Optimizing patient and public involvement (PPI): Identifying its "essential" and "desirable" principles using a systematic review and modified Delphi methodology.

BACKGROUND: There is international interest in the active involvement of patients and the public. However, consensus on how best to optimize its application is currently unavailable. OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the underlying principles of patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care services, research, education and regulation across medicine, dentistry and nursing. DESIGN: A four-phase methodology: (i) an extensive systematic review of published and grey literature; (ii) inductive thematic analysis of review findings; (iii) development of best practice principles; and (iv) consensus testing of identified principles using a modified Delphi methodology. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twelve systematic reviews and 88 grey literature publications were reviewed leading to the unique identification of 13 principles later assessed by 18 PPI experts. RESULTS: Essential consensus (>75% agreement) was obtained for nine principles reviewed. Working in equal partnership and sharing information achieved the highest consensus rates: 16/17 essential 94.1%; 1/17 desirable 5.8%. The four remaining principles that failed to reach essential consensus were categorized as desirable by expert respondents. No principles were considered irrelevant. No alternatives were suggested. DISCUSSION: Expert respondents suggest essential principles must be achieved to optimize PPI best practice. To advance PPI practice, desirable principles should also be aspired to wherever possible. CONCLUSIONS: This study's innovative approach advances existing knowledge by providing previously unavailable consensus about PPI best practice. Research findings hold important theoretical and practical implications for educators, regulators, researchers and practitioners looking to effectively work together

The medical licensing examination debate

National licensing examinations are typically large-scale examinations taken early in a career or near the point of graduation, and, importantly, success is required to subsequently be able to practice. They are becoming increasingly popular as a method of quality assurance in the medical workforce, but debate about their contribution to patient safety and the improvement of healthcare outcomes continues. A systematic review of the national licensing examination literature demonstrates that there is disagreement between assessment experts about the strengths and challenges of licensing examinations. This is characterized by a trans-Atlantic divide between the dominance of psychometric reliability assurance in North America and the wider interpretations of validity, to include consequences, in Europe. We conclude that the debate might benefit from refocusing to what a national licensing examination should assess: to achieve a balance between assessing a breadth of skills and the capacity for such skills in practice, and focusing less on reproducibility

The International Landscape of Medical Licensing Examinations: A Typology Derived From a Systematic Review

Background National licensing examinations (NLEs) are large-scale examinations usually taken by medical doctors close to the point of graduation from medical school. Where NLEs are used, success is usually required to obtain a license for full practice. Approaches to national licensing, and the evidence that supports their use, varies significantly across the globe. This paper aims to develop a typology of NLEs, based on candidacy, to explore the implications of different examination types for workforce planning. Methods A systematic review of the published literature and medical licensing body websites, an electronic survey of all medical licensing bodies in highly developed nations, and a survey of medical regulators. Results The evidence gleaned through this systematic review highlights four approaches to NLEs: where graduating medical students wishing to practice in their national jurisdiction must pass a national licensing exam before they are granted a license to practice; where all prospective doctors, whether from the national jurisdiction or international medical graduates, are required to pass a national licensing exam in order to practice within that jurisdiction; where international medical graduates are required to pass a licensing exam if their qualifications are not acknowledged to be comparable with those students from the national jurisdiction; and where there are no NLEs in operation. This typology facilitates comparison across systems and highlights the implications of different licensing systems for workforce planning. Conclusion The issue of national licensing cannot be viewed in isolation from workforce planning; future research on the efficacy of national licensing systems to drive up standards should be integrated with research on the implications of such systems for the mobility of doctors to cross borders

Comparing psychiatric care experiences shared online with validated questionnaires; do they include the same content?

Patient feedback is considered integral to patient safety and quality of care. However, limited research has compared the content of validated questionnaires with subjective patient experiences shared online. The aim of this study was to therefore identify and compare the content of psychiatric care experiences shared online with validated questionnaires. All research was conducted in co-production with a volunteer mental-health-patient-research-partner. We analysed all reviews published on the United Kingdom’s leading health and social care feedback platform Care Opinion, between 2005-2017 that discussed adult psychiatric care and compared findings with two validated questionnaires (ACP360 and General Medical Council patient feedback questionnaire). Our research findings show that patients describe some different measures of psychiatric care quality online and use different terminology to those used in validated questionnaires. Psychiatric care was also rarely discussed in relation to an individual psychiatrist alone. Multiple interactions affect patient experience and perceived care quality. Further work is needed to incorporate patient perceptions and terminology of care quality into patient feedback questionnaires and surveys. This may best be achieved through co-design although exploration of this approach is required. The current focus of patient feedback in revalidation is of limited value as patients do not typically disaggregate the care provided by an individual clinician from the wider healthcare team, system or environment. Although focused on psychiatry, research findings have clear implications for those looking to facilitate quality improvement and professional development

Patient and public involvement in medical performance processes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) continues to develop as a central policy agenda in health care. The patient voice is seen as relevant, informative and can drive service improvement. However, critical exploration of PPI's role within monitoring and informing medical performance processes remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To explore and evaluate the contribution of PPI in medical performance processes to understand its extent, purpose and process. SEARCH STRATEGY: The electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies published between 2004 and 2018. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies involving doctors and patients and all forms of patient input (eg, patient feedback) associated with medical performance were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Using an inductive approach to analysis and synthesis, a coding framework was developed which was structured around three key themes: issues that shape PPI in medical performance processes; mechanisms for PPI; and the potential impacts of PPI on medical performance processes. MAIN RESULTS: From 4772 studies, 48 articles (from 10 countries) met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that the extent of PPI in medical performance processes globally is highly variable and is primarily achieved through providing patient feedback or complaints. The emerging evidence suggests that PPI can encourage improvements in the quality of patient care, enable professional development and promote professionalism. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Developing more innovative methods of PPI beyond patient feedback and complaints may help revolutionize the practice of PPI into a collaborative partnership, facilitating the development of proactive relationships between the medical profession, patients and the public

Patient and public involvement in medical performance processes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) continues to develop as a central policy agenda in health care. The patient voice is seen as relevant, informative and can drive service improvement. However, critical exploration of PPI's role within monitoring and informing medical performance processes remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To explore and evaluate the contribution of PPI in medical performance processes to understand its extent, purpose and process. SEARCH STRATEGY: The electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies published between 2004 and 2018. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies involving doctors and patients and all forms of patient input (eg, patient feedback) associated with medical performance were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Using an inductive approach to analysis and synthesis, a coding framework was developed which was structured around three key themes: issues that shape PPI in medical performance processes; mechanisms for PPI; and the potential impacts of PPI on medical performance processes. MAIN RESULTS: From 4772 studies, 48 articles (from 10 countries) met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that the extent of PPI in medical performance processes globally is highly variable and is primarily achieved through providing patient feedback or complaints. The emerging evidence suggests that PPI can encourage improvements in the quality of patient care, enable professional development and promote professionalism. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Developing more innovative methods of PPI beyond patient feedback and complaints may help revolutionize the practice of PPI into a collaborative partnership, facilitating the development of proactive relationships between the medical profession, patients and the public

Engaging patients and clinicians through simulation: rebalancing the dynamics of care

This paper proposes simulation-based enactment of care as an innovative and fruitful means of engaging patients and clinicians to create collaborative solutions to healthcare issues. This use of simulation is a radical departure from traditional transmission models of education and training. Instead, we frame simulation as co-development, through which professionals, patients and publics share their equally (though differently) expert perspectives. The paper argues that a process of participatory design can bring about new insights and that simulation offers understandings that cannot easily be expressed in words. Drawing on more than a decade of our group’s research on simulation and engagement, the paper summarises findings from studies relating to clinician-patient collaboration and proposes a novel approach to address the current need. The paper outlines a mechanism whereby pathways of care are jointly created, shaped, tested and refined by professionals, patients, carers and others who are affected and concerned by clinical care

The implementation of medical revalidation: an assessment using normalisation process theory

Abstract Background Medical revalidation is the process by which all licensed doctors are legally required to demonstrate that they are up to date and fit to practise in order to maintain their licence. Revalidation was introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2012, constituting significant change in the regulation of doctors. The governing body, the General Medical Council (GMC), envisages that revalidation will improve patient care and safety. This potential however is, in part, dependent upon how successfully revalidation is embedded into routine practice. The aim of this study was to use Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore issues contributing to or impeding the implementation of revalidation in practice. Methods We conducted seventy-one interviews with sixty UK policymakers and senior leaders at different points during the development and implementation of revalidation: in 2011 (n = 31), 2013 (n = 26) and 2015 (n = 14). We selected interviewees using purposeful sampling. NPT was used as a framework to enable systematic analysis across the interview sets. Results Initial lack of consensus over revalidation’s purpose, and scepticism about its value, decreased over time as participants recognised the benefits it brought to their practice (coherence category of NPT). Though acceptance increased across time, revalidation was not seen as a legitimate part of their role by all doctors. Key individuals, notably the Responsible Officer (RO), were vital for the successful implementation of revalidation in organisations (cognitive participation category). The ease with which revalidation could be integrated into working practices varied greatly depending on the type of role a doctor held and the organisation they work for and the provision of resources was a significant variable in this (collective action category). Formal evaluation of revalidation in organisations was lacking but informal evaluation was taking place. Revalidation had not yet reached the stage where feedback was being used for improvement (reflexive monitoring category). Conclusions Requiring all organisations to use the same revalidation model made revalidation easy to integrate into existing work for some but problematic for others. In order for revalidation to be fully embedded and successful, impeding factors, such as a lack of resources, need to be addressed