BackgroundPatient advisory councils are a way for healthcare organizations to promote patient engagement. Despite mandates to implement patient advisory councils through programs like the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), there is a paucity of data measuring the impact of patients functioning in advisory roles. Our objective is to investigate whether patient engagement in patient advisory councils is linked to improvements in clinical quality, patient safety or patient satisfaction.MethodsWe searched PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Google Scholar for English language publications between November 2002 to August 2015, using a combination of “patient advisor” and “care outcomes” search terms. Article selection utilized dual screening facilitated by DistillerSR software, with group discussion to resolve discordance. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and case studies were included that described patients serving in an advisory role where primary outcomes were mentioned. Reference lists of included studies and grey literature searches were conducted. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to synthesize results.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 639 articles total after removing duplicates, with 129 articles meeting full text inclusion criteria. 32 articles were identified for final review, 16 of which were case studies. Advisory roles included patient advisory councils, ad-hoc patient committees, community advisory councils, experience-based co-design, and other. Four practice-based studies from one research group, involving community advisors in the design of public health interventions, found improved clinical outcomes. No prospective experimental studies assessed the impact of patient advisors on patient safety or patient satisfaction. One cluster-randomized RCT showed that patient advisors helped health care planning efforts identify priorities more aligned with the PCMH. Ten case studies reported anecdotal benefit to individual patient advisors.ConclusionFive included studies demonstrate promising methods for evaluating patient engagement in healthcare delivery and describe impacts on clinical outcomes and priority setting. Based on the case studies found, patient advisors tend to contribute to patient-facing services that may affect clinical care but are not easily evaluated. As clinics and hospitals implement patient advisory councils, rigorous evaluation of their programs is needed to support the expansion of system-level patient engagement.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database of the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (ID: 2015:CRD42015030020).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2630-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients and caregivers play a central role in health care safety in the hospital, ambulatory care setting, and community. Despite this, interventions to promote patient engagement in safety are still underexplored. We conducted an overview of review articles on patient engagement interventions in safety to examine the current state of the evidence. Of the 2,795 references we evaluated, 52 articles met our full-text inclusion criteria for synthesis in 2018. We identified robust evidence supporting patients' self-management of anticoagulation medications and mixed-quality evidence supporting patient engagement in medication and chronic disease self-management, adverse event reporting, and medical record accuracy. Promising modes of patient engagement in safety, such as anticoagulation management and patient portal access, are not widely implemented. We discuss major implementation priorities and propose directions for future research and policy to enhance patient partnership within safety efforts.

Context and Objective:Patient advisory councils (PACs) are a strategy for primary care clinics to engage patients in practice improvement. However, there is scant research on how PACs function. This study aimed to understand how PACs are organized and identify common challenges and perceived benefits of high-functioning PACs.Setting and Population: Key informants identified 8 primary care clinics in California with highfunctioning PACs. Leaders from each of the 8 clinics nominated 1 clinic staff member and 1 PAC patient member to be interviewed.Study Design: Semistructured, one-on-one interviews were conducted at each clinic site or by phone. Interviews were dual-coded using modified grounded theory. Common themes were identified that would be pertinent to the development of future best practices for running PACs.Results: Common characteristics of high-functioning PACs included careful attention to participant recruitment, facilitation strategies guiding diverse personalities toward a common purpose, and assigning accountability for practice improvement projects. Interviewees identified a variety of positive outcomes that ranged from tangible improvements to the waiting area to a more patient-centered staff culture.

PURPOSE Health coaching is effective for chronic disease self-management in the primary care safety-net setting, but little is known about the persistence of its benefits. We conducted an observational study evaluating the maintenance of improved cardiovascular risk factors following a health coaching intervention. METHODSWe performed a naturalistic follow-up to the Health Coaching in Primary Care Study, a 12-month randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing health coaching to usual care for patients with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. Participants were followed up 24 months from RCT baseline. The primary outcome was the proportion at goal for at least 1 measure (hemoglobin A 1c , systolic blood pressure, or LDL cholesterol) that had been above goal at enrollment; secondary outcomes included each individual clinical goal. Chisquare tests and paired t-tests compared dichotomous and continuous measures.RESULTS 290 of 441 participants (65.8%) participated at both 12 and 24 months. The proportion of patients in the coaching arm of the RCT who achieved the primary outcome dropped only slightly from 47.1% at 12 to 45.9% at 24 months (P = .80). The proportion at goal for hemoglobin A 1c dropped from 53.4% to 36.2% (P = .03). All other clinical metrics had small, nonsignificant changes between 12 and 24 months.CONCLUSIONS Results support the conclusion that most improved clinical outcomes persisted 1 year after the completion of the health coaching intervention.