SP and OA
Progressive thinking
conceptual model 2021
Data Flow Model v1
OR
Aggregator
(validator and normaliser)
Booking system
OA data feed
OA data feed
Social Prescribing application
Activity provider
Activity Portal
Frontline worker
Service user
Managers
Activity provider
Activity provider
Activity provider
OR API
OR collection tool
Session
code
Session
code
Sufficiency data
Demand data
Booking contact details
Booking
ref
Booking system
Social Prescribing application
suggest activities
choose specific activity
Choose specific session
Session code
Activity provider
Data Flow Model v1
Frontline worker
Service user
Managers
Obtain a session code
Deep link into booking system
Auto or Manual
Obtain a email address or phone number
A
M
Make booking
Booking ref
Make booking
4
OA data enhancements?
Data Flow Model
Essential NHS SP data requirements - (PRSB standards published 31/12/2021)
Data Flow Model v2
OR
Aggregator
(validator and normaliser)
Booking system
OA data feed
OA data feed
Social Prescribing application
Activity provider
Activity Portal
Frontline worker
Service user
Managers
Activity provider
Activity provider
Activity provider
OR API
OR collection tool
Session
code
Session
code
Sufficiency data
Demand data
Booking
Contact
details
Booking
ref
Feedback
Volunteer management
system
Find
befriender
Self-care
Benefits expected
Front end benefits
Back end benefits
Measures
Potential taxonomy model
NHS
Social Prescribing Application
Service/Activity (OR/OA) Collection Application
Many different applications collecting lots of service/activity data
Social Prescribing Assurance
Professional review to consolidate information
Local Gov
Service Directory Application
Third Sector
Specialist Application
Snomed mapping to base terms
Needs mapped to base terms
Specialist category mapped to base terms
Maintained by sector
Social Prescribing Aggregator
Consumes OA feed and OR endpoints
Will use keyword, term matching and mappings to fund services/activities
Target audience
(Condition/circumstance that is specifically targeted)
Activity type
(Hierarchically linked to service-type list)
Accessibility
(Assists in venue and assists from Service/Activity )
Maintained by ODI
Application will need to be OA/OR compliant
Delivered by NHSX
Data Flow Model v3
OR/OA
Aggregator
(validator and normaliser)
Booking system
OA data feed
OA data feed
Social Prescribing application
Activity provider
Activity Portal
Frontline worker
Service user
Managers
Activity provider
Activity provider
Activity provider
OR API
OR collection tool
Session
code
Session
code
Sufficiency data
Demand data
Booking
Contact
details
Booking
ref
Feedback
Volunteer mgt
system
Find
befriender
Self-care
Assurance
(date and service)
Potential taxonomy model v2
OR/OA Collection Application
Many applications
SP Normaliser
Brings OA feeds and OR endpoints together
SP Assurance
Professional review to provide quality assurance
NHS
Social Prescribing Application
Local Gov
Service Directory Application
Third Sector
Specialist Application
Snomed mapping to base terms
Needs mapped to base terms
Specialist category mapped to base terms
Target audience
(Condition/ circumstance that is specifically targeted)
Activity type
(Hierarchically linked to Service-type list)
Accessibility
(Assists in venue and assists from Service/Activity )
Maintained by sector
Will use keyword, term matching and mappings to fund services/activities
Maintained by ODI
Application will need to be OA/OR compliant
Delivered by NHSX
OA and OR data are collected by many compliant applications allowing Service/Activity providers to categorise using the base terms.
All feeds and endpoints are aggregated. Professional users are allowed to give an ‘approvement’ of SP quality (somehow?)
Assurers provide data quality assurance.
Applications can find services/activities through keyword or a mapping of their taxonomy to base terms
SP Assurer
Checks the data quality according to level of provider
11
OR
SNOMED
NHS
Accessibility
Service/activity
-type
Target Audience
Adult Social Care
Police
Housing
Leisure
Education
Fire Service
Needs
Poverty
??
Potential taxonomy model
??
??
??
??
??
Sector to central taxonomies
Sectors
Deliverable
Filter directly on central taxonomies
OA
Key Barriers
Key Barriers
Key Barriers - consolidated for workshop
Key Barriers - Tooling & Standards Review
Key Barriers - General observations
Potential standards recommendations (just easier to view than all the tables)
Potential tooling recommendations (just easier to view than all the tables)
Review of Frontline barriers
Barriers | Strategies | Standards | Tooling |
Lack of rich data set for local activities that is up to date/correct (I think the barrier is no confidence in the accuracy of the data) | Richness checks. Up-to-dateness checks. SLAs on data providers. QA assessment of publishers. Ranking poor data lower. Promote and improve activity finders Assurance level or trusted activity providers | Last updated fields. Equivalent of OR UK’s “Review” to denote who has approved | Richness and up-to-dateness checking |
Confidence about suitability of sessions to meet clients needs - tend to be complex clients e.g. MH (there are two barriers I think - one is that appropriate offers don't exist and then the second one is concern about the risk of recommendng something that they havent seen / attended) | Intended audience Pathways, needs and target audience point to activities | Include SP ready type data e.g. facilitator present Clarity over where eligibility and intended audience not given if this means suitable for all. | |
| | | |
Confidence of suitability of activity provider (i think the barrier is confidence that the provider can cope with the behaviours / needs of the customer) | Reviews by frontline workers who have sent people and received feedback. | Add reviews and certifications | Professionals giving thumbs up to activity providers |
Confidence of suitability of service and venue accessibility - is this confidence about service and venue accessbility?? | Have a classification of suitability - maybe align to needs/circs Kite mark for safeguarding & SP | Accessibility data for locations and sessions | Professionals giving thumbs up to activity providers |
Capacity required to support/hand-hold client to attend the session (I think the barrier is that people need a hand-holder - not that the capacity isnt there. People dont attend becuase they dont vocalise the need for this role) | Enable increases resource to support - Add in befriender/buddy - May require suitability & availability of buddy. Group together people who want to go to a particular activity in the service finder? | | |
Service description and offers not always easy to digest/understand | Review offers. This could be used in a score or rank in the future. Guidance on improving data quality Show different information if used for SP | | Language translator e.g. reading age of 10, plain english Use different information if SP ready |
Review of activity providers barriers
Barriers | Strategies | Standards | Tooling |
Having digital skills and system to update activity, session info and give feedback (GDPR) | Information, guidance in using tooling | | Validation and completeness checks on whole feeds and on specific opportunities. Live feed availability checker Suitability checker per use case |
Need to manage capacity effectively | Pausing feature. (stop people booking at this moment) | Capacity - whole / used/ free updated | Ensure all activity providers have an affordable and easy to use tool for session booking |
Need to understand requirements of a referral | Describe your activity and leave that risk with the SP | | |
Concern that effort to be “Social Prescribing Ready” doesn’t increase demand | Needs full ecosystem of tools to ensure win win data flow. Encourage uptake. Promotion of existing tools | | |
Managing Venue suitability, availability, and accessibility is difficult and usually an upfront cost | Ability to easily access venue information and availability at the time of coordination / referral Assuming that a venue management tool is used | Accessibility data. | Transport route data |
Concerned about competition - losing clients to others on activity finder | This assumes that the activity finder won’t increase the number of people trying to find activities. | | |
Wanting evidence that their entry is attracting interest | We can add google analytics referrer syntax to activity finder links. | | |
Review of service user barriers
Barriers | Strategies | Standards | Tooling |
Not interested in physical activity - want social and enjoyment | OA to include softer classification for physical activity - Gardening | Categorise activity in non obviously active activities | Transformation to or from OR UK feeds of broader types of opportunity |
Need some hand-holding to attend activities - befrienders or SPs | Include the use of the “Facilitator” within the SP ready sessions - May sit with venue or provider | Include info that tells people what sort of facilitation is available | Integrate with social media? I am going to the event feature of Facebook? |
Transport logistics and additional cost. Want try before you buy | Integrate with directions from Google Maps. Provide access information like bus routes | Include cost info. Location information | Google Maps with directions with public transport |
Not aware of what is available | Sophisticated searches from rich data Suggestions model (eg map circumstance to service types) Promotion of activity finders | Need and pathway access to recommended activities Personalisation to needs / circs | ESD taxonomy to be used at high level to aid personalised - suitable sessions Mapping circumstance to service type Anchor points to other taxonomies |
Language and religious/cultural issues of activity providers | Record available language against events. Have a translator tool | Record language. Intended audience | Language translator |
Information about accessibility assistance | Link to accessibility information - at its most basic an accessibility taxonomy | Accessibility Support Taxonomy I think this is a part of the open active standard. Optional parameter. | |
Review of managers barriers
Barriers | Strategies | Standards | tooling |
Lack of Information about accessibility assistance | More standardised accessibility data. Complaints about accessibility should be feedback into activity finder/feed. | Venue and activity taxonomy | Check for existence and validity of accessibility data. Take venue activity data and assign to each activity (as in the flattening done by the normaliser) |
Capacity of Social Prescribers to support clients attending activities | Feedback from activity provider to social prescriber via activity finder. | Activity to indicate whether good facilitator or buddy/befriender available. Links to the likes of TrustPilot | |
Social Prescribers tend to only refer to those they know and trust - need to widen the pool | Reviews. Recommendations from other SP and frontline workers - Gatekeepers of trust Suitability of meet needs via recommendation | “Review” data as per OR UK Professional review to give colleague trust Better info to manage risk of referral | Richness checks |
OpenActive seems to be geared towards big providers. Social Prescribers tend to refer to community provision | Open source implementation. Open active feeds provided as a online service/tool. Ensure every community provider has a means to add their activity to OA. Promote the likes of Open Sessions and Playways to smaller providers | Role of ODI to promote wider adoption of open source and current tooling. Maybe even have a procurement framework for tools | Mechanisms for checking entries from Open Sessions etc |
Physical activity is not high on the hierarchy of needs so often not prescribed - activity by stealth | Feed activity data into wider datasets of services available Activity descriptions to offer softer activity types that include physical elements | Allow non-physical activity to describe a ‘level of physical activity’ that's included | Merge activity-type with service-type to aid drilling down into activity |
Physical activity should be accessed through target audience, needs and pathways not just search for an activity | Link person circumstance/condition to suggested services/opportunities. Perhaps improve link with feedback from frontline workers. Target audience applications suited for needs / pathways | Public ontology linking service types/activities to circumstance/conditions. Improved taxonomy of circumstance used for condition, intended audience and eligibility. | Means of pointing to activity types from conditions/circumstances |
Review of Application provider barriers
Barriers | Strategies | Standards | Tooling |
Lack of knowledge of social prescribing | Explain differences between activity finder and prescribing. Indicate the roles of OA and OR UK, alone and merged (either way) | | |
Don’t know market opportunity within social prescribing | Links with NHS | | |
No standard way to categorise our data | Change control mechanism to keep categories useful. | Consider taxonomies for suitability and accessibility. Overarching vocabulary with specialist areas | More human readable taxonomy tools. Feedback mechanisms for review by taxonomist. Automated checking of taxonomy terms in feeds. |
Cost to access aggregated data feed | The market needs another IMIN system Consider creating competition in the market. Delineate what OA support mechanisms should provide and added value that might come commercially | | Data quality review and improvement mechanisms. Validation while allowing for supplier extensions |
Will effort to adopt OA give a return | Keep effort low to be SP ready - OR to consume OA for SP applications. Case studies. Simple tools to add individual records rather than programming a feed - Change control to reduce development effort | | |
Documentation is difficult to understand. Don’t have time to learn. Not a lot of support | Open source version of an aggregated data feed. This may also encourage someone to provide a service. Documentation / tooling needs to be easier for non technical ppl | | Support forum / service. |
Key technical strategies
Workshop generated strategies
Key Cultural/Process strategies (awaiting workshops)
Potential recommendations (awaiting workshops and tech reviews)