Relational Work Is the Work: Virtual Healthcare Transformation for Rural, Remote and First Nations Communities in British Columbia.

The healthcare crisis across unceded First Nations' territories in rural, remote and Indigenous communities in British Columbia (BC) is marked by persistent barriers to accessing care and support close to home. This commentary describes an exceptional story of how technology, trusted partnerships and relationships came together to create an innovative suite of virtual care programs called "Real-Time Virtual Support" (RTVS). We describe key approaches, learnings and future considerations to improve the equity of healthcare delivery for rural, remote and First Nations communities. The key lessons include the following: (1) moving beyond a biomedical model - the collaboration framework for health service design incorporated First Nations' perspective on health and wellness; (2) relational work is the work - the RTVS collaboration was grounded in building connections and relationships to prioritize cultivating trust in the partnership over specific outputs; and (3) aligning to the core values of co-creation - working from a commitment to do things differently and applying an inclusive approach of engagement to integrate perspectives across different sectors and interest groups.

The social accountability of doctors: a relationship based framework for understanding emergent community concepts of caring.

BACKGROUND: Social accountability is defined as the responsibility of institutions to respond to the health priorities of a community. There is an international movement towards the education of health professionals who are accountable to communities. There is little evidence of how communities experience or articulate this accountability. METHODS: In this grounded theory study eight community based focus group discussions were conducted in rural and urban South Africa to explore community members' perceptions of the social accountability of doctors. The discussions were conducted across one urban and two rural provinces. Group discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. RESULTS: Initial coding was done and three main themes emerged following data analysis: the consultation as a place of love and respect (participants have an expectation of care yet are often engaged with disregard); relationships of people and systems (participants reflect on their health priorities and the links with the social determinants of health) and Ubuntu as engagement of the community (reflected in their expectation of Ubuntu based relationships as well as part of the education system). These themes were related through a framework which integrates three levels of relationship: a central community of reciprocal relationships with the doctor-patient relationship as core; a level in which the systems of health and education interact and together with social determinants of health mediate the insertion of communities into a broader discourse. An ubuntu framing in which the tensions between vulnerability and power interact and reflect rights and responsibility. The space between these concepts is important for social accountability. CONCLUSION: Social accountability has been a concept better articulated by academics and centralized agencies. Communities bring a richer dimension to social accountability through their understanding of being human and caring. This study also creates the connection between ubuntu and social accountability and their mutual transformative capacity as agents for social justice.

Seeking impact of medical schools on health: meeting the challenges of social accountability.

CONTEXT: The acquisition of sums of knowledge and mastery of sophisticated technologies by medical graduates is insufficient for their responsibilities to recognise and adapt to people's evolving needs. RESPONSE: A Global Consensus on Social Accountability for Medical Schools brought together 130 organisations and individuals from around the world with responsibility for health education, professional regulation and policy making to participate for 8 months in a three-round Delphi process leading to a 3-day consensus development conference which included weighted representation from all regions of the world. The resulting Consensus reflects agreement on 10 strategic directions to enable a medical school to be socially accountable. RESULTS: The list of 10 directions embraces a system-wide scope from identification of health needs to verification of the effects of medical schools on those needs, all driven by the quest for positive impact on peoples' health status. This includes an understanding of the social context, an identification of health challenges and needs and the creation of relationships to act efficiently (directions 1 and 2). Within the spectrum of the health workforce required to address health needs, the anticipated role and competences of the doctor are described (direction 3) serving as a guide to the education strategy (direction 4), which the medical school is called to implement along with consistent research and service strategies (direction 5). Standards are required to steer the institution towards a high level of excellence (directions 6 and 7), which national authorities need to recognise (direction 8). While social accountability is a universal value (direction 9), local societies will be the ultimate appraisers of the achievements of the school and its graduates (direction 10).

Social accountability and accreditation: a new frontier for educational institutions.

CONTEXT: An association with excellence should be reserved for educational institutions which verify that their actions make a difference to people's well-being. The graduates they produce should not only possess all of the competencies desirable to improve the health of citizens and society, but should also use them in their professional practice. Four principles enunciated by the World Health Organization refer to the type of health care to which people have a right, from both an individual and a collective standpoint: quality, equity, relevance and effectiveness. Therefore, social, economic, cultural and environmental determinants of health must guide the strategic development of an educational institution. DISCUSSION: Social responsibility implies accountability to society for actions intended to serve it. In the health field, social accountability involves a commitment to respond as best as possible to the priority health needs of citizens and society. An educational institution should verify its impact on society by following basic principles of quality, equity, relevance and effectiveness, and by active participation in health system development. Its social accountability should be measured in three interdependent domains concerning health personnel: conceptualisation, production and utilisability. An educational institution that fully assumes the position of a responsible partner in the health care system and is dedicated to the public interest deserves a label of excellence. CONCLUSIONS: As globalisation is reassessed for its social impact, societies will seek to justify their investments with more solid evidence of their impact on the public good. Medical schools should be prepared to be judged accordingly. There is an urgent need to foster the adaptation of accreditation standards and norms that reflect social accountability. Only then can educational institutions be measured and rewarded for their real capacity to meet the pressing health care needs of society.