Skip to content

Q logo

  • john mortimer posted an update in the group Reimagining Health and Care 4 months ago

    Hi there everyone. I have been invovled in redesigning work now for awhile, and more recently I ahve written up an account of a prototype in health and social care. The work itself is an exampel of what happens when we take a team of health profewssionals,a nd allow them to design their services from the perspective of the peopl ein the community. Taking away the restrictions that they wold normally have form the wider organisation. Some of you might recognise this as a Buurtzorg set of principles.
    woudl this be an interesting webinar to put on for this group?
    John

    • Sounds rather fabulous to me – great way to get things going for 2022. And we can certainly help set up and promote a Zoom with you on this. I’m sure it would get a lot of interest. Brendan from Buurtzorg UK might even come along too. Was he involved?

      As far as I know, Jane and Matt – who were convening this group – both have their hands full with other things at the moment. But let’s see if they have any thoughts…

      • Hi there,
        Thanks for the reply. I know that session of the Human Learning Systems with that Gary Wallace and Toby Lowe went down well with regard to health. So I thought that this might be topical.
        I know Brendan well and he is aware of this work. Not not sure if participating would be something that he would want to do? The principles are Buurtzorg inspired, but this is a not a copy of the Buurtzorg approach.
        John

      • If we go ahead with this, we could decide if it’s worth reaching out to Brendan to listen in.

        It certainly got interesting when Brendan got into a discussion with CPI about their Buurtzorg-influenced children’s social care model, which he felt – if I remember correctly – had ended up rather too structured and programmatic in approach, or something like that.

        Let’s see what we hear from Matt Bell and Jane Pightling first…

      • Your point about a structured vs open approach is a very important one, and also part of the case study. I think we can almost split some of this into two groups; one is the case study itself, which deceives what actually happened. The other are the concepts, frameworks, principles and methods that lie behind it. Perhaps both wold be of interest, but usually not all at the same time!
        John

    • Hi John – two sessions could be great, with this split, if you think that would work. Which would go first, the frameworks or the case study…? Maybe the theory, so we can then see how it plays out in reality? But maybe seeing the reality, and then reflecting with more of a meta lens is equally good. Better even?
      We’ve got a bit of a crunch on right now, but will contact you in a week or two to think together about dates etc. Hopefully will have heard back from Matt Bell and Jane Pightling before then too…

      • Great, I hope this happens. As to your question. It is a good one. I tend to find that the practice opens peoples eyes, then relate the theory to those stories and outcomes. People remember the practice better in my experience, so they can hold it until we discuss theory.
        That would be my suggestion.
        I am also posting this as a case study in the Human Learning Systems site.
        I did originally try and contact Jane and Matt, but when I tried something did not work.
        I will wait until you get back to me.

      • Hi John – starting with the practice, moving to theory sounds like it works well. (That kind of fits with the ‘What, So What, Now What?’ flow in Liberating Structures).
        We’ll get in touch in a week or so to start firming up dates.
        We can certainly cross-promote to Human Learning Systems, and other places that will be interested…