Improvement and Innovation Showcase - Series 14 - A Year in Review

[@tonysangster7383]

P.S. The intervention rejected by CEIH regarding those with diabetes includes the fact that some with diabetes (and others without) have had their cardiac failure reversed via dietary means alone. I have written to the SWCN chairperson for cardiology about this with references on their hospital email site. How can you expect to obtain proper community input if you will not allow SWCN websites to be answered and if I had not written this and given the Commissioner's attitude, would the facts above have reached those involved?

[@tonysangster7383]

Thank you for a very up-beat presentation. Naturally you provide your successes but fail to specify where you might improve: 1) you mention consumers and emphasis on engagement yet not once mention those with lived experience of chronic illness. I, for one, with 58 years living with a chronic illness and now retired from a clinical career of some 34 years have been excluded from CEIH workshops, have been shown disrespect and told not to contact chairpersons of SWCNs on the proffered CEIH websites - they are too busy and cannot be bothered to reply. Over several years of repeated attempts I have received only one written reply from a chairperson - facetious in nature and not answering my main point. Similarly my lived experience and health knowledge was applied to the Low Back Pain Standard - with letters and scientific references - the chairperson of the relevant SWCN had to be prompted my CEIH management to reply - And did so in a single supercilious sentence. And in the Standard the word 'nutrition' was used once in an ambiguous manner. All the above communications to SWCN have been about simple, elegant innovations relevant to the clinical area and to urban, rural and remote areas including to the First Peoples. 2) I recently applied to speak with the Advisory Council of CEIH on behalf of a group of enlightened clinicians and persons with lived experience of certain health conditions (ones which apply to some 70% of the population) about a disruptive innovation - one already in progress and which both the Commissioner and Mrs Billing were appraised of in March 2024 - such a simple. elegant innovation (applying the definitions and basis of work of the late Professor Christensen of the Harvard Business School) which could reverse Type 2 diabetes in some 30 to 50% of participants and save the State AUD millions by de-prescription of medication, and also manage obesity and improve the internal environmental of people (just as important as the external one in many ways) plus put the spotlight on agriculture and the pollution by Food industry with ultra-processed food (like they serve in hospitals) , be used in urban, rural, remote, and already in trial with the First Peoples via SAHLN)) - but was told that was not possible. 3) replying to a paper on Data collection and use, i pointed out that there are fundamental issues with the accuracy and content of PREMs and PROMs data and its interpretation, but no one could give a satisfactory answer or bother to enquire further about the issue - the issue is around my allegation that there are serious breaches and potential breaches to patients receiving adequate health information from clinicians to enable them to give fully-informed consent - I have had to refer the matter on to clinical services 3) I allege there is a conflict of interest in the declination to add one particular health condition to the number of SWCNs 4) you are interviewing and interacting with clinicians - why not people with lived experience? - what not ask how such people stay out of hospital? 4) have you heard that many cancers can be defined a metabolic diseases and have some helpful metabolic treatment protocols - (are you thinking outside the square? I fear that CEIH and some of its activities are siloed - lived experience persons are disrespected and kept away despite their rights under the SA Health Feedback Framework, clinicians are 'protected' from us and CEIH states that their Advisory Council can be as disruptive as it likes (but no one else)? Is it really' bottom up' as you espouse, or top down as your papers about Innovation state. I fear Professor Christensen would be turning in his grave.