Learning and development needs for successful staff and consumer partnerships on healthcare quality improvement committees: a co-produced cross-sectional online survey

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to conduct a learning and development needs analysis of quality improvement partnership capabilities of staff and consumers on partnership committees at an Australian metropolitan hospital and health service. Objectives were to compare consumer and staff self-rated capability importance, performance, and learning needs; to investigate if years of partnership experience influenced ratings; and to ascertain staff and consumer preferred learning strategies. Methods An online cross-sectional survey was adapted from the Hennessy–Hicks Training Needs Analysis questionnaire. Participants self-rated the importance of, and their performance on, 10 capabilities, across four domains, of an internationally validated co-produced capability development framework. They also rated preferences regarding learning approaches and media. Results A total of 199 members from 41 committees (174 staff; 25 consumers; response rate 35.38%) participated. There was a statistically significant learning and development need across all capabilities (P < 0.01). The highest learning need was for influencing organisational systems and policy (mean = −0.96; s.d. = 1.23), followed by equalising power and leadership (mean = −0.91; s.d. = 1.22), and then implementing partnership best practices (mean = −0.89; s.d. = 1.22). There were no statistically significant differences between consumers and staff on ratings, or correlations between years of partnership experience and ratings (P < 0.01). A combination of learning approaches was preferred, followed by learning through experience. Self-reflection was least preferred, which is concerning given it may promote equalising power and leadership. Face-to-face then videoconferencing were the preferred learning media. Conclusions Continuous co-learning for staff and consumers about QI partnerships is essential. Committee members needed more feedback regarding their influence and to be engaged in innovative co-design practices.