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

Assessing early feasibility of a novel innovation to increase consumer partnership capability within an Australian health innovation organisation using a mixed-method approach

OBJECTIVE

Engagement-capable health organisations recognise that consumer engagement (also known as patient engagement, consumer engagement, patient and public involvement) must occur at every level of the organisation if it is to be meaningful and genuine. Despite this aspiration, health organisations struggle to adopt, implement, and embody consumer engagement capability in a way that has yielded impact. The Partner Ring (PR) is an embedded model for building staff capability for consumer partnerships. It is hosted by an employed Patient Partner. PR was implemented at the Agency for Clinical Innovation in New South Wales, Australia. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility (acceptability, demand and practicality) of this innovation to increase consumer engagement capability.

DESIGN

One-group post-intervention mixed methods approach to assess feasibility.

PARTICIPANTS

ACI staff engaged in the PR (n=40 of 89 members).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Qualitative data was collected through an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven interactive interview, with 40 responses received between 29 June and 12 July 2023. A framework analysis and Generative AI causal mapping were conducted to identify and visualise causal claims within the texts. Cost and session attendance collected from the same point in time supplemented the analysis.

FINDINGS

Findings were categorised by the following feasibility constructs: acceptability, demand and practicality. Almost all the respondents indicated their intent to continue using the PR and outlined personal benefits and professional benefits. For example, (n=23, 57%) reacted positively to the psychological safety of the PR, and professionally people identified attendance increased their knowledge and skills (n=23, 57%).

CONCLUSION

The PR is feasible and likely to be an acceptable innovation for building staff capability and consumer engagement skills across a large health system or organisation. It could be adopted or adapted by other jurisdictions.

Accreditation of Quality in Primary Health Care in Chile: Perception of the Teams from Accredited Family Healthcare Centers

This study aimed to investigate the perception of the health teams belonging to the Family Healthcare Centers (CESFAMs) that are accredited, regarding the process of implementation and the achievement of accreditation. A qualitative approach was applied, with contributions from grounded theory, through the technique of individual in-depth interviews and focus groups. The interviews were carried out in nine accredited CESFAMs. For the presentation, organization and analysis of the data, Atlas.ti V9 software was used. From the results, derived from the open phase of the analysis, obtained from the opinions of the participants, a total of 26 categories emerged relating to the facilitating and hindering factors of the process. From the axial phase, it was possible to establish central categories that were related to quality management policies, the structure of Primary Health Care (PHC), participation and co-construction, and leadership and change management. In conclusion, the discourse of the teams reveals the need to have necessary conditions for the accreditation process, which are mainly related to training, characteristics of the types of leadership and teamwork in harmony with the process. Finally, the study reveals a gap in the community participation in this process, which suggests continuing this line of research.

Reimagining consumer involvement: Resilient system indicators in the COVID-19 pandemic response in New South Wales, Australia

Background

Reflections on the response to the COVID‐19 pandemic often evoke the concept of ‘resilience’ to describe the way health systems adjusted and adapted their functions to withstand the disturbance of a crisis, and in some cases, improve and transform in its wake. Drawing from this, this study focuses on the role of consumer representatives in healthcare services in initiating changes to the way they participated in the pandemic response in the state of New South Wales in Australia.

Methods

In‐depth interviews were conducted with two cohorts of consumer representatives. Cohort A included experienced and self‐identified consumer leaders, who worked together in a COVID‐19 Consumer Leaders Taskforce; Cohort B included participants outside of this group, and purposively included consumer representatives from rural and regional areas, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

Results

The pause in consumer engagement to support health service decision‐making in responding to the pandemic forced consumer representatives to consider alternative approaches to participate. Some initiated networking with each other, forming new collaborations to produce consumer‐led research and guidelines on pandemic‐related patient care. Others mobilized support from community and politicians to lobby for specific healthcare issues in their local areas.

Conclusion

The response to the COVID‐19 pandemic made visible the brittle nature of previous engagement processes of involving consumers in organizational design and governance. However, the momentum for proactive self‐organization in an unexpected crisis created space for consumer representatives to reset and reimagine their role as active partners in health services. Their ability to adapt and adjust ways of working are key assets for a resilient health system.

Patient or Public Contribution

This project is a collaborative study between academic researchers and health consumer (patient and public) representatives. It followed the principles of codesign and coresearch, whereby both consumer representatives and academic researchers contributed equally to all stages of the project. The study was cofunded by both academic institutions and consumer representative organizations.

Refining a capability development framework for building successful consumer and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: A coproduced eDelphi study

BACKGROUND

The capability of consumers and staff may be critical for authentic and effective partnerships in healthcare quality improvement (QI). Capability frameworks describe core knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, and behaviours and guide learning and development at individual and organizational levels.

OBJECTIVE

To refine a capability framework for successful partnerships in healthcare QI which was coproduced from a scoping review.

DESIGN

A two-round eDelphi design was used. The International Expert Panel rated the importance of framework items in supporting successful QI partnerships, and suggested improvements. They also rated implementation options and commented on the influence of context.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven Research Advisory Group members were recruited to support the research team. The eDelphi panel included 53 people, with 44 (83%) and 42 (77. 8%) participating in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. They were from eight countries and had diverse backgrounds.

RESULTS

The Research Advisory Group and panel endorsed the framework and summary diagram as valuable resources to support the growth of authentic and meaningful partnerships in QI across healthcare contexts, conditions, and countries. A consensus was established on content and structure. Substantial rewording included a stronger emphasis on growth, trust, respect, inclusivity, diversity, and challenging the status quo. The final capability development framework included three domains: Personal Attributes, Relationships and Communication, and Principles and Practices. The Equalizing Decision Making, Power, and Leadership capability was foundational and positioned across all domains. Ten capabilities with twenty-seven capability descriptions were also included. The Principles and Practices domain, Equalizing Decision Making, Power, and Leadership capability, and almost half (44.4%) of the capability descriptions were rated as more important for staff than consumers (p < .01). However, only the QI processes and practices capability description did not meet the inclusion threshold for consumers. Thus, the framework was applicable to staff and consumers.

CONCLUSION

The refined capability development framework provides direction for planning and provision of learning and development regarding QI partnerships.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two consumers were full members of the research team and are coauthors. A Research Advisory Group, inclusive of consumers, guided study execution and translation planning. More than half of the panel were consumers.

Organizational capacity for patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: interviews with patient/family advisors, managers and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Patient and family engagement (PE) in healthcare planning and improvement achieves beneficial outcomes and is widely advocated, but a lack of resources is a critical barrier. Little prior research studied how organizations support engagement specifically in hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

We explored what constitutes hospital capacity for engagement.

METHODS

We conducted descriptive qualitative interviews and complied with criteria for rigour and reporting in qualitative research. We interviewed patient/family advisors, engagement managers, clinicians and executives at hospitals with high engagement activity, asking them to describe essential resources or processes. We used content analysis and constant comparison to identify themes and corresponding quotes and interpreted findings by mapping themes to two existing frameworks of PE capacity not specific to hospitals.

RESULTS

We interviewed 40 patient/family advisors, patient engagement managers, clinicians and corporate executives from nine hospitals (two < 100 beds, four 100 + beds, three teaching). Four over-arching themes about capacity considered essential included resources, training, organizational commitment and staff support. Views were similar across participant and hospital groups. Resources included funding and people dedicated to PE and technology to enable communication and collaboration. Training encompassed initial orientation and project-specific training for patient/family advisors and orientation for new staff and training for existing staff on how to engage with patient/family advisors. Organizational commitment included endorsement from the CEO and Board, commitment from staff and continuous evaluation and improvement. Staff support included words and actions that conveyed value for the role and input of patient/family advisors. The blended, non-hospital-specific framework captured all themes. Hospitals of all types varied in the availability of funding dedicated to PE. In particular, reimbursement of expenses and compensation for time and contributions were not provided to patient/family advisors. In addition to skilled engagement managers, the role of clinician or staff champions was viewed as essential.

CONCLUSION

The findings build on prior research that largely focused on PE in individual clinical care or research or in primary care planning and improvement. The findings closely aligned with existing frameworks of organizational capacity for PE not specific to hospital settings, which suggests that hospitals could use the blended framework to plan, evaluate and improve their PE programs. Further research is needed to yield greater insight into how to promote and enable compensation for patient/family advisors and the role of clinician or staff champions in supporting PE.

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).