The content and organization of mental health care have been heavily influenced by the view that mental difficulties come as diagnosable disorders that can be treated by specialist practitioners who apply evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines of symptom reduction at the group level. However, the EBP symptom-reduction model is under pressure, as it may be disconnected from what patients need, ignores evidence of the trans-syndromal nature of mental difficulties, overestimates the contribution of the technical aspects of treatment compared to the relational and ritual components of care, and underestimates the lack of EBP group-to-individual generalizability. A growing body of knowledge indicates that mental illnesses are seldom "cured" and are better framed as vulnerabilities. Important gains in well-being can be achieved when individuals learn to live with mental vulnerabilities through a slow process of strengthening resilience in the social and existential domains. In this paper, we examine what a mental health service would look like if the above factors were taken into account. The mental health service of the 21st century may be best conceived of as a small-scale healing community fostering connectedness and strengthening resilience in learning to live with mental vulnerability, complemented by a limited number of regional facilities. Peer support, organized at the level of a recovery college, may form the backbone of the community. Treatments should be aimed at trans-syndromal symptom reduction, tailored to serve the higher-order process of existential recovery and social participation, and applied by professionals who have been trained to collaborate, embrace idiography and maximize effects mediated by therapeutic relationship and the healing effects of ritualized care interactions. Finally, integration with a public mental health system of e-communities providing information, peer and citizen support and a range of user-rated self-management tools may help bridge the gap between the high prevalence of common mental disorder and the relatively low capacity of any mental health service.

BackgroundAudit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers.ObjectiveInvestigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example.MethodsA total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi‐structured interviews. Questions focussed on: “Why,” “On what aspects” and “How” do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes?ResultsAll stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self‐reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient‐reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan‐Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1‐4 times a year sent by e‐mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data.ConclusionsThis exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders.

BackgroundStudies suggest that involving students in patient education can contribute to the quality of care and medical education. Interventions and outcomes in this field, however, have not yet been systematically reviewed. The authors examined the scientific literature for studies on interventions and outcomes of student-provided patient education.MethodsFour databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO) were searched for studies reporting patient education, undergraduate medical students, and outcomes of patient education, published between January 1990 and October 2015. Facilitators of and barriers to educational interventions were assessed using the Learning Transfer System Inventory. The learning yield, impact on quality of care, and practical feasibility of the interventions were rated by patients, care professionals, researchers, and education professionals.ResultsThe search resulted in 4991 hits. Eighteen studies were included in the final synthesis. Studies suggested that student-provided patient education improved patients’ health knowledge, attitude, and behavior (nine studies), disease management (three studies), medication adherence (one study), and shared decision-making (one study). In addition, involving students in patient education was reported to enhance students’ patient education self-efficacy (four studies), skills (two studies), and behavior (one study), their relationships with patients (two studies), and communication skills (two studies).DiscussionOur findings suggest that student-provided patient education—specifically, student-run patient education clinics, student-provided outreach programs, student health coaching, and clerkships on patient education—has the potential to improve quality of care and medical education. To enhance the learning effectiveness and quality of student-provided patient education, factors including professional roles for students, training preparation, constructive supervision, peer support on organizational and individual levels, and learning aids should be taken into account. Future research should focus on further investigating the effects found in this study with high-level evidence.

BackgroundA common approach to enhance patient-centered care is training care professionals. Additional training of patients has been shown to significantly improve patient-centeredness of care. In this participatory design and evaluation study, patient education and medical education will be combined by co-creating a patient-centered and interprofessional training program, wherein patients, students and care professionals learn together to improve patient-centeredness of care.MethodsIn the design phase, scientific literature regarding interventions and effects of student-run patient education will be synthesized in a scoping review. In addition, focus group studies will be performed on the preferences of patients, students, care professionals and education professionals regarding the structure and content of the training program. Subsequently, an intervention plan of the training program will be constructed by combining these building blocks. In the evaluation phase, patients with a chronic disease, that is rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and hypertension, and patients with an oncologic condition, that is colonic cancer and breast cancer, will learn together with medical students, nursing students and care professionals in training program cycles of three months. Process and effect evaluation will be performed using the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) method to evaluate and optimize the training program in care practice and medical education. A modified control design will be used in PDSA-cycles to ensure that students who act as control will also benefit from participating in the program.DiscussionOur participatory design and evaluation study provides an innovative approach in designing and evaluating an intervention by involving participants in all stages of the design and evaluation process. The approach is expected to enhance the effectiveness of the training program by assessing and meeting participants’ needs and preferences. Moreover, by using fast PDSA cycles and a modified control design in evaluating the training program, the training program is expected to be efficiently and rapidly implemented into and adjusted to care practice and medical education.

Patients are the official third party of the Dutch healthcare system, apart from healthcare providers and insurers. Radboud university medical center (Radboudumc) is a regional centre for specialized secondary care in the Netherlands. Here innovation is recognized as a decisive factor when it comes to the implementation of patient engagement. Therefore, all employees are invited to innovate, experiment, fail and implement promising innovations into practice. In this paper, we demonstrate how this stimulating environment led to a rich collection of patient engagement activities in organizational (re-)design and in educational programs for students and employees. Résumé Les patients sont une tierce partie officielle du système de santé néerlandais, en plus des prestataires de soins de santé et des assureurs. L'hôpital universitaire Radboud (Radboudumc) est un centre régional de soins secondaires spécialisés des Pays-Bas. L'innovation y est reconnue comme un facteur probant du déploiement de l'engagement du patient. Tous les employés sont donc invités à innover, à expérimenter, à échouer et à mettre en pratique des innovations prometteuses. Dans cet article, nous montrons comment ce milieu stimulant a conduit à une abondante collection d'activités relatives à l'engagement du patient dans la conception ou la refonte organisationnelle, ainsi que dans des programmes de formation destinés aux étudiants et aux employés.