Last week I gave a workshop for a network of health care institutions in the Netherlands about strengthening social networks.
This network has facilities all over the Netherlands that are independent and working locally, as a network however they have a strong collective brand as well. The workshop was part of a day of exchanges between members of the boards of directors of the different institutions as well as their supervisory boards. After a short introduction by me, it was all group discussion and conversation.

In stead of slides we had some pictures for my introduction printed on card board, to create a more conversational and engaged atmosphere

In my introduction I started with the notion that my grandparents were part of a very strong local network (noaberschap, as described earlier) of mutual help and assistance, as existed in most rural areas in the Netherlands in their time. This network with lots of strong relationships enabled them to live in their own home until high age, surrounded by people who gave them the care they needed, even though we as family members did not live nearby.

With increasing mobility in the population it has become much harder to maintain these networks however, as they are tightly connected to geograpic location as well as depend on people being part of the network for a long time.

At the same time our internet and mobile communications connected world has seen the emergence of global networks of people around shared interests, problems, and any other aspect of life you can think of. These networks are largely unconnected to geographic location and enable rapid group forming. Over time stronger ties form within these networks, but their strength lie mostly in making lots of weaker ties explicit, and maintaining context over time.

Is there a way to connect these more widely spread on-line social networks, to the local geographic context around a client? Can we strengthen local networks and make them more resilient that way? After all, 70% of the Dutch population maintains at least one profile on one social networking platform. From different examples it seems obvious that is the case. Platforms like Patient Opinion in the UK suddenly let you see who else is using the services of the same health care institutions you are, potentially creating a network out of those that would normally only shortly see each other in waiting rooms, if ever. It shows weak connections that were invisible otherwise.

The Japanese system of Hureai Kippu (aka Fureai Kippu), though not essentially an on-line network but a parallel currency, allows you to build up ‘credit’ points by helping out in the care of someone in your neighbourhood. That credit you can spend either on care for yourself later when you need it, or on a family member somewhere else in the country. The system creates more local ties, and at the same time allow family members an active role in providing care to their loved ones even if they are geographically further away. By collecting and using credit in this system that way, local networks are actually strengthened in 2 places. Where you are, and where your family member is.

Many more examples exist where different aspects of health care have been turned into a social object for interaction, such as Patients Like Me around your ailments or the prescriptions you need to take.

In the discussion we dug deeper into whether the above seemed recognizable and how this might be meaningful to the health care institutions the participants represented. Lots of ideas were floated on how to involve both family members living further away more, as well as build a more diverse and widespread network of volunteers. Lots of thoughts were expressed about what it takes in terms of values for the professionals involved, and how as an institution you can create the right conditions allowing your professionals to see themselves as individuals in a networked environment.

Two areas will be explored more deeply and thoroughly in the coming weeks. One is the type of values, skills and attitudes needed to open institutions up to their networked environment, and how boards can help create those conditions. The other is what can serve as a social object within the environment of these health care institutions, what can be triggers for interaction with different groups in their environment (like clients, their family members and volunteers).