BackgroundThe number of people with multiple chronic conditions receiving primary care services is growing. To deal with their increasingly complex health care demands, professionals from different disciplines need to collaborate. Interprofessional team (IPT) meetings are becoming more popular. Several studies describe important factors related to conducting IPT meetings, mostly from a professional perspective. However, in the light of patient-centeredness, it is valuable to also explore the patients’ perspective.ObjectiveThe aim was to explore the patients’ perspectives regarding IPT meetings in primary care.MethodsA qualitative study with a focus group design was conducted in the Netherlands. Two focus group meetings took place, for which the same patients were invited. The participants, chronically ill patients with experience on interprofessional collaboration, were recruited through the regional patient association. Participants discussed viewpoints, expectations, and concerns regarding IPT meetings in two rounds, using a focus group protocol and selected video-taped vignettes of team meetings. The first meeting focused on conceptualization and identification of themes related to IPT meetings that are important to patients. The second meeting aimed to gain more in-depth knowledge and understanding of the priorities. Discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by means of content analysis.ResultsThe focus group meetings included seven patients. Findings were divided into six key categories, capturing the factors that patients found important regarding IPT meetings: (1) putting the patient at the center, (2) opportunities for patients to participate, (3) appropriate team composition, (4) structured approach, (5) respectful communication, and (6) informing the patient about meeting outcomes.ConclusionsPatients identified different elements regarding IPT meetings that are important from their perspective. They emphasized the right of patients or their representatives to take part in IPT meetings. Results of this study can be used to develop tools and programs to improve interprofessional collaboration.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0214-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAcquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5‐year coaching programme.ObjectiveTo establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants.MethodsA participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation.FindingsThe programme comprised a kick‐off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor‐made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders.ConclusionBuilding a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.

Background: During the process of decision-making for long-term care, clients are often dependent on informal support and available information about quality ratings of care services. However, clients do not take ratings into account when considering preferred care, and need assistance to understand their preferences. A tool to elicit preferences for long-term care could be beneficial. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative descriptive study is to understand the user requirements and develop a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in need of longterm care. Methods: We applied a user-centred design in which end-users influence the development of the tool. The included end-users were clients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018 by means of meetings with the development team consisting of four users, walkthrough interviews with 21 individual users, video-audio recordings, field notes, and observations during the use of the tool. Data were collected during three phases of iteration: Look and feel, Navigation, and Content. A deductive and inductive content analysis approach was used for data analysis. Results: The layout was considered accessible and easy during the Look and feel phase, and users asked for neutral images. Users found navigation easy, and expressed the need for concise and shorter text blocks. Users reached consensus about the categories of preferences, wished to adjust the content with propositions about well-being, and discussed linguistic difficulties. Conclusion: By incorporating the requirements of end-users, the user-centred design proved to be useful in progressing from the prototype to the finalized tool 'What matters to me'. This tool may assist the elicitation of client's preferences in their search for long-term care.

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in quality improvement of oncological care pathways for older patients are rare. Objectives Improve the care pathway experience of older cancer patients and explore lessons learned regarding how to engage this vulnerable group. Design Experience‐Based Co‐Design. Setting and participants: Older cancer patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals within colorectal and breast cancer care pathways. Interventions: Co‐design quality improvement teams. Main outcome measures: Colorectal cancer care pathway touchpoints were (a) availability of a contact person during diagnostic, treatment and aftercare phases; (b) collaboration between physicians and different hospital departments; (c) continuous relationship with same physician; (d) respectful treatment; (e) and information transfer with primary care. Breast cancer care pathway touchpoints were (a) comprehensive information package and information provision, (b) care planning based on patient preferences, (c) continuity of patient–professional relationship and (d) specialized care in case of vulnerability. Challenges related to PPI included (a) ability of older cancer patients to be reflective, critical and think at a collective level; (b) gaining support and commitment of professionals; (d) overcoming cultural differences and power inequalities; and (e) involving researchers and facilitators with appropriate expertise and position. Conclusion This multidisciplinary quality improvement project revealed several challenges of PPI with older cancer patients and their caregivers. Research teams themselves need to assume the role of facilitator to enable meaningful PPI of older cancer patients. Patient or Public Contribution Patient and caregiver representatives and advocates were involved in the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation of the data and preparation of this manuscript.

Background and objective Public involvement in palliative care is challenging and difficult, because people in need of palliative care are often not capable of speaking up for themselves. Patient representatives advocate for their common interests. The aim of our study was to examine in depth the current practice of public involvement in palliative care.