Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation

Frith, Lucy; Hepworth, Lauren R.; Lowers, Victoria; Joseph, Frank; Davies, Elizabeth; Gabbay, Mark

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027680

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies stress the importance of involving individuals to represent hard-to-reach group members (known as representatives ), which may help to include the interests of the disadvantaged inhabitants and group members in coproduction (Eriksson, 2019; Frith et al , 2019). Eriksson (2019) report the use of coproduction representatives to increase immigrant women's understanding of, and participation in, a cancer screening program.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eriksson (2019) report the use of coproduction representatives to increase immigrant women's understanding of, and participation in, a cancer screening program. Frith et al (2019) suggest that having public patient involvement (PPI) representatives is a mechanism to begin to involve patients and move toward more significant coproduction/design of services to ensure the prioritization of patient-centered care.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…IKT is viewed as a process wherein partnerships with key knowledge users are developed to enhance the responsiveness and application of the findings (Banner et al , 2019). Thus, there is a need to integrate coproduction in service redesign to develop more patient-centered care and improve the patient experience (Frith et al , 2019) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Coproduction and cocreation in public care services: a systematic review

Lopes

Alves

2020

IJPSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo analyze and discuss the research on the public healthcare services (PHCS) through the lenses of coproduction/creation by systematizing the antecedents, the process enablers and the outcomes of coproduction/creation in terms of organizational and individual/patients factors.Design/methodology/approachA systematic review was performed based on 46 papers found in ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases following the Prisma Protocol for the search.FindingsThe results show that antecedents of coproduction/creation are connected to organizational/institutional capabilities (e.g. codesign of services or trust development) or patient/individual factors (e.g. physical and mental capabilities). The process of coproduction/creation relates with enablers, such as interactive and dynamic relationships between public care service providers and users. Finally, outcomes have diverse nature, namely quality of life, compliance, behavioral intentions, among others.Research limitations/implicationsThis study addresses the overlooked topic of coproduction/creation of value within PHCS. It contributes to public healthcare services literature wherein concepts of coproduction and cocreation of value are still on debate. It contributes to the transformative service research (TSR) by underlining that healthcare factors, processes and approaches may have a positive or negative (value codestructing) influence on the well-being. It yields crucial implications for PHCS.Originality/valueIt is the first attempt to systematize scientific knowledge on this topic, therefore conferring some novelty potential.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coproduction and cocreation in public care services: a systematic review

Lopes

Alves

2020

IJPSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frequency, n (%) Type of involvement [18,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27]30,[32][33][34][35][36]134] 60 (62) Generation of new ideas [17,19,23,30,[32][33][34][35][36][37]39,41,49,54,55,59,60,[65][66][67][68][69]74,75,78,81,[83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]…”

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

Aguayo¹,

Goetzinger²,

Scibilia³

et al. 2021

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols. Objective The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research. Methods We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate’s viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case. Results We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies. Conclusions PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

show abstract

“…This approach is considered to have contributed to the success of the Future Hospital Programme. 127 We have found the COM-B framework to be a valuable approach for describing reflection in terms of capability, opportunity and motivation. By combining the COM-B framework with pedagogic theories of learning we have created a composite model that has diagnostic potential, for example by identifying that staff tend to focus on opportunities for reflection more than on capability or motivation.…”

Section: Chapter 6 Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework and toolkit of interventions to enhance reflective learning among health-care professionals: the PEARL mixed-methods study

Bion

Brookes

Brown

et al. 2020

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although most health care is high quality, many patients and members of staff can recall episodes of a lack of empathy, respect or effective communication from health-care staff. In extreme form, this contributes to high-profile organisational failures. Reflective learning is a universally promoted technique for stimulating insight, constructive self-appraisal and empathy; however, its efficacy tends to be assumed rather than proven. The Patient Experience And Reflective Learning (PEARL) project has used patient and staff experience to co-design a novel reflective learning framework that is based on theories of behaviour and learning. Objective To create a toolkit to help health-care staff obtain meaningful feedback to stimulate effective reflective learning that will promote optimal patient-, family- and colleague-focused behaviours. Design A 3-year developmental mixed-methods study with four interlinked workstreams and 12 facilitated co-design meetings. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour framework was used to describe factors influencing the behaviour of reflection. Setting This took place at five acute medical units and three intensive care units in three urban acute hospital trusts in England. Participants Patients and relatives, medical and nursing staff, managers and researchers took part. Data sources Two anonymous surveys, one for patients and one for staff, were developed from existing UK-validated instruments, administered locally and analysed centrally. Ethnographers undertook interviews and observed clinical care and reflective learning activities in the workplace, as well as in the co-design meetings, and fed back their observations in plenary workshops. Main outcome measures Preliminary instruments were rated by participants for effectiveness and feasibility to derive a final set of tools. These are presented in an attractively designed toolbox with multiple sections, including the theoretical background of reflection, mini guides for obtaining meaningful feedback and for reflecting effectively, guides for reflecting ‘in-action’ during daily activities, and a set of resources. Results Local project teams (physicians, nurses, patients, relatives and managers) chaired by a non-executive director found the quarterly reports of feedback from the patient and staff surveys insightful and impactful. Patient satisfaction with care was higher for intensive care units than for acute medical units, which reflects contextual differences, but in both settings quality of communication was the main driver of satisfaction. Ethnographers identified many additional forms of experiential feedback. Those that generated an emotional response were particularly effective as a stimulus for reflection. These sources of data were used to supplement individual participant experiences in the nine local co-design meetings and four workshops to identify barriers to and facilitators of effective reflection, focusing on capability, opportunity and motivation. A logic model was developed combining the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour framework for reflection and theories of learning to link patient and staff experience to changes in downstream behaviours. Participants proposed practical tools and activities to enhance reflection ‘in-action’ and ‘on-action’. These tools were developed iteratively by the local and central project teams. Limitations Paper-based surveys were burdensome to administer and analyse. Conclusions Patients and health-care staff collaborated to produce a novel reflective learning toolkit. Future work The toolkit requires evaluating in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation

Cited by 7 publications

References 28 publications

Coproduction and cocreation in public care services: a systematic review

Coproduction and cocreation in public care services: a systematic review

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

A framework and toolkit of interventions to enhance reflective learning among health-care professionals: the PEARL mixed-methods study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About