Broken user journeys. Feedback, complaints and constructive dialogue.
It was a lively session with lots of participation, thoughtful dialogue and respectful comments. It covered many things and this is news of only one of the issues raised by the hosts, and only one of the (many) responses from a packed room.
Please give examples of things that have worked well.
Thank you London. This is the report from Team Non-Judgemental. We have identified 4 good observations; things that have worked well; that has led us to establish 4 guiding principles; and we have detected a single, unifying undercurrent.
- There is value in a system which promotes continuous feedback, especially among co-workers, and encourages action.
- The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is a public sector body which has a valid, competent feedback & complaints process that has demonstrated the value of handling issues sensitively and responding positively.
- Care Opinion, a social enterprise, offers patients an opportunity to provide feedback about their experience of health and social care. Being independent of government, it adds authenticity to patient stories and equally to clinicians. Its processes are transparent.
- The hallway track, the time and space between formal sessions at conferences and unconferences, provides an opportunity for ad hoc dialogue, and has been shown serendipitously to generate valuable concepts and ideas which are not covered in the mainstream sessions.
- Authentic listening skills are valuable.
- An ethos of openness promotes authenticity in everything.
- Clearly identified roles enable the presenter, the aggrieved, the respondent, and all related parties to act cohesively and beneficially for all.
- Diplomacy in dialogue is valuable, with an emphasis on eliminating personal biases.
Think things through. The presenter, the aggrieved, the respondent, and all related parties benefit from careful thought. Authentic, deep thought, both in conveying an issue; and in responding to it.