Public involvement and engagement in primary and emergency care research

Evans, Bridie; Gallanders, John; Griffiths, Lesley; Harris-Mayes, Robert; James, M. W.; Jones, S. A.; Joseph‐Williams, Natalie; Nettle, Mary; Rolph, Martin; Snooks, Helen; Wallace, C; Edwards, Adrian

doi:10.23889/ijpds.v5i3.1363

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We will provide honoraria, briefings and other support as needed in line with best practice and report public involvement in our outputs. [48][49][50] We have a named lead for public involvement in the team (BAE) who brings expertise and experience to this role.…”

Section: Public Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the shielding initiative in Wales (EVITE Immunity): protocol for a quasiexperimental study

Evans

Akbari²,

Bailey³

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionShielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinically extremely vulnerable people identified through algorithms and screening of routine National Health Service (NHS) data were individually and strongly advised to stay at home and strictly self-isolate even from others in their household. This study will generate a logic model of the intervention and evaluate the effects and costs of shielding to inform policy development and delivery during future pandemics.Methods and analysisThis is a quasiexperimental study undertaken in Wales where records for people who were identified for shielding were already anonymously linked into integrated data systems for public health decision-making. We will: interview policy-makers to understand rationale for shielding advice to inform analysis and interpretation of results; use anonymised individual-level data to select people identified for shielding advice in March 2020 and a matched cohort, from routine electronic health data sources, to compare outcomes; survey a stratified random sample of each group about activities and quality of life at 12 months; use routine and newly collected blood data to assess immunity; interview people who were identified for shielding and their carers and NHS staff who delivered healthcare during shielding, to explore compliance and experiences; collect healthcare resource use data to calculate implementation costs and cost–consequences. Our team includes people who were shielding, who used their experience to help design and deliver this study.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received approval from the Newcastle North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 295050). We will disseminate results directly to UK government policy-makers, publish in peer-reviewed journals, present at scientific and policy conferences and share accessible summaries of results online and through public and patient networks.

show abstract

Section: Public Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the shielding initiative in Wales (EVITE Immunity): protocol for a quasiexperimental study

Evans

Akbari²,

Bailey³

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…">planning and delivering the two stakeholder events, including developing materials for workshops during each day, facilitating some of the round‐table discussions and presenting the workshop sessions alongside researchers, 47 dissemination activities including reports to the study funders, producing a range of accessible written and oral outputs during the study, preparing lay summaries of all academic papers [see GPs in emergency department (ED)s (primecentre.wales)], co‐authoring publications 45,46,48 and planning for dissemination at study end and scrutiny through the Study Steering Committee.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing public involvement throughout the research process—Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study

Evans

Carson‐Stevens

Cooper

et al. 2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. Aim This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large‐scale multi‐site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. Method We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co‐applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. Results Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over‐professionalizing public contributors. Conclusion We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. Public Contribution This paper was co‐conceived, co‐planned and co‐authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study.

show abstract

“…We have long‐standing and effective links with patients and public members. 5 A recurring research priority for them is the delivery of prompt and appropriate 999 emergency response and treatment. When COVID‐19 appeared to change 999 response priorities, they confirmed the urgency of understanding new practices, implications and learning for the future.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Call volume, triage outcomes, and protocols during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: Results of a national survey

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives During the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK), to describe volume and pattern of calls to emergency ambulance services, proportion of calls where an ambulance was dispatched, proportion conveyed to hospital, and features of triage used. Methods Semistructured electronic survey of all UK ambulance services (n = 13) and a request for routine service data on weekly call volumes for 22 weeks (February 1–July 3, 2020). Questionnaires and data request were emailed to chief executives and research leads followed by email and telephone reminders. The routine data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and questionnaire data using thematic analysis. Results Completed questionnaires were received from 12 services. Call volume varied widely between services, with a UK peak at week 7 at 13.1% above baseline (service range ‐0.5% to +31.4%). All services ended the study period with a lower call volume than at baseline (service range ‐3.7% to ‐25.5%). Suspected COVID‐19 calls across the UK totaled 604,146 (13.5% of all calls), with wide variation between services (service range 3.7% to 25.7%), and in service peaks of 11.4% to 44.5%. Ambulances were dispatched to 478,638 (79.2%) of these calls (service range 59.0% to 100.0%), with 262,547 (43.5%) resulting in conveyance to hospital (service range 32.0% to 53.9%). Triage models varied between services and over time. Two primary call triage systems were in use across the UK. There were a large number of products and arrangements used for secondary triage, with services using paramedics, nurses, and doctors to support decision making in the call center and on scene. Frequent changes to triage processes took place. Conclusions Call volumes were highly variable. Case mix and workload changed significantly as COVID‐19 calls displaced other calls. Triage models and prehospital outcomes varied between services. We urgently need to understand safety and effectiveness of triage models to inform care during further waves and pandemics.

show abstract

Public involvement and engagement in primary and emergency care research

Cited by 16 publications

References 24 publications

Evaluation of the shielding initiative in Wales (EVITE Immunity): protocol for a quasiexperimental study

Evaluation of the shielding initiative in Wales (EVITE Immunity): protocol for a quasiexperimental study

Implementing public involvement throughout the research process—Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study

Call volume, triage outcomes, and protocols during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: Results of a national survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About