personalisation of social care pit stop

72
PERSONALISATION OF SOCIAL CARE PIT STOP THE DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY Event Journal 12 th and 13 th March 2015

Upload: digital-catapult

Post on 15-Jul-2015

1.173 views

Category:

Services


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

PERSONALISATION OF

SOCIAL CARE PIT STOPTHE DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY

Event Journal

12th and 13th March 2015

Introduction

The Digital Catapult, which became operational in 2013, is a national

centre to rapidly advance the UK’s best digital ideas.

The specific aim of the Digital Catapult is to drive future economic growth

in the digital economy by unlocking value from proprietary data in faster,

better and more trusted ways.

The Digital Catapult is not a funding agency. Instead, it provides support

based upon available facilities, expertise and by bringing partners

together to help UK SMEs innovate at speed and with less risk so that

new digital products and services can be accelerated to market.

Introduction to the Pit Stop

Personalisation of Social Care Pit Stop

This Pit Stop brought together innovators with adult social care professionals, experts, academics and existing suppliers, to identify and solve some of the critical issues facing the industry.

The purpose

To catalyse a group of people who, after experiencing the opportunities to be gained, would develop into a community to extend these early ideas into real solutions.

At the Pit Stop we bring together

startups, corporates, academics

and world-class experts for an

intense 2-day event with deep 1-

to-1 mentoring sessions and

meetings, to find and explore new

business opportunities, accelerate

the growth of new ideas and

together work to solve sector-wide

issues.

Matt Stroud and David Brewer

from the Digital Catapult

introduced the session

Background, purpose and objectives

Simon Gifford introduced the outline for the two days

Introduction

Scene setting

Problem

definition

Selection

Networking

DH

PechaKucha

PechaKucha

PechaKucha

Introduction

Ideation &

solution

Building pitch

Panel

Community &

close

PechaKucha

PechaKucha

PechaKucha

Day 1 Day 2

Agenda: Day 1

Morning

Introductions and purpose

Matt Stroud: Digital Catapult

David Brewer: Digital Catapult

Simon Gifford: Atlantic

Matthew Birkenshaw: DH: Policy

Coffee break (10:30)

Dave Bell: Atlantic: Strategic issues

Problem definition and exploration

PechaKucha: Dominic Campbell, FutureGov

Lunch(12:30)

Afternoon

Problem definition (contd)

PechaKucha: Hannah Miller

Problem feedback

Problem ranking and team selection

PeckaKucha: Gary Oakfield, Merseyside Fire

Announce teams

Tea (16:00)

Networking formal

Networking informal

Close

Mathew BirkenshawSection Head of Adult Social Care Technology and Systems Policy

Department of Health

DH policy: technology in Social Care

David Bell Director

Atlantic Customer Solutions

The challenges facing the sector

The teams then began exploring

five key problems

Assessments

Data capture

Optimising the use of assets

Information advice and purchasing

Addressing carer loneliness

The five problems selected

• Assessments

• Data capture

• Optimising the use of assets

• Information advice and purchasing

• Addressing carer loneliness

Work session 1:Problem definition

Facilitator: Simon Gifford

Assessments

Data Capture

Optimisation of the use of assets

Information advice and purchasing

Reducing the loneliness of carers

Dominic CampbellFounder

FutureGov

Technology for good

Hannah Miller, OBEAssociate

Atlantic Customer Solutions

The challenge and the solutions

Ranking of challenges found them all to be

critical – and solvable!

Gary OakfieldPrevention Group Manager

Merseyside Fire and Recue

From response to prevention

Then we networked …

And networked …

And networked …

The day and the network sessions were

separated by themed music:

• Proud: Heather Small

• Locomotive Breath: Jethro Tull

• Race against time: Ja Rule

• Forever Young: Alphaville

• Time after time: Cyndi Lauper

• In the end: Linin Park

• Time Warp: Rocky Horror

• Time: Pink Floyd

• One more time: Daft Punk

Day 2:

Problems to digital solutions

Day 2

Welcome, recap and direction of travel

David Brewer introduced the second day

Agenda: Day 2

Morning

Review and recap Day 1

PechaKucha: Joseph Connor, Expero Crede

Chirdeep Chhabra, Data Catalyser

PechaKucha: David Alexander, MyDex

Coffee break (10:30)

Ideation and solution development

Solution development

Lunch(12:30)

Afternoon

PechaKucha: Leonard Anderson, Kemuri

Preparation for panel

Panel pitch and surgery

Problem ranking and team selection

Tea (15:15)

Community development

Conclusions and wrap-up

Close

Dr. Leonard AndersonCEO

Kemuri

Monitoring wellbeing

Joseph ConnorFounder

Expero Crede

Tracking your emotions

Chirdeep ChhabraSenior Partnerships Manager

Digital Catapult

Data Catalyser:

Unlocking proprietary data

David AlexanderCEO

MyDex

Personal data stores

We started exploring the problems posed on Day 1 ….

Work session 2:

Ideation and solution development

Facilitator: Simon Gifford

Assessments and data sharing

Assessments and data sharing (2)

Using community assets and information

sharing

Addressing carer loneliness

Innovate UKZahid Latif

Head of Healthcare

Funding sources

Panel sessionPitch and surgery

The teams presented their solutions …

With passion & persuasion …

… while the panel probed and challenged.

Feedback and next steps

David Brewer facilitated

the closing session.

A decision was made to

launch an interim

community to further

advance the ideas and

process.

It was also agreed to

enter all three solutions

into the Innovate UK call

Frank Sinatra’s “Fly me to the moon” accompanied the

move to some final networking…..

The space-themed music

interspersed the Day 2 sessions:

Space oddity: David Bowie

I believe I can fly: Ronan Keating

Walking on the moon: The Police

Space cowboy: Jamiroquai

Rocket man: Eton John

Fly me to the moon: Frank Sinatra

AppendicesCompleted templates:

Problem definitions

Assessments

Problem definitionProblem name: Assessments Problem reference number: 2

Stakeholders:- People needing support, carers.

- Council - social care workers/managers

- Workers - GPS, occupational therapists, district nurses, benefits team,

housing team.

- Suppliers - home care workers/agencies, voluntary organisations,

lawyers.

- Assets - people with care needs, carers 3rd sector CVO, advocacy.

Problem: Number of assessments will increase but ironically

the assessment process is not person-centered. It is provider

focused, takes time, is often not fit for purpose and is easily at

risk to people ‘gaming the system’. It is top down, not bottom up

(The RAS is a ruse, its only the technical system of an already

skewed process).

Size: Massive - Care Act 2014 now introduces assessments for

carers who are largely hidden (largely hidden assessments,

backfilled onto system, so double the work!) (Integration issues).

Current solution: Different in different localities (not portable);

demand outstripping current model of supply; time consuming;

must be signed off by qualified social worker (but may lack

specialism in specific condition e.g. dementia; councils feel

anxious about meeting Care Act and JSNA targets; people in

receipt of care - how long waiting period and more anxiety;

responding to multiple requests for same data (poor customer

experience); no sharing of data e.g. with GPs/ health workers.

Gains: Client owned = redesign the assessment for end user

outcomes: the user owns the data, not solely the practitioner

(sharing consent); pro-active ownership of care plan; real time

changes (not episodic written in stone for a year). Multi-channel

offer - real time data - self-service outline - co-produced - informed

choice.

Pains: Not timely; poor customer experience (not personalised

outcome even if F2F meeting), duplication of info: repeating story,

annual assessment doesn’t respond to/ track changes in condition

(no real time data); hides the real story of the person’s situation;

defensive recording - it’s a legal document and process that aims to

control resources, not empower people to pro-actively own their own

care; lack of trust (by social workers, by recipient of care; data).

Customer jobs: Plot customer journey and re-design.

Education, info/advice advocacy for recipient of care. (national

communication strategy locally best fit).

Council - informed choice, story-based self-assessment, co-

produced community groups commissioned to support digital

capacity/ inclusion.

Based on Alex Osterwalder’s: Value Proposition Design

Is it really solvable?

Yes – but at what cost?

Visual Representation:Current assessment system is a spider’s web made by 150

spiders…

In a strong wind with a fighter jet flying in adding turbulence ( >

flimsy).

Current system is not

sustainable but is

solvableSocial workers need

support to arm OBC or

direct payment care. Digital

part of this but need

interface development.

Evolution or

revolution of

assessment

process.

Reinvention? - no sharing

of best practice or data.

Do now: new

world =

prevention

savings

Data Capture

Problem definitionProblem name: Data Capture Problem reference number: 3

Stakeholders: Service users

ASC practitioners

LAs (maintaining performance targets)

Service providers

Health practitioners

Carers

Problem: Pressure of social workers carrying

out assessments, moving to a model of self-

assessment and maintaining quality and

consistency of data captured. How is this

info/data shared? Especially unstructured

data. Consent to share?

Size:

New clients: 2.1 million

Completed review: 1.4 million

Clients getting services: 1.2 million

Current solution: Social workers carrying out

assessments on paper then updating back office

systems later. Social workers carrying out their

own admin. Data sharing protocols managed

locally and sponsored By director of ASC.

Gains: Data captured is consistent. Data captured

is systematic. Some data is digested and usefully

shared.

Pains: Backlogs/higher case loads.

Poor use of resources

Lack of data sharing – incorrect use of Data

Protection Act

People die/end up in hospital because of poor

information sharing

Customer jobs:

1. Complete assessments, provision services,

maintain care plans (LA)

2. Self-assessment need, self provision of care

(service user)

Based on Alex Osterwalder’s: Value Proposition Design

Is it really solvable?Yes – but at what cost?

Visual Representation:

How best to develop and sustain assets

Problem definitionProblem name: How best to develop and sustain assets Problem reference number: 4

Stakeholders:

Voluntary organisations

Service user

Local authority

Front line service providers

Problem:

- What do we mean by assets?

- What assets are held? How do we maximise asset potential?

- What benefit are we trying to achieve?

- What need are we addressing?

- How do we change patients perceptions/expectations?

- How to develop audience-base that this approach is ????

- Not being aware of what’s going on inside/outside authority

boundaries.

- Limited IT capacity.

- Lack of understanding of voluntary sector.

Size: - One authority scalable nationally

Current solution:

- Uncoordinated/no sustainable models.

- Evidence based corporate social responsibility.

- Trials locally and nationally.

- Large reliance on government funding to kick-start efforts.

Gains:

- Faster Assessment.

- Better signposting for community users.

- More capacity and efficiency, return for our spend.

- Increased well-being in our Local communities.

Pains: - Can only approach problem from local

perspective – requires local solution – can’t

mandate national solution.

- Sustainability requires funding

- Reluctance to engage

Customer jobs:

- Mapping existing capacity need

- Connect capacity to need

- Catalogue of signpost.

Based on Alex Osterwalder’s: Value Proposition Design

Is it really solvable?

Yes – but at what cost?

Visual Representation:

Information advice and purchasing

Problem definitionProblem name: Information, Advice & Purchasing Problem reference number: 5

Stakeholders: Care receipients

Friends/family

(Healthcare) professionals

Investigating care

Problem: Data currency

Information management

Digital exclusion

Geographic reach: parent/child

Education/marketing

Size: 200k enquiries/422k population. 5-30

minute call. 80% telephone contact.

10% of calls to web > £50k saving p.a. x 150

Las = £7.5m uk.

1 LA: 200k x 2.88 = £576k x 150 Las = £86.4m

SOCITM call cost £2.88

Current solution: Multiple info/advice

providers

Multiple advice solution

Phone dominated

No understanding of process - marketing or

education

Gains: X sector info sharing.

Demand management

Better understanding of process

Informed/better choices

Deflection, self-service

Reduction in cost for LA & INDI

Better care provision

Pains: More demands on individual:

- Info integration

- Financial management of care

Education and marketing

Customer jobs:

Based on Alex Osterwalder’s: Value Proposition Design

Is it really solvable?

Yes – but at what cost?

Visual Representation:

(Note: may wish to use separate flip chart)

YES!

Ideas/ opportunities -

Recommendation engines.

Third sector delivery info

model. Purchasing power of

market > funds delivery of

info/advice

X sector

working

innovation.

Data collection

and mining.

Reducing loneliness and isolation of carers

Problem definitionProblem name: Reducing loneliness/isolation of carers Problem reference number: 6

Stakeholders:

Las, GPs, family trust, carers & individuals,

families of carers and cared for.

Problem: How does society support and prevent the

loneliness of informal carers?

- To prevent myopic vision of needs of cared for

- It can happen over time

- It can exclude other helpers

- Leads to a secondary issue, further complications and

potentially intervention and IOS & S.

Size: Dementia unpaid care costs 11.6bn, 1.3bn

hours.

Problem is getting significantly worse.

Problem is defining numbers when some carers

don’t come forward.

Current solution: A statuary system fallen into

disuse and need for reassessment with Care

Act.

- Informal carers groups

- Carers information services

- Carers centres funded by voluntary

organisations and others

- GPs services

- Some potential LA financial support

Gains: Improved care for the cared for and

potentially a better long term outlook for care givers

reducing their dependency on system = reduction in

costs/ better outcomes.

Pains: Potential lack of engagement.

Denial there may be a problem. They don’t

know how big the problem is.

Data sharing.

Customer jobs: Better quality care for cared for at a

lower cost and most effective.

Based on Alex Osterwalder’s: Value Proposition Design

Is it really solvable?

Yes – but at what cost?

Visual Representation:

??? And ???

In relation to

problem.

Addressed

too late to

change

mindset.

AppendicesCompleted templates:

Solutions

Assessment & data transfer

Problem solution – page 1Problem name: Assessment & data transfer Reference number: 2 & 3

The solution (to users & buyers):

1. USER:

• Self-service (info pre-assessment)

• Self-assessment (or referral)

YES - ‘Futuregov’ experience (Surrey CC)

NO - set up care account

- Personalised ‘data store’ > diagnostic +

tools - needs, £, self-manage/PA

- Portable by person

2. COUNCIL:

• Demand management

• ??? ‘source of the truth’

• View of whole market

• ‘mixed market’ social value act

• Visibility of self funders (currently

invisible).

3. PROVIDERS:

• Engaged

• Visibility in market

• Future proofed H + ISC purchasing

power

• Reputation 9ratings by users) ‘Amazon’

careTechnology:

• Web enabled and multi-channel

(first filter)

• Data governance and security

Visual or other tangible) representation:

The solution: Shifting the market - focus

on care account as an opportunity for

change/transformation using:

• Self funders and their

contracted/commissioned providers as

a cohort to command, manage and

create a data set for future service

planning.

• Personal data sets owned by the

individual

• Potential users become visible

(currently they aren’t known until they

present at ASC door)

• Data capture and store for intelligence

and market for H & ASC.

Intelligence

Market

insight

Care

Advisor

Council

Assessment

Meets

???

Account

Care Cape

Evidence

LA

Services

Market

Providers

Assets

Assessment is massive - assessment of condition, £

assessment + H&S assessment for re-ablement. If we take

evolution approach - faster, consistent, accurate ??? read can

be improved by AI, with tech improver/enabler.

Assessment & data transfer

Problem solution – page 2Problem name: Assessment & data transfer Problem reference number: 2 & 3

Risks and assumptions:

• Consistency/standards

• Pre-assessment - read across to formal???

• Info governance

• Security (IlM3 & PSN)

• Formal assessment is co-produced

• National communication strategy raises awareness

to care account

• Council wants to know about and plan for future

demand on service from self-funders

The solution: Care advisor plus

Business case: Demand Management

• Collated data, aggregating data intelligence

• Saves £s (20:80 rule)

• Saves time

• Customer journey/pro-active engagement.

• Provider/customer/council > health usage

• Vibrant market shaping + insight

• Visibility/transparency

• Quality ratings

Current solution: (top 3) person owned care

account.

• Demand outstripping demand

• Static/decreasing resource

• Inefficient/unsustainable resource

• Paper driven not shareable data

• No view of this market/self-funder needs.

Pain relievers:

• Personal data in realm of person

• Visibility:

‒ Providers

‒ Self-funders: needs, issues

‒ Access to intelligence

• Council (see sheet 1)

• Care cap evidence

• Poor experience

• Trust

Gain creators: ‘one version of truth’

• Data aggregation

• Less duplication

• Timely

• Engaging for customer

• Personalised, portable

• Flexible (with changes)

• Improved auditability

• Market stimulated

• Reducing friction of transaction

• Managed services e.g. ACAS.

Products and services:

Care advisor

Care account

Market place

Revenue model: Council/region could pump prime

(Care Act). Providers pay/subscribe? (%)

Competitive advantage:

• Person-focused, co-owned

• Not mandated by internal systems of council

• Manages demand out of council

‘’Fan

Dabby

Dosey’’

(Reduced

mortality - ‘no

stone unturned’

is a distant

memory)

Community assets; info and advice

Problem solution – page 1Problem name: Community assets/ info and advice Problem reference number: 4+5

The solution (to users & buyers):Digital map of everything gathered in one place

populated from data already exists, your local,

not council or boundaries.

Walking tour of assets

1. Councils don’t do they create the

conditions

2. Digital asset map - growth sources

3. Not just digital/walking maps

4. Sustainable, self-managed

5. Information about similar products

6. Together at ?

What does your customer say

about the proposed solution?

Technology: Your voice, community asset

A digital asset map - self-managed

• Quedos approached

• Galvanise the community/ local

• Offer financial incentives, government to

pump prime.

Visual or other tangible representation:The solution: 1. Problem - Gap analysis

• What needs are there?

• What I & A is available?

2. Is there a difference between formal and

informal assets

3. How to highlight the assets to the

community

4. How we can ensure someone with a need

is connected

Why no one solved it before?

• Barriers across structures (silo leadership,

not our job, east shunting) but now

replaced by cooperation e.g. MASH to fix

problems.

• Formal/approved signposting (LA, fire,

ambulance, GPs, voluntary sector) vs.

encourage community interest groups and

provide (I&A) > social engagement

approval.

Reducing loneliness of carers

Problem solution – page 1Problem name: Reducing Loneliness of carers Problem reference number: 6

The solution (to users & buyers):

• Entry point - integration driven by shared

events on TV which can be scheduled -

TV tea trolley.

• Carer based TV/film club

• Connection

‒ User defined characteristics

‒ Who is watching the same?

‒ Friends and their friends

• Trusted network

‒ Levels of access

What does your customer say

about the proposed solution?

Technology:

Using TV - tech everyone is familiar with.

But this is seen as the basic stage solution.

Moves onto more conventional web

solutions.

Visual or other tangible representation:The solution:

- Got to work in the home

• Seamless & useable by people

not tech savy

• Secure, reliable (work in a crisis)

- Two way interactive

• Facilitate connection when they

want to

- Configure based on content

- Ability to express themselves to drive

engagement

- Information access

• What is available, entitlement,

help, guides

- Makes economic and social sense

• Works for self-funders - local

authorities

- Allows informal care networks to???

• monitor

Issues and templates

Brainstorm (ideas only)

Do we really

understand the

problem?

What are the root

causes?

What are the

underlying issues?

Can we break it

down to smaller

problems?

Why is it a

problem?

Why has no one

solved it before?

What are the

obstacles?

Are there data

issues?

Draw the process –

insights?

What might the

ideal solution

look like?

What are the

options?

Is it related to

other problems?

The problem

Some key challenge areas

1. Assessments & RAS

2. Data capture, privacy & security

3. Care accounts and use of funds

4. Predicting costs and market shaping

5. Information, advice & purchasing

6. Safeguarding and monitoring (after direct payments)

7. Optimising use of "assets” eg universal services and voluntary sector

8. Alternative services eg telecare, wearables, etc

9. Handovers and boundaries

Problem definitionProblem name: _______________________ Problem reference number: _________

Stakeholders:

• Who has the problem? (customers)

• Customer segments

• Who else is impacted?

• Who wants it solved?

• How are Service users impacted?

Problem:

• What is the problem (define)?

• 140 characters

• Fuller definition

• Who does it affect?

• When does it occur?

Size:

• How big is the problem?

• Quantify the benefit if solved?

• How many are affected?

• Is the problem getting worse?

• Are there indirect benefits?

Current solution:

• How is it currently being handled?

• How good is the solution?

• What are the problems with the solution?

• Is there any group working on this at

present?

Gains:

• What outcomes & benefits does the

customer want?

• Rank: essential to nice-to-have.

Pains:

• What annoys the customer when trying to

get the job done?

• Rank: extreme to moderate

Customer jobs:

• What is it the customer is trying to get

done?

• Rank: important to insignificant

Based on Alex Osterwalder’s: Value Proposition Design

Is it really solvable?

Yes – but at what cost?

Visual Representation:

(Note; may wish to use separate flip chart)

Problem solution – page 1Problem name: _______________________ Problem reference number: _________

The solution (to users & buyers):

• Describe the solution in detail to the

customer (user)

• Describe the solution to the economic

buyer (eg finance, procurement)

• Describe the solution to the end-user.

What does your customer say

about the proposed solution?

Technology:

• What underlying digital technology

unlocks the solution?

• What data is required / produced?

• What are the data issues?

• Can the TDH help?

Visual or other tangible) representation: (may

use other media)

Demonstrate how it may be used to the customer

eg wire-frame, prototype.

The solution:

• Describe the solution in detail

• What does it do?

• How does it do it?

• What makes it different?

• Describe the process of use

Problem solution – page 2Problem name: _______________________ Problem reference number: _________

Risks and assumptions:

• What are the major assumptions you have

made in developing the solution?

• What are the major risks?

• How could you test them before

developing a full product?

The solution:

• Describe the solution in 3 lines or less.

• Draw a simple picture of the product

being used by customers

Business case:

• At the highest level, describe the benefits

and costs of the solution?

• Who would buy it and for how much?

• How long will it take to produce?

• How much and what type of

resource/skills will it require?

Current solution:

• In what way is it better than the current

solution?

• In what way is it worse than the current

solution?

Pain relievers:

• How (and which) pains will we relieve?

• Rank: essential to nice-to-have.

Gain creators:

• How (and which) benefits and outcomes will

we produce?

• Rank: essential to nice-to-have

Products and services:

• What are all the components of the product?

• Rank: essential to nice-to-have

What does the end-user say

about the proposed solution?

Revenue model:

• What is the revenue model?

• Who pays and how?

Competitive advantage:

• If you were to commercialize this, what

would be the competitive advantage?

Problem definitionProblem name: Time and labour required by assessments Problem reference number: A1

Stakeholders:

Service user; carers; Care Managers;

providers; LA management; Health

services;

Problem:

Time required to assess; and backlog of

assessments (worsened by the Care Act).

Size:

200,000 assessments required pa @ £100

each is a £20m job.

10% saving is worth £2 million pa excluding

indirect benefits.

Current solution:

S/U supported in completing application; care

managers review and capture; health input

sought; carer consideration given; financial

assessment conducted; RAS run. Leads to

development of support plan approved by

panel (see drawing of process

Gains:

Data input accurate when done timeously;

fairness to users with consistency; carers can

receive an assessment; social workers used in

areas that match skills; less duplication of

activity ;

Pains:

Customer jobs:

Complete assessments (and reviews) for

service users when required.

Based on Alex Osterwalder’s: Value Proposition Design

Is it really solvable? YESYes – but at what cost?

Visual Representation:

(Note: may wish to use separate flip chart)

Shortage of care managers / social workers;

admin tasks not completed; inconsistencies in

results; need for panels;

Problem solution – page 1Solution name: AI based assessments Problem reference number: A1

The solution (to users & buyers):

Users: a fair system that provides the same

result across the country.

Buyers: Reduce Care Workers review time

by 60% and better data capture.

System may be extended to other user

groups, incorporate Health and to further

populate support plans.

What does your customer say

about the proposed solution?

Technology:

Common software across all LA’s with data

sharing at individual level Interface built to

care systems.

Visual or other tangible) representation: (may

use other media) The solution:

Artificial intelligence based solution.

Works from a common (nation-wide)

input form that may be self-administered

or supported by non-qualified worker.

System “learns” from all assessments

conducted around country..

Produces exceptions for those requiring

detailed review by qualified social

worker.

Data captured directly into LA Care

system and Care Plan partially pre-

populated.

Problem solution – page 2Solution name: AI based assessments Problem reference number: A1

Risks and assumptions:

Technology is possible?

Will obtain national coordination

Acceptable to social care

Data problems can be overcome

The solution:

AI based national assessment system

Business case:

Cost to produce £250k and annual cost

£100k.

Annual benefit £2m

Many non-quantified benefits

Current solution:

Better than current as it is less expensive,

more consistent and frees up social worker

capacity.

Worse: may have backlash against non-

human nature

Pain relievers:

Reduces cost of assessments

Reduces poor data capture

Frees up social worker capacity

Gain creators:

Obtain benefit from shared data

Fairer system for all

Can increase number of assessments

conducted

Products and services:

Standard assessment input with self –

assessment capacity; AI driven assessment

which improves over time

I think it is fairer and I will not

get left waiting for my review

Revenue model:

LA’s pay a fee per assessment

Competitive advantage:

Likely resistance to a duplicated model

unless significant benefits