Building collaborative leadership: A qualitative evaluation of the Australian Collaborative Pairs trial

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.

Creating person-centred health care value together

In this article we ask: to what extent is person-centred care truly embedded in our system, and are we making the most of the policy levers that could help? We describe person-centred care, shine a light on deficits in the health system, and point to some policy enablers to support person-centred care. Cultural change and a commitment to value-based health care are required. We highlight the merit in adopting and acting on patient-reported measures as an indicator of what matters to the patient, the need for integrated data systems, and the role of a co-creation approach. Most importantly, we underscore the importance of funding reform and consumer leadership.

We have to set the bar higher: towards consumer leadership, beyond engagement or involvement

Understanding of the benefits of consumer-led health policy, practice, research and education has been developing for decades. However, barriers to genuine, non-tokenistic consumer leadership remain across the health sector. While recent calls to align Australian consumer engagement practices with those in the UK and elsewhere may sound progressive, doing so would be problematic for three reasons. First, Australia has been at the forefront of consumer leadership scholarship and advocacy for decades, and we should not ignore the work consumers and allies have done in improving our health systems. Second, although there have been positive outcomes from consumer engagement and inclusion practices (as often required in other jurisdictions), they are open to tokenism and continue to position consumers' experiential expertise as 'lesser' compared to other health sector stakeholders' knowledge. Last, compared to consumer leadership, engagement or inclusion are 'lower bars' for health professionals to aim for. If we settle for engagement or inclusion in cases where consumer leadership would have been possible, then we lose not only our position at the forefront of consumer leadership, but also the expertise of consumers. Three propositions are provided: (1) we should support consumer-led development policy for consumer leadership in health, (2) we should ensure consumer leadership in oversight over as well as conduct of health and medical research, (3) we should encourage honest claims about the extent to which projects or initiatives are led by or with consumers.