Cargando…

Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement in healthcare planning, service development and health‐related research has received significant attention. However, evidence about the role of patient involvement in quality improvement work is more limited. We aimed to characterize patient involvement i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Armstrong, Natalie, Herbert, Georgia, Aveling, Emma‐Louise, Dixon‐Woods, Mary, Martin, Graham
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883095/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12039
_version_ 1782298405375049728
author Armstrong, Natalie
Herbert, Georgia
Aveling, Emma‐Louise
Dixon‐Woods, Mary
Martin, Graham
author_facet Armstrong, Natalie
Herbert, Georgia
Aveling, Emma‐Louise
Dixon‐Woods, Mary
Martin, Graham
author_sort Armstrong, Natalie
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement in healthcare planning, service development and health‐related research has received significant attention. However, evidence about the role of patient involvement in quality improvement work is more limited. We aimed to characterize patient involvement in three improvement projects and to identify strengths and weaknesses of contrasting approaches. METHODS: Three case study quality improvement projects were purposively sampled from a broader programme. We used an ethnographic approach involving 126 in‐depth interviews, 12 weeks of non‐participant observations and documentary analysis. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: The three projects differed in the ways they involved patients in their quality improvement work, including their rationales for including patients. We characterized three very different models of patient involvement, which were each influenced by project context. Patients played distinctive roles across the three projects, acting in some cases as intermediaries between the wider patient community and clinicians, and sometimes undertaking persuasive work to convince clinicians of the need for change. We identified specific strategies that can be used to help ensure that patient involvement works most effectively and that the enthusiasm of patients to make a difference is not dissipated. CONCLUSION: Patient involvement in quality improvement work needs careful management to realize its full potential.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3883095
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38830952014-01-10 Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement Armstrong, Natalie Herbert, Georgia Aveling, Emma‐Louise Dixon‐Woods, Mary Martin, Graham Health Expect Part 2 INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement in healthcare planning, service development and health‐related research has received significant attention. However, evidence about the role of patient involvement in quality improvement work is more limited. We aimed to characterize patient involvement in three improvement projects and to identify strengths and weaknesses of contrasting approaches. METHODS: Three case study quality improvement projects were purposively sampled from a broader programme. We used an ethnographic approach involving 126 in‐depth interviews, 12 weeks of non‐participant observations and documentary analysis. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: The three projects differed in the ways they involved patients in their quality improvement work, including their rationales for including patients. We characterized three very different models of patient involvement, which were each influenced by project context. Patients played distinctive roles across the three projects, acting in some cases as intermediaries between the wider patient community and clinicians, and sometimes undertaking persuasive work to convince clinicians of the need for change. We identified specific strategies that can be used to help ensure that patient involvement works most effectively and that the enthusiasm of patients to make a difference is not dissipated. CONCLUSION: Patient involvement in quality improvement work needs careful management to realize its full potential. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013-02-03 2013-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3883095/ /pubmed/23374430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12039 Text en © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Open access.
spellingShingle Part 2
Armstrong, Natalie
Herbert, Georgia
Aveling, Emma‐Louise
Dixon‐Woods, Mary
Martin, Graham
Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement
title Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement
title_full Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement
title_fullStr Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement
title_short Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement
title_sort optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement
topic Part 2
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883095/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12039
work_keys_str_mv AT armstrongnatalie optimizingpatientinvolvementinqualityimprovement
AT herbertgeorgia optimizingpatientinvolvementinqualityimprovement
AT avelingemmalouise optimizingpatientinvolvementinqualityimprovement
AT dixonwoodsmary optimizingpatientinvolvementinqualityimprovement
AT martingraham optimizingpatientinvolvementinqualityimprovement