Patient and public involvement facilitators: Could they be the key to the NHS quality improvement agenda?

Developing inclusive public involvement and engagement activities with secondary school students and educational professionals: a protocol

BACKGROUND

Public involvement and engagement (PI&E) is increasingly recognised as an important component of research. It can offer valuable insights from those with experiential knowledge to improve research quality, relevance, and reach. Similarly, schools are ever more common sites for health research and, more recently, PI&E. However, 'gold-standard' practice is yet to be established, and activities/approaches remain underreported. As a result, knowledge can remain localised or lost. Diversity and inclusion also remains a challenge.

METHODS

This protocol has been informed by UK national guidance, evidence-based frameworks and available implementation literature. It describes both rationale and approach to conducting PI&E activities within a secondary school context. Activities are designed to be engaging, safe and accessible to young people with diverse experiences, with scope to be iteratively developed in line with public collaborator preference.

DISCUSSION

Young people should be architects of their involvement and engagement. Ongoing appraisal and transparency of approaches to PI&E in school settings is crucial. Expected challenges of implementing this protocol include facilitating a safe space for the discussion of sensitive topics, absence and attrition, recruiting students with a diverse range of experiences, and potential knowledge and capacity barriers of both facilitator and contributors. Activities to mitigate these risks are suggested and explored.

Emotion in public involvement: A conceptual review

BACKGROUND

Experiential knowledge can aid in designing research by highlighting what an idea looks like from a patient and carer perspective. Experiential knowledge can be emotional, and this can create challenges at formal research meetings.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to consider the role of emotions in public involvement.

METHODS

This is a conceptual review informed by relevant literature and reflection within the author team. A structured Scopus search was conducted in November 2021 and December 2022, identifying 18 articles that presented findings from patient and public involvement (PPI) research related to 'emotion'. We complemented the search with theory-generating articles related to the role of emotion and emotional labour in human life.

FINDINGS

Study findings from the structured search were tabulated to identify recurring themes; these were as follows: emotional connections to the research topic can cause stressful as well as cathartic experiences of PPI, 'emotional work' is part of PPI when people are contributing with their experiential knowledge and the emotional aspect of 'lived experience' needs to be recognised in how PPI is planned and facilitated. These points were considered in relation to theoretical works and experiences within the author team.

DISCUSSION

'Emotion work' is often required of public collaborators when they contribute to research. They are asked to contribute to research alongside researchers, with knowledge that often contains emotions or feelings. This can be both upsetting and cathartic, and the environment of the research study can make the experience worse or better.

CONCLUSIONS

The emotional component of experiential knowledge can be challenging to those invited to share this knowledge. It is imperative that researchers, research institutions and health and care professionals adjust research meeting spaces to show an awareness of the emotional labour that is involved in PPI.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This review was initiated after a meeting between carers and family members of residents in care homes and researchers. The review is co-written by a group of three researchers and three carers and family members. Regular online meetings were held during the draft stages to incorporate people's views and ideas. Data extracted from the review were presented to the group of public collaborators in a variety of formats (e.g., posters, slideshows, text and verbally) to facilitate shared sense-making and synthesis of the literature.

How to co-design a prototype of a clinical practice tool: a framework with practical guidance and a case study

Clinical tools for use in practice-such as medicine reconciliation charts, diagnosis support tools and track-and-trigger charts-are endemic in healthcare, but relatively little attention is given to how to optimise their design. User-centred design approaches and co-design principles offer potential for improving usability and acceptability of clinical tools, but limited practical guidance is currently available. We propose a framework (FRamework for co-dESign of Clinical practice tOols or 'FRESCO') offering practical guidance based on user-centred methods and co-design principles, organised in five steps: (1) establish a multidisciplinary advisory group; (2) develop initial drafts of the prototype; (3) conduct think-aloud usability evaluations; (4) test in clinical simulations; (5) generate a final prototype informed by workshops. We applied the framework in a case study to support co-design of a prototype track-and-trigger chart for detecting and responding to possible fetal deterioration during labour. This started with establishing an advisory group of 22 members with varied expertise. Two initial draft prototypes were developed-one based on a version produced by national bodies, and the other with similar content but designed using human factors principles. Think-aloud usability evaluations of these prototypes were conducted with 15 professionals, and the findings used to inform co-design of an improved draft prototype. This was tested with 52 maternity professionals from five maternity units through clinical simulations. Analysis of these simulations and six workshops were used to co-design the final prototype to the point of readiness for large-scale testing. By codifying existing methods and principles into a single framework, FRESCO supported mobilisation of the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to co-design a prototype track-and-trigger chart in an area of pressing service need. Subject to further evaluation, the framework has potential for application beyond the area of clinical practice in which it was applied.

Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment

OBJECTIVES

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research has a well-established infrastructure in the UK, and while there has been good progress within pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored research, further improvements are still needed. This review aims to share learnings from quality assessments of historical PPI projects within Pfizer UK to inform future projects and drive PPI progress in the pharmaceutical industry.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Internal assessments of Pfizer UK PPI projects were conducted to identify all relevant projects across the medicines development continuum between 2017 and 2021. Five sample projects were developed into case studies.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Retrospective quality assessments were performed using the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) Patient Engagement Quality Guidance (PEQG) tool. Recommendations for improvement were developed.

RESULTS

Retrospective case study analysis and quality framework assessment revealed benefits of PPI to both Pfizer UK and to external partners, as well as challenges and learnings to improve future practice. Recommendations for improvement based on these findings focused on processes and procedures for PPI, group dynamics and diversity for PPI activities, sharing of expertise, the importance of bidirectional and timely feedback, and the use of understandable language in materials.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI in medicines development is impactful and beneficial but is still being optimised in the pharmaceutical industry. Using the PFMD PEQG tool to define gaps, share learnings and devise recommendations for improvement helps to ensure that PPI is genuine and empowering, rather than tokenistic. Ultimately, these recommendations should be acted on to further embed PPI as an integral part of medicines development and health research within the pharmaceutical industry. This article includes a plain language summary in the supplement.

'To me, it's ones and zeros, but in reality that one is death': A qualitative study exploring researchers' experience of involving and engaging seldom-heard communities in big data research

BACKGROUND

Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom-heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them.

OBJECTIVE

We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom-heard communities around big data research.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom-heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences.

RESULTS

The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom-heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution.

CONCLUSION

The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom-heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project-specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing.

A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholder Involvement in Decision-Making for Alcohol Treatment and Prevention Services

The concept of providing individuals with a ‘voice’ via stakeholder involvement has been advocated within English health care policy for several decades. Stakeholder involvement encourages people affected by an issue to contribute to planning and decision making regarding treatment and care, inclusive of providers and recipients of care. This paper explores stakeholder involvement in the design and delivery of public health alcohol services. A qualitative case study approach was adopted, including in-depth interviews with 11 alcohol commissioners, 10 alcohol service providers and 6 general practitioners plus three facilitated focus groups with 31 alcohol service users. Findings show that most participants were aware of, and could name, various methods of stakeholder involvement that they had engaged with; however, the extent and impact of stakeholder involvement in decision making are not transparent. It is essential that a deeper understanding is generated of the different roles that stakeholders can play within the entire decision-making process to maximise its utility.

Responsibilities and capabilities of health engagement professionals (HEPs): Perspectives from HEPs and health consumers in Australia

Background

In Australia, the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (2012) stipulates that partnering with health consumers to improve health‐care experiences is one of the criteria health‐care organizations are assessed and accredited against. This standard has given rise to a role: health engagement professionals (HEPs). While there are no standard requirements for recruitment into this role, this study contributes to much needed research into understanding their responsibilities and capabilities, and their contributions to engagement outcomes.

Methods

Using a qualitative, interpretive approach, 16 HEPs and 15 health consumer representatives (who have experiences of interacting with HEPs) participated in an in‐depth phone interview in December 2019. We explored (a) the purposes of the role, (b) the responsibilities and work activities and (c) the capabilities required to carry out the responsibilities.

Results

Health engagement professionals are specialists in designing engagement mechanisms for health‐care organizations to co‐design health services with health consumers. They facilitate partnerships between health‐care organizations and health consumers. They play significant roles in listening to, facilitating understanding amongst different stakeholder groups (eg hospital management, health‐care workers and health consumers) and navigating the bureaucratic structures to influence outcomes. Four major responsibilities (advocacy, education, facilitation and administration) and four categories of capabilities (relational, communication, professional and personal) were identified.

Conclusion

A list of job responsibilities and desired capabilities of HEPs is provided to help health‐care organizations better understand the requirements for the role. This would help them decide how applicants to these roles would meet the requirements (eg experience of navigating bureaucratic systems).

Patient and public involvement facilitators: Could they be the key to the NHS quality improvement agenda?

OBJECTIVE

Research into patient and public involvement (PPI) has not examined in detail patient and public involvement facilitators' (PPIFs) roles and activities. This study analysed PPIFs' roles using qualitative data gathered from three different UK health-care organizations.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis was used to examine cross-sectional data collected using a mixed-methods approach from three organizations: a mental health trust, a community health social enterprise and an acute hospital trust. The data set comprised of 27 interviews and 48 observations.

FINDINGS

Patient and public involvement facilitators roles included the leadership and management of PPI interventions, developing health-care practices and influencing quality improvements (QI). They usually occupied middle-management grades but their PPIF role involved working in isolation or in small teams. They reported facilitating the development and maintenance of relationships between patients and the public, and health-care professionals and service managers. These roles sometimes required them to use conflict resolution skills and involved considerable emotional labour. Integrating information from PPI into service improvement processes was reported to be a challenge for these individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and public involvement facilitators capture and hold information that can be used in service improvement. However, they work with limited resources and support. Health-care organizations need to offer more practical support to PPIFs in their efforts to improve care quality, particularly by making their role integral to developing QI strategies.