Patient experience and reflective learning (PEARL): a mixed methods protocol for staff insight development in acute and intensive care medicine in the UK

Brookes, Olivia; Brown, Celia; Tarrant, Carolyn; Archer, Julian; Buckley, Duncan; Buckley, Lisa Marie; Clement, Ian; Evison, Felicity; Smith, Fang Gao; Gibbins, Chris; Hayton, Emma; Jones, Jennifer; Lilford, Richard; Mullhi, Randeep; Packer, Greg; Perkins, Gavin D.; Shelton, Jonathan; Snelson, Catherine; Sullivan, Paul; Vlaev, Ivo; Wolstenholme, Daniel; Wright, Stephen E.; Bion, Julian

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030679

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In most studies reporting on the development or evaluation of co-produced interventions, the lead organizations were universities (8/10 complex interventions and 27/34 co-produced applied interventions). Very few were led or co-led by NHS Trusts (2/10 complex interventions and 4/34 applied interventions) [ 23 , 29 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 55 ], one study was led by a community organization [ 26 ], and two co-produced applied interventions were led by independent service users or service user charities [ 48 , 50 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

Smith¹,

Budworth²,

Grindey³

et al. 2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research. Methods This scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research. Results Nineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production. Conclusion Researchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

Smith¹,

Budworth²,

Grindey³

et al. 2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are likely to prioritise meeting the needs of their critically ill relatives compared to their own (Alsharari, 2019). Brookes et al (2019) state that families understand the importance of their role in supporting their loved ones in the CCU and are equally dedicated to fulfilling that responsibility, irrespective of their personal characteristics. This also illustrates a strong and positive family relationship in Malaysian culture; each family member plays an important role in supporting their critically ill relative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Needs of Critical Care Unit Patient's Family Members in East Cost Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Ali,

Hashim

2024

MJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Involving family members is integral to the healing process and the patient's well-being in the Critical Care Unit (CCU). However, having a patient hospitalised in the CCU is quite challenging for the patient's family members and has become a traumatic experience for them. Therefore, the study objectives are to identify the important needs of CCU patients' family members and determine the relationship between their needs and sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: Across-sectional study was conducted among family members of patients who were admitted to the CCU in one government hospital in East Malaysia. About 96 participants were identified using convenience sampling and answered 42 questions in the Malay Critical Care Family Needs Inventory (CCFNI-M). The data were analysed using IBM-SPSS Statistics Version 25. Results:Most of the family members who cared for the patient in the ICU were female, 76% (n= 73). The findings demonstrated that family members ranked assurance (3.69 ± 0.26) and information (3.59±0.34) as the most important needs compared to proximity (3.18±0.46), support (3.04±0.50), and comfort (2.53±0.46). There was no association between family members' age, gender, and experience with assurance,support,comfort,proximity,andinformationneedswhenthep-value>0.05. Conclusions:In conclusion, recognising and addressing the needs of the ICU patient's family members is crucial for the strategy of CCU patient-family-centered care. The result of the study informs the importance of the involvement of family members in supporting CCU patients. By prioritising their needs and offering tailored support, healthcare providers can contribute to better patient outcomes and improved family well-being.

show abstract

“…We conducted an ethnographic study of reflection on patient experience feedback in eight acute care units in three NHS hospital trusts in England, including observations and interviews with staff working in acute medical units (AMUs) and intensive care units (ICUs), as part of the Patient Experience and Reflective Learning (PEARL) project . The three trusts were purposively selected as serving diverse, predominantly urban populations with high‐volume workloads.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflection in practice: How can patient experience feedback trigger staff reflection in hospital acute care settings?

Jones

Bion

Brown

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patient and staff experiences provide important insights into care quality, but health systems have difficulty using these data to improve care. Little attention has been paid to understanding how patient experience feedback can act as a prompt to reflection in practice in the clinical setting. Objective We aimed to identify the ways in which different types of patient experience feedback act as a trigger or prompt for engagement in reflection in clinical practice in acute hospital settings and identify important considerations for enhancing the value of patient experience data for reflective learning. Methods We conducted an ethnographic study in eight acute care units in three NHS hospital trusts in England, including 140 hours of observations and 45 semi‐structured interviews with nursing, medical and managerial staff working in acute medical units and intensive care units. The data were analysed thematically. Findings We distinguished between formal patient experience data sources: data purposively collected and collated to capture the patient experience of care, generally at organizational level, including surveys, complaints and comments; and informal sources of feedback on the patient experience recognized by staff alongside the formal data. We also identified patient narratives as an ‘in between’ source of data. The impact of different types of patient feedback in triggering reflection primarily depended on the extent to which the feedback was experienced as personally relevant, meaningful and emotionally salient. Discussion Patient experience feedback is multi‐faceted, but our study suggests that all types of feedback could be harnessed more effectively to prompt reflection.

show abstract

Patient experience and reflective learning (PEARL): a mixed methods protocol for staff insight development in acute and intensive care medicine in the UK

Cited by 8 publications

References 73 publications

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

The Needs of Critical Care Unit Patient's Family Members in East Cost Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Reflection in practice: How can patient experience feedback trigger staff reflection in hospital acute care settings?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About