people wanted to know if they could upload their case notes and use it as a multi-agency messaging system.  This is where my heart sinks a bit.  Technically can we do that stuff?  Of course!  In reality will we be able to do that stuff?  Right now it seems a couple of years off.

The problem is Information Governance.  I don’t have the background to go into the detail of it, but our work on Patchwork has introduced us to a moral maze (or is that a legal labyrinth?) of Information Governance issues.  The law (or is it policy? or guidance?) is confusing to say the least, but more confusing is the way that the public sector’s policies seem set up to prevent good working links between different agencies – health, police, local councils, voluntary sector, housing associations, private companies, fire service and even individuals like parents and carers.

This post is not a rant about how bad the policies are, or how the law should be changed.  It’s a call to local authorities and other public sector agencies to invest in their Information Governance teams.  Investing in anything right now is a tall ask but if there’s anything that can save money in the medium to long term it’s having an all-star, red-hot Information Governance team.

I know what it’s like – you see ‘Information Governance’ on a budget line and think ‘That’s got ‘cut’ written all over it’.  After all, who really knows what those guys do?  Didn’t we just invest in Sharepoint?  Wasn’t that supposed to solve all these problems and mean that information is flowing round the organisation like a well oiled machine? (How’s that working out for you by the way?).

Here’s what a top-notch Information Governance team should be doing:  working out how local authorities can share information with other agencies (and vice versa) without compromising people’s privacy and security; thinking about how to work with cloud computing and the security and information implications of having data hosted outside of the council; helping staff in services understand how to use the web safely; helping you figure out how you can stop investing in big expensive systems and start running lightweight web-based apps.  I’d like to see more suggestions in the comments…

Most local authority Information Governance teams are only a couple of people strong if you’re lucky, and those we’ve encountered in the NHS seem to be about the same.  They’re overworked, under-resourced and operating in a world that is rapidly dying.  No wonder their default position is to say ‘no’ and to operate an approvals-based system that leaves you guessing at what might satisfy their standards.  They don’t have time to work together to find solutions and ways to break through the barriers, they only have time to highlight risk.  Furthermore they work in a field that is tabloid heaven.  If something goes wrong it’s their responsibility (legally) and their name in the Daily Mail.  The fear of blame is endemic in the public sector and leads to restrictive practice all over the place.  But that’s another post for another day.

The point is that it’s easy to blame Information Governance teams for not being progressive enough or for constantly blocking innovation.  But good information governance is essential to keep services running in a web-enabled world, and it’s the last thing that should be running on a shoestring.  It’s time to invest in professionals who know their stuff, have in-depth knowledge of web technology and security, and have time to support the organisation in how they use technology and use it right, not whether to use it at all.

If this post had any influence at all we’d see 400 councils rushing out to recruit their own Information Governance teams.  But in reality a district probably doesn’t need its own team, and in many ways even a county doesn’t.  It would be way more interesting to see local authorities and other public agencies investing together in a shared Information Governance resource, perhaps at county or city level.  They could afford more and better advice and the advice would be applicable to a region rather than a fragmented agency-by-agency basis.  That would put organisations on an equal footing and create the conditions for multi-agency working to be successful.

Meanwhile, back at PatchworkHQ we’ll be spending the next 6 months trying to work through the information governance issues associated with letting practitioners from different agencies just see who else is working with their cases.  The title of this post is a quote from a social worker who refuses to let the absurdity of current Information Governance rules dictate her practice, and we’re fortunate to work with many others who feel the same.

Onwards!