There are over 1,000 pathways which are made available to all members of the HealthPathways Community, allowing them to efficiently localise it to reflect local agreements and service provision unique to their local area.

It is recommended that each implementation has between 1.0 and 1.2 WTE GP Clinical Editors to lead on the pathway development. A full guide to team roles and responsibilities is available to support new sites with their recruitment process.

Our experience to date is that once clinicians see the system and understand the process required to develop and maintain the pathways then there is usually high levels of buy in. Inevitably some secondary care clinicians are more likely to be early adopters, commitment increases in others as they see the benefits that engagement brings.

Lead time from set up to implementation can vary due to a number of factors but from training to launching a live site with circa 50 localised pathways will take between 3-5 months. 

We recommend between 1.0 and 1.2 WTE GP Clinical Editors, supported by a full time project coordinator and programme manager. There are a number of other key roles which are outlined in the recruitment pack, these in the main will be picked up as part of existing portfolios.

Whilst the development process is system wide with engagement sought from across the pathway, this does not include patient engagement. The process is to map a clinical pathway and describe it for a practicing clinician hence patient engagement in the process wouldn't be appropriate. However, if the mapping process identifies a need for service re-design then the individual locality may well involve people with lived experience in those transformation activities. The output of which would then go into HealthPathways as the vehicle for communicating the service/pathway change to the system. It should also be remembered that patient and public feedback and input is an integral part of key sources of information such as NICE clinical guidelines.

Community HealthPathways mirrors whatever services and agreements you have in place within your local system. If there is an advice and guidance service then HealthPathways would make reference to the service, promote it within the relevant pathways and explain how it can be accessed in the local area. 

Shared decision making can be incorporated and promoted throughout all appropriate pathways, both within the recommended approach, and also through the embedding of relevant links to external shared decision making aids.

It is very difficult to quantify in terms of numbers or satisfaction rates but there is significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that GPs feel that having HealthPathways available makes their job easier which should in theory support retention and wellbeing. 

This is a key principle of HealthPathways. The aim is to support patients remaining in their own homes and communities. To do this we have to make best use of the available 3rd sector and social prescribing assets that are available to us, hence reference to local services can and are promoted throughout.

Although written specifically for a clinicians in a consultation, the actual audience for HealthPathways is the entire system. There are no limits to the number of people who can access is so sites are encouraged to promote its use by colleagues across primary, secondary and community care.

HealthPathways can definitely play a role in reducing health inequalities, despite the focus on standardisation, as pathways can be specifically written through an equity lens. So, for example, if there are particular inequities in access or outcomes in particular populations or locations, special attention can be paid to this. Pathway writing can use specialist expertise from that community, including wide review by interested groups, inequalities can be highlighted in the pathway, raising awareness among clinicians and specific local services can be signposted.

A recent example in diabetes care is highlighted in this article.

Yes, from across the HealthPathways Community we have a range of evaluations that demonstrate a range of impacts across the 47 implementations to date. For further details please visit: www.healthpathwayscommunity.org/Research-Hub/Research-Outcomes

Absolutely. The discussion between the clinical editor and subject matter expert can inevitably highlight where gaps in service provision exist or where service improvement opportunities are. The role of the HealthPathways team is to identify those opportunities and pass them to the transformation team within the local area.

Yes, there are no restrictions in terms of how many health and care professionals access HealthPathways. The more its in use, the more it's of use.

The costs consists of one-off set up costs and a recurring annual licensing cost, these are population driven and can be provided on request for a specific area. In addition there are the costs associated with staffing the local implementation team. 

Yes, there are no restrictions in terms of how many health and care professionals access the site. The more its in use, the more it's of use.