Cargando…

Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation

OBJECTIVES: The Royal College of Physician’s (RCP) Future Hospital Programme (FHP) set out a blueprint for a radical new model of care that put patient experience centre stage. This paper reports on the results of an independent evaluation of the FHP and focuses on the role public patient involvemen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frith, Lucy, Hepworth, Lauren, Lowers, Victoria, Joseph, Frank, Davies, Elizabeth, Gabbay, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31515414
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027680
_version_ 1783451943575748608
author Frith, Lucy
Hepworth, Lauren
Lowers, Victoria
Joseph, Frank
Davies, Elizabeth
Gabbay, Mark
author_facet Frith, Lucy
Hepworth, Lauren
Lowers, Victoria
Joseph, Frank
Davies, Elizabeth
Gabbay, Mark
author_sort Frith, Lucy
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The Royal College of Physician’s (RCP) Future Hospital Programme (FHP) set out a blueprint for a radical new model of care that put patient experience centre stage. This paper reports on the results of an independent evaluation of the FHP and focuses on the role public patient involvement (PPI) played in these projects. The paper explores the perceptions and experiences of those involved in the FHP of how PPI was operationalised in this context, and develops an ‘ex-post’ programme theory of PPI in the FHP. We conclude by assessing the benefits and challenges of this work. SETTING: Secondary care. The FHP consisted of eight clinician-led healthcare improvement hospital development sites with two phases. PARTICIPANTS: Development site clinical teams, patient representatives, the RCP’s Patient and Carer Network, members of the FHP team, and fellows and members of the RCP. DESIGN/METHODS: We conducted an independent evaluation of the FHP using FHP documentation and data collected specifically for the evaluation: qualitative interviews, focus groups and a web-based survey. RESULTS: The PPI initiatives set out to develop more patient-centred care and improve the patient experience. The mechanisms designed to meet these goals were (1) a programme of PPI in the development site’s projects, (2) a better understanding of patient experience and (3) evaluation of patient experience. CONCLUSION: This evaluation of the FHP identifies some key elements that need to be considered when attempting to more closely integrate PPI and co-production in service re-design. The structure of FHP over two phases enabled learning from phase I to be incorporated into phase II. Having the PPI representatives closely involved, developing communities of practice, and the oversight and measuring activities acted as ‘disciplinary structures’ that contributed to embedding PPI in the FHP and kept the patient experience at the forefront of the improvement initiatives.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6747633
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67476332019-09-27 Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation Frith, Lucy Hepworth, Lauren Lowers, Victoria Joseph, Frank Davies, Elizabeth Gabbay, Mark BMJ Open Patient-Centred Medicine OBJECTIVES: The Royal College of Physician’s (RCP) Future Hospital Programme (FHP) set out a blueprint for a radical new model of care that put patient experience centre stage. This paper reports on the results of an independent evaluation of the FHP and focuses on the role public patient involvement (PPI) played in these projects. The paper explores the perceptions and experiences of those involved in the FHP of how PPI was operationalised in this context, and develops an ‘ex-post’ programme theory of PPI in the FHP. We conclude by assessing the benefits and challenges of this work. SETTING: Secondary care. The FHP consisted of eight clinician-led healthcare improvement hospital development sites with two phases. PARTICIPANTS: Development site clinical teams, patient representatives, the RCP’s Patient and Carer Network, members of the FHP team, and fellows and members of the RCP. DESIGN/METHODS: We conducted an independent evaluation of the FHP using FHP documentation and data collected specifically for the evaluation: qualitative interviews, focus groups and a web-based survey. RESULTS: The PPI initiatives set out to develop more patient-centred care and improve the patient experience. The mechanisms designed to meet these goals were (1) a programme of PPI in the development site’s projects, (2) a better understanding of patient experience and (3) evaluation of patient experience. CONCLUSION: This evaluation of the FHP identifies some key elements that need to be considered when attempting to more closely integrate PPI and co-production in service re-design. The structure of FHP over two phases enabled learning from phase I to be incorporated into phase II. Having the PPI representatives closely involved, developing communities of practice, and the oversight and measuring activities acted as ‘disciplinary structures’ that contributed to embedding PPI in the FHP and kept the patient experience at the forefront of the improvement initiatives. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6747633/ /pubmed/31515414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027680 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Patient-Centred Medicine
Frith, Lucy
Hepworth, Lauren
Lowers, Victoria
Joseph, Frank
Davies, Elizabeth
Gabbay, Mark
Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation
title Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation
title_full Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation
title_fullStr Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation
title_short Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians’ Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation
title_sort role of public involvement in the royal college of physicians’ future hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation
topic Patient-Centred Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31515414
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027680
work_keys_str_mv AT frithlucy roleofpublicinvolvementintheroyalcollegeofphysiciansfuturehospitalshealthcareimprovementprogrammeanevaluation
AT hepworthlauren roleofpublicinvolvementintheroyalcollegeofphysiciansfuturehospitalshealthcareimprovementprogrammeanevaluation
AT lowersvictoria roleofpublicinvolvementintheroyalcollegeofphysiciansfuturehospitalshealthcareimprovementprogrammeanevaluation
AT josephfrank roleofpublicinvolvementintheroyalcollegeofphysiciansfuturehospitalshealthcareimprovementprogrammeanevaluation
AT davieselizabeth roleofpublicinvolvementintheroyalcollegeofphysiciansfuturehospitalshealthcareimprovementprogrammeanevaluation
AT gabbaymark roleofpublicinvolvementintheroyalcollegeofphysiciansfuturehospitalshealthcareimprovementprogrammeanevaluation