Knowledge Management Strategy at MonitorCulture, benefits and implications for the new Sector Regulator3 May 2012

Knowledge Management StrategyBehaviours, culture, ROI

Monitor’s KM strategy and implications for its future roleNeil StutchburyKnowledge Management Director

Monitor, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Introduction

Overview of Monitor’s role

• Foundation Trust regulation

• Sector regulation

How Monitor uses Knowledge Management for regulating Foundation Trusts

Behaviours, culture, ROI

Implications for new role as Sector regulator

FT regulator: Assessment

Monitor’s work assessing and authorising trusts to continue

Majority of trusts expected to gain FT status by 2014

Monitor will maintain the ‘bar’ for entry standards 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

10

31 32

62

92

117

129137

144

More foundation

trusts

Governors are able to develop

their skills

57% of acute, 73% of mental health and 27% of ambulance trusts are now FTs: FTs have a cumulative turnover in excess of £31.8 billion

Monitor to retain role of FT regulator

Increasing number of FTs means more FTs to regulate

Greater financial pressure on the system – more trusts in difficulty

Monitor to regulate all providers

FT regulator: Compliance

Monitor’s future role

Continuing role as

FT regulator

Sector regulator

role

• Assessing NHS trusts for FT status: Target of 2014

• Regulating FTs: Ongoing

• Price regulation: joint responsibility of Monitor (price levels) and NHS CB (pricing structure)

• Enabling integration: Monitor and commissioners both have responsibility to see that more efficient and coordinated care pathways are created

• Preventing anti-competitive behaviour: Where against the interest of healthcare users, approach will be based on current rules, the PRCC

• Licensing providers: Working with CQC, licence would ensure providers meet required standards

• Continuity of service: New process to protect essential services

As Is (Jan 2010)

Information Management Issues Ownership for shared information was unclear

Information was hard to find

Some information was inaccessible (due to access controls)

No version control: difficult to be sure which is the final version

Unable to perform historical trend analysis because the data was not in one place

Critical knowledge leaves the organisation when people leave

The number of in-year monitoring reports we produce per year is growing

exponentially

Information volumes are growing

As time passes, the situation will only get worse

Vision

A single repository of all Monitor’s information • We store information in one place, • We store information once and re-use it many times• “Single version of the truth”

A culture of sharing our knowledge and information• Our instinct is to share what we know with our colleagues• We all take responsibility for owning and managing

the information we share with others

Benefits• We can find the information and expertise we need to do our jobs• We can trust the information when we’ve found it

Outcomes• Timely and informed decision making: reduced risk• Greater efficiency and productivity• Retention of corporate knowledge

Approach

Business transformation

• Timely and appropriate intervention• Enhanced productivity• Retain corporate memory

• Open information sharing• Nurturing expertise• Information ownership• Good information management

practicesCultural

transformation

• Automated processes• Central information repository• Internal and external informationNew systems

and processes

• Training on systems• Training on IM• Day to day support• Hints and tips, clinics

Training and

Support

To BeA Single Version of the Truth

Information Repository

Assessment MonitoringEscalation/Intervention

External Data

External Partners/

Stakeholders

Internal functions: HR, Comms, Legal,

Policy etc

1 23

Documents

Correspondence Data

connect2: Single Information Repository

• Contacts• Trust status• Portfolio update• Correspondence

CRM

• Emails• Calendars

Exchange

• Monitoring data• Trust data• Healthcare data...

SQL Server

• Documents• Reports• Workflows• Collaboration...

SharePointFTs regulatory compliance returns

Up/downloadtemplates

Documents, links

Reports

Email, Calendar

ContactsTracked emails

Portfolio updates

Reports

Templates

Alerts

Contacts

Docs

Updates

AD

Browser interface

MS Office

Outlook

Overall Timeline

Develop KM

Strategy

Plan and

tender for

partner

Development and implementation

Exploitation and benefits

Jan 10 May 10 Nov 10 Oct 11

connect2:Intranet

connect2:Assessment

connect2:Compliance

connect2:Monitor

Impl in SP 2010

Develop

Develop

HR, Comms, Legal etc

Pilot Live

LiveTest

N D J F M A M J J A

2010 2011

Benefits

Financial

Non-Financial

Measureable Non-Measureable

Benefits

Financial

Non-Financial

Measureable Non-Measureable

£370k saving from retiring legacy systems and services

10% productivity improvement in quarterly monitoring

Faster to create Assessment board decision packs

Time saved finding information

More timely, richer internal communications

Capturing and sharing knowledge

Faster and richer induction for new starters

Reduced risk of making inappropriate or untimely regulatory decisions

Faster to respond to FOI requests and MP questions

KM Culture and Behaviours

KM culture must align to corporate values• Monitor: “professional”, “open”, “collaborative”

Our KM culture • Open information sharing• Valuing each other’s expertise and knowledge• Our instinct is to share what we know

Required behaviours• People save their work in connect2 for sharing with others• Take responsibility for own information • Annotate documents with metadata• Look up information in connect2 first; ask second • Organisation recognises and rewards collaborative behaviours

KM Examples

Trust “e-diaries”

Track meetings with stakeholders

connect2 champions

All FT information in one place

Track all FOI data requests

Knowledge sessions

Implications for Monitor’s new role

Changes to KM strategy• Shared systems and data with partners (NHS CB, CQC, IC, CCGs…)• More complex organisation (4-5 times larger)

New business systems required for new functions• Licencing providers (with CQC)• Pricing system (with PBR team, NHS CB)• Integrated services and competition analysis (with CCP, NHS CB, CCGs)• Continuity of service

New compliance process required for licencing regime

Timely access to quality information will be a critical success factor

Monitor relationships - today

FT regulation

Regulating FTs

Responsibility for ensuring patients have access to quality services

Providers

Monitor relationships - tomorrow

Pricing, protecting against anti-competitive behaviour

Data sharing

LicencingFT regulation

Integration & protecting against anti-competitive behaviour

Regulating FTsLicensing, protecting against anti-competitive behaviour

Protect and promote patients interests

Responsibility for ensuring patients have access to quality services

Clinical Commissioning Groups

Patients

Providers

Conclusions

Developed and delivered a KM strategy for Monitor which has centralised its information capture, improved productivity and reduced risk of poor decision making

Monitor is gearing up to meet its responsibilities in the Health and Social Care Act 2012: information and collaboration across the health service is going to be critical

Thank you for listening

Any questions?