The Experience of Patients Engaged in Co-designing Care Processes

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Co-design to deliver service improvement: What does this mean and how can we do it? A qualitative study with upper gastrointestinal cancer patients and professionals

BACKGROUND

There is strategic objective to incorporate the principles and practice of co-design into routine service development and improvement.

AIM

The aim was to explore the concept and feasibility of service co-design with patients and health professionals with regards to the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer care pathway.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Qualitative telephone interviews and face-to-face focus groups in one region of England. Twenty patients completed interviews. Nine patients and ten professionals formed two focus groups. Patients were referred through the urgent (two week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving their first treatment for an UGI cancer. Professionals were working as service planners and providers of the UGI cancer care pathway. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Six themes emerged: Responsibilities and expectations, Knowledge and understanding, Valuing patient input, Building relationships, Environment for co-design activities, Impact and effectiveness. Based on the themes a checklist has been created to provide practical suggestions for both professionals and patients on approaching co-design for service improvement.

CONCLUSION

This study offers policy and practice partners a clearer understanding of co-design and factors to consider when approaching co-design in real life settings.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

RESULTS

Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Development of communication tool for resident- and family-led care discussions in long-term care through patient and family engagement

BACKGROUND

Effective communication between residents (older adults), families, and the healthcare team supports person-centred care. However, communication breakdowns can occur that can impact care and outcomes. The aim of this paper is to describe a feedback approach to developing a communication tool for residents and families to guide information sharing during care discussions with the healthcare team in long-term care.

METHODS

Development of the communication tool included consultation with key stakeholders for their feedback and input. Following initial development of the tool template by our research team, we invited feedback from our study collaborators. Next, individual interviews and a focus group were conducted with family members, followed by individual interviews with selected residents from two long-term care homes in Ontario, Canada. Participants were asked to provide input and feedback on the tool's content and usability and to share ideas for improving the tool. Content analysis was used to analyse the interview data.

RESULTS

Feedback from residents and family included suggestions to enhance the tool's content and use of plain language, and suggestions for potential application of the tool.

CONCLUSION

Feedback highlighted the value of engaging residents and family members in the development of a communication tool. The communication tool offers a structured format to support participation of residents and families in information sharing for care discussions with the healthcare team.

Co-produced capability framework for successful patient and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: results of a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Internationally, patient and public involvement (PPI) is core policy for health service quality improvement (QI). However, authentic QI partnerships are not commonplace. A lack of patient and staff capability to deliver successful partnerships may be a barrier to meaningful QI collaboration.

OBJECTIVES

The research questions for this scoping review were: What is known regarding the capabilities required for healthcare staff and patients to effectively partner in QI at the service level?; and What is known regarding the best practice learning and development strategies required to build and support those capabilities?

METHODS

A six-stage scoping review was completed. Five electronic databases were searched for publications from January 2010 to February 2020. The database searches incorporated relevant terms for the following concepts: capabilities for PPI in healthcare QI; and best practice learning and development strategies to support those capabilities. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-nine papers were included. Very little peer-reviewed literature focused explicitly on capabilities for QI partnerships and thus implicit paper content was analysed. A Capability framework for successful partnerships in healthcare quality improvement was developed. It includes knowledge, skills and attitudes across three capability domains: Personal Attributes; Relationships and Communication; and Philosophies, Models and Practices, and incorporates 10 capabilities. Sharing power and leadership was discussed in many papers as fundamental and was positioned across all of the domains. Most papers discussed staff and patients' co-learning (n=28, 57.14%). Workshops or shorter structured training sessions (n=36, 73.47%), and face-to-face learning (n=34, 69.38%) were frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

The framework developed here could guide individualised development or learning plans for patient partners and staff, or could assist organisations to review learning topics and approaches such as training content, mentoring guidelines or community of practice agendas. Future directions include refining and evaluating the framework. Development approaches such as self-reflection, communities of practice, and remote learning need to be expanded and evaluated.

Clarifying the degrees, modes, and muddles of "meaningful" patient engagement in health services planning and designing

OBJECTIVES

Patient engagement has become the expectation around the world in an array of healthcare activities. There is an emerging need to improve the mechanisms and approaches to engaging patients. Previous research has found variation in the terms used to describe PE, which may inhibit the usefulness and impact of tools developed to improve PE. The objective of this review was to investigate how studies have conceptualized and differentiated between degrees of engagement in planning and designing of health services.

METHODS

This review conducted a database search for studies on PE in planning and designing health services, which were analyzed using the qualitative meta-synthesis approach.

RESULTS

The descriptive characteristics and the terms used to depict PE were analyzed in 18 studies. A synthesis for the following terms are provided: collaboration, cooperation, co-production, active involvement, partnership, and consumer and peer leadership. Similarities and differences between these terms and with frameworks of engagement are discussed.

CONCLUSION

This review found various conceptualizations of terms that depict meaningful PE that practitioners can use to develop their own conceptualizations match the context of an activity.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Joint training between patients and healthcare professionals may address variations in the language, goals, and purposes of engagement.

Designing a Performance Measurement System for Accountability, Quality Improvement, and Innovation

The purpose of this article is to detail a system for the design of performance measures that will be used to assess the achievement of a health care organization's strategic goals and its need for change. The article begins by emphasizing the importance of accountability and the need for the presence of a dynamic learning culture that is premised on a foundation of accountability, continuous improvement, learning, and innovation. This is followed by describing the importance of utilizing an interdisciplinary team with physician and patient involvement to guide the design and implementation of the performance measurement system. The goals of the system are then outlined and followed by a description of the process for the determination of the framework, scope, domains, measures, and reporting mechanisms for displaying the performance measures. Lastly, guidelines for the design of valid, reliable, and cost-effective performance measures are discussed with the aim of maximizing their utility by health care professionals, managers, and administrators.

Partnership between patients, nurse leaders and researchers: Outcomes of a web-based KT strategy for hospital discharge planning and care transitions in oncology

A research project brought together patient partners, nurse leaders from six clinical settings in Quebec and researchers to develop and test a web technology, the Forum for Knowledge Exchange (FKE), in order to improve discharge planning practices and oncological care transitions. The project led to the creation of a FKE accessible to the oncology sector of the Francophonie. It revealed an innovative strategy of knowledge transfer (KT) based on the FKE and was fed by collaborative work among partners, where the patient partners played a vital role. The results highlighted the importance, for health research, of giving a voice to patient partners in close collaboration with clinicians and researchers so that clinical practices are better adapted to the actual needs of patients and of their relatives.