78
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There have been repeated calls to better involve patients and the public and to place them at the centre of healthcare. Serious clinical and service failings in the UK and internationally increase the urgency and importance of addressing this problem. Despite this supportive policy context, progress to achieve greater involvement is patchy and slow and often concentrated at the lowest levels of involvement.

          Methods

          A selective narrative literature search was guided by the authors’ broad expertise, covering a range of disciplines across health and social care, policy and research. Published systematic literature reviews were used to identify relevant authors and publications. Google and hand searches of journal articles and reference lists and reports augmented identification of recent evidence.

          Results

          Patients and the wider public can be involved at most stages of healthcare, and this can have a number of benefits. Uncertainty persists about why and how to do involvement well and evaluate its impact, how to involve and support a diversity of individuals, and in ways that allow them to work in partnership to genuinely influence decision-making. This exposes patient and public involvement (PPI) to criticisms of exclusivity and tokenism.

          Conclusions

          Current models of PPI are too narrow, and few organisations mention empowerment or address equality and diversity in their involvement strategies. These aspects of involvement should receive greater attention, as well as the adoption of models and frameworks that enable power and decision-making to be shared more equitably with patients and the public in designing, planning and co-producing healthcare.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement.

          Patient and public involvement (PPI) is now firmly embedded in the policies of the Department of Health in England. This article commences with a review of the changing structures of PPI in English health and social care, largely in terms of their own explicit rationales, using that as a spring board for the development of a general theoretical framework. Arguing that all democratic states face major dilemmas in seeking to meet conflicting demands and expectations for involvement, we identify the diverse and sometimes conflicting cultural and political features embedded in current models of involvement in England, in a context of rapid delegitimation of the wider political system. We identify some of the major inherent weaknesses of a monolithic, single-track model of patient and public involvement in the management and running of health and social care systems. Although the mechanisms and methods for delivering this may vary we suggest the model remains fundamentally the same. We also suggest why the current structures are unlikely to provide an effective response either to the pluralism of values, ideologies and social groups engaged in the sector or to the valuing of lay knowledge which could potentially sustain the social networks essential for effective participation and service improvement. The article proposes a four dimensional framework for analysing the nature of PPI. These dimensions, it is argued, provide the co-ordinates along which new 'knowledge spaces' for PPI could be constructed. These knowledge spaces could facilitate and support the emergence of social networks of knowledgeable actors capable of engaging with professionals on equal terms and influencing service provision.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world.

            Changing the relationship between citizens and the state is at the heart of current policy reforms. Across England and the developed world, from Oslo to Ontario, Newcastle to Newquay, giving the public a more direct say in shaping the organization and delivery of healthcare services is central to the current health reform agenda. Realigning public services around those they serve, based on evidence from service user's experiences, and designed with and by the people rather than simply on their behalf, is challenging the dominance of managerialism, marketization and bureaucratic expertise. Despite this attention there is limited conceptual and theoretical work to underpin policy and practice. This article proposes a conceptual framework for patient and public involvement (PPI) and goes on to explore the different justifications for involvement and the implications of a rights-based rather than a regulatory approach. These issues are highlighted through exploring the particular evolution of English health policy in relation to PPI on the one hand and patient choice on the other before turning to similar patterns apparent in the United States and more broadly. A framework for conceptualizing PPI is presented that differentiates between the different types and aims of involvement and their potential impact. Approaches to involvement are different in those countries that adopt a rights-based rather than a regulatory approach. I conclude with a discussion of the tension and interaction apparent in the globalization of both involvement and patient choice in both policy and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients' preferences matter.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Qual Saf
                BMJ Qual Saf
                qhc
                bmjqs
                BMJ Quality & Safety
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-5415
                2044-5423
                August 2016
                18 March 2016
                : 25
                : 8
                : 626-632
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College London , London, UK
                [2 ]National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership and Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Northwest London , Imperial College London, London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Josephine Ocloo, Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, Room 504, 5th Floor, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK; j.ocloo@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjqs-2015-004839
                10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839
                4975844
                26993640
                adfebad6-9e45-4713-aad4-42c59cb3b1b8
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 15 September 2015
                : 26 February 2016
                : 29 February 2016
                Categories
                1506
                Narrative Review
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Public health
                healthcare quality improvement,health policy,patient-centred care
                Public health
                healthcare quality improvement, health policy, patient-centred care

                Comments

                Comment on this article