Interprofessional collaboration with service users in the development of cancer services: The Cancer Partnership Project

Abstract

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is a cornerstone of UK National Health Service (NHS) policy. The Cancer Partnership Project (CPP) is the leading national PPI initiative in cancer care. The CPP espouses a "partnership" model, with a "Partnership Group" - collaborative service improvement groups formed of NHS staff and service users - in each of 34 cancer networks in England. These groups aim to enable service users to influence local cancer service development and thereby improve the effectiveness of services. We interviewed 59 cancer service users and NHS staff in a reflective evaluation of CPP. Groups were active and visible in 30 networks, their main activities being: providing an accessible source of consumer opinion; prolific networking and representation; patient information and communication projects; and lobbying for service improvements. The groups exhibited some significant tensions. The motivations of professional staff varied markedly, and "obligatory" involvement as part of a person's job was counter-productive when not coupled with a "personal" belief in the value of PPI. Other controversial areas were the disclosure by patients' of personal health and treatment experiences, and emotional attachment to the group. It was concluded that partnership groups represent a useful PPI model, but more attention generally should be paid to the complexities of PPI and timescales required for meaningful cultural change.

Sidestepping questions of legitimacy: How community representatives manoeuvre to effect change in a health service

“…In short, CReps seemed to be playing a long game in which their goals differed from the institutional agents. Our findings highlight the need to evaluate success against the community's agenda, as well as to look for opportunistic and tactical action outside the traditional health service-dominated settings observed and evaluated in previous research (Martin, 2008;Sitzia et al, 2006). Our findings support the potential importance of a facilitator or CP Coordinator in helping CReps opportunistically navigate the cracks in the space of a Strategy, a role requiring further examination beyond the scope of this article.…”

“…CRep influence on the design of new services or delivery of clinical care is less commonly found (Crowley et al, 2002;Murie and Douglas-Scott, 2004;Nathan et al, 2010;Sitzia et al, 2006). There is little evidence of CRep impact where clinical or quality of care is the central focus (Braithwaite et al, 2010;Pickard et al, 2002;Van Wersch and Eccles, 2001).…”

Turkish version of the Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration: A preliminary study

“…For example, in a recent study Rosentein & O'Daniel (2005) highlighted the negative consequences of disruptive behavior between these two professional groups not only on nurses' job satisfaction and morale but also on the clinical outcomes. Sitzia, Cotterell & Richardson (2006) described collaboration as a process where two or more people come together to discuss a com-mon problem. In collaboration, each participant has the self-confidence to share his or her information and knowledge of a problem on an equal basis with the other person and each has mutual respect for the other's opinions.…”

The making of the interprofessional arena in the United Kingdom: a social and political history

“…Attempts to integrate service user perspectives into the planning, design and implementation of IPE and collaborative practice has met with moderate success (e.g. Barnes, Carpenter & Bailey, 2000;Cooper and SpencerDawe, 2006;Sitzia, Cotterell & Richardson, 2006). (WHO, 1988; reviewing the progress made globally, establishing the evidence base, making recommendations and developing an operational plan and policy brief for ministerial implementation.…”