Learning and development needs for successful staff and consumer partnerships on healthcare quality improvement committees: a co-produced cross-sectional online survey
Ruth Cox
A B * , Melissa Kendall C D , Matthew Molineux A , Bernadette Tanner E and Elizabeth Miller E
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Discipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
B Occupational Therapy Department, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Qld, Australia.
C Acquired Brain Injury Outreach Service and Transitional Rehabilitation Program, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Buranda, Qld, Australia.
D School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Qld, Australia.
E Consumer Co-Researcher C/O Occupational Therapy Department, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Qld, Australia.
* Correspondence to: Ruth.Cox@health.qld.gov.au
Australian Health Review 47(4) 418-426 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH22266
Submitted: 21 November 2022 Accepted: 10 May 2023 Published: 30 May 2023
© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of AHHA.
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.
Keywords: accreditation, consumer partnerships, consumers, education and training, governance, learning and development needs analysis, quality and safety, quality improvement committees.
References
[1] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. National safety and quality health service standards, 2nd edn. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 2017.[2] Blignault I, Aspinall D, Reay L, Hyman K. Realisation of a joint consumer engagement strategy in the Nepean Blue Mountains region. Aust J Prim Health 2017; 23 531–5.
| Realisation of a joint consumer engagement strategy in the Nepean Blue Mountains region.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Gagliardi AR, Martinez JPD, Baker GR, Moody L, Scane K, Urquhart R, et al. Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21 179
| Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Ní Shé É, Harrison R. Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care. Health Expect 2021; 24 1551–6.
| Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Ayton D, Braaf S, Jones A, Teede H, Gardam M, Bergmeier H, et al. Barriers and enablers to consumer and community involvement in research and healthcare improvement: perspectives from consumer organisations, health services and researchers in Melbourne, Australia. Health Soc Care Community 2022; 30 e1078–91.
| Barriers and enablers to consumer and community involvement in research and healthcare improvement: perspectives from consumer organisations, health services and researchers in Melbourne, Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Bergerum C, Wolmesjö M, Thor J. Organising and managing patient and public involvement to enhance quality improvement-comparing a Swedish and a Dutch hospital. Health Policy 2022; 126 603–12.
| Organising and managing patient and public involvement to enhance quality improvement-comparing a Swedish and a Dutch hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Cluley V, Ziemann A, Feeley C, Olander EK, Shamah S, Stavropoulou C. Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: a scoping review. Health Expect 2022; 25 840–55.
| Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: a scoping review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25 626–32.
| From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Majid U, Gagliardi A. Clarifying the degrees, modes, and muddles of “meaningful” patient engagement in health services planning and designing. Patient Educ Couns 2019; 102 1581–9.
| Clarifying the degrees, modes, and muddles of “meaningful” patient engagement in health services planning and designing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Ocloo J, Garfield S, Franklin BD, Dawson S. Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst 2021; 19 8
| Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Sharma AE, Willard-Grace R, Willis A, Zieve O, Dubé K, Parker C, et al. “How can we talk about patient-centered care without patients at the table?” Lessons learned from patient advisory councils. J Am Board Fam Med 2016; 29 775–84.
| “How can we talk about patient-centered care without patients at the table?” Lessons learned from patient advisory councils.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] O’Connor P, Di Carlo M, Rouleau J-L. The leadership and organizational context required to support patient partnerships. Healthc Q 2018; 21 31–7.
| The leadership and organizational context required to support patient partnerships.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Holloway K, Arcus K, Orsborn G. Training needs analysis – the essential first step for continuing professional development design. Nurse Educ Pract 2018; 28 7–12.
| Training needs analysis – the essential first step for continuing professional development design.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Cox R, Molineux M, Kendall M, Tanner B, Miller E. Co-produced capability framework for successful patient and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: results of a scoping review. BMJ Qual Saf 2022; 31 134–46.
| Co-produced capability framework for successful patient and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: results of a scoping review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Cox R, Kendall M, Molineux M, Miller E, Tanner B. Refining a capability development framework for building successful consumer and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: a coproduced eDelphi study. Health Expect 2022; 25 1563–79.
| Refining a capability development framework for building successful consumer and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: a coproduced eDelphi study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Farmer J, Bigby C, Davis H, Carlisle K, Kenny A, Huysmans R. The state of health services partnering with consumers: evidence from an online survey of Australian health services. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18 628
| The state of health services partnering with consumers: evidence from an online survey of Australian health services.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Modigh A, Sampaio F, Moberg L, Fredriksson M. The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: a scoping review of reviews. Health Policy 2021; 125 1208–21.
| The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: a scoping review of reviews.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Hennessy DA, Hicks CM. Hennessy-Hicks Training Needs Analysis Questionnaire and manual, 2011. Birmingham & Geneva: University of Birmingham & World Health Organization; 2011.
[19] Markaki A, Malhotra S, Billings R, Theus L. Training needs assessment: tool utilization and global impact. BMC Med Educ 2021; 21 310
| Training needs assessment: tool utilization and global impact.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[20] Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem 2017; 3 13
| GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[21] Carman KL, Workman TA. Engaging patients and consumers in research evidence: applying the conceptual model of patient and family engagement. Patient Educ Couns 2017; 100 25–9.
| Engaging patients and consumers in research evidence: applying the conceptual model of patient and family engagement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[22] Clavel N, Pomey M-P, Ghadiri DP. Partnering with patients in quality improvement: towards renewed practices for healthcare organization managers? BMC Health Serv Res 2019; 19 815
| Partnering with patients in quality improvement: towards renewed practices for healthcare organization managers?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[23] Malfait S, Van Hecke A, De Bodt G, Palsterman N, Eeckloo K. Patient and public involvement in hospital policy-making: identifying key elements for effective participation. Health Policy 2018; 122 380–8.
| Patient and public involvement in hospital policy-making: identifying key elements for effective participation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[24] Chauhan A, Leefe J, Shé ÉN, Harrison R. Optimising co-design with ethnic minority consumers. Int J Equity Health 2021; 20 240
| Optimising co-design with ethnic minority consumers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Bombard Y, Baker GR, Orlando E, Fancott C, Bhatia P, Casalino S, et al. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implement Sci 2018; 13 98
| Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[26] Harrison R, Ní Shé É, Debono D, Chauhan A, Newman B. Creating space for theory when codesigning healthcare interventions. J Eval Clin Pract 2022; 29 572–575.
| Creating space for theory when codesigning healthcare interventions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[27] Chan M, Scott SD, Campbell A, Elliott SA, Brooks H, Hartling L. Research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada: an environmental scan with stakeholder interviews. Health Expect 2021; 24 1763–79.
| Research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada: an environmental scan with stakeholder interviews.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[28] Frawley T, Carroll L, Casey M, Davies C, Durning J, Halligan P, et al. Evaluation of a national training programme to support engagement in mental health services: learning enablers and learning gains. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2019; 26 323–36.
| Evaluation of a national training programme to support engagement in mental health services: learning enablers and learning gains.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[29] O’Shea A, Chambers M, Boaz A. Whose voices? Patient and public involvement in clinical commissioning. Health Expect 2017; 20 484–94.
| Whose voices? Patient and public involvement in clinical commissioning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[30] Snow ME. Patient engagement in healthcare planning and evaluation: a call for social justice. Int J Health Plann Manage 2022; 37 20–31.
| Patient engagement in healthcare planning and evaluation: a call for social justice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[31] Tindall RM, Ferris M, Townsend M, Boschert G, Moylan S. A first-hand experience of co-design in mental health service design: opportunities, challenges, and lessons. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2021; 30 1693–702.
| A first-hand experience of co-design in mental health service design: opportunities, challenges, and lessons.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[32] Lim S, Morris H, Pizzirani B, Kajewski D, Lee WK, Skouteris H. Evaluating hospital tools and services that were co-produced with patients: a rapid review. Int J Qual Health Care 2020; 32 231–9.
| Evaluating hospital tools and services that were co-produced with patients: a rapid review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[33] Nixon SA. The coin model of privilege and critical allyship: implications for health. BMC Public Health 2019; 19 1637
| The coin model of privilege and critical allyship: implications for health.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[34] Goodridge D, Isinger T, Rotter T. Patient family advisors’ perspectives on engagement in health-care quality improvement initiatives: power and partnership. Health Expect 2018; 21 379–86.
| Patient family advisors’ perspectives on engagement in health-care quality improvement initiatives: power and partnership.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[35] Matthews R, Papoulias C. Toward co-productive learning? The exchange network as experimental space. Front Sociol 2019; 4 36
| Toward co-productive learning? The exchange network as experimental space.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[36] Scholz B. We have to set the bar higher: towards consumer leadership, beyond engagement or involvement. Aust Health Rev 2022; 46 509–12.
| We have to set the bar higher: towards consumer leadership, beyond engagement or involvement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
