This article draws from sociological and socio-legal studies of dispute between patients and doctors to examine how healthcare professionals made sense of patients’ complaints about healthcare. We analyse 41 discursive interviews with professional healthcare staff working in eight different English National Health Service settings to explore how they made sense of events of complaint and of patients’ (including families’) motives for complaining. We find that for our interviewees, events of patients’ complaining about care were perceived as a breach in fundamental relationships involving patients’ trust or patients’ recognition of their work efforts. We find that interviewees rationalised patients’ motives for complaining in ways that marginalised the content of their concerns. Complaints were most often discussed as coming from patients who were inexpert, distressed or advantage-seeking; accordingly, care professionals hearing their concerns about care positioned themselves as informed decision-makers, empathic listeners or service gate-keepers. We find differences in our interviewees’ rationalisation of patients’ complaining about care to be related to local service contingences rather than to fixed professional differences. We note that it was rare for interviewees to describe complaints raised by patients as grounds for improving the quality of care. Our findings indicate that recent health policy directives promoting a view of complaints as learning opportunities from critical patient/consumers must account for sociological factors that inform both how the agency of patients is envisaged and how professionalism exercised contemporary healthcare work.

Objective: The aim was to translate the findings of the QUASER study into a reflective, dialogic guide to help senior hospital leaders develop an organization wide QI strategy.

Design: The QUASER study involved in depth ethnographic research into QI work and practices in two hospitals in each of five European countries. Three translational stakeholder workshops were held to review research findings and advise on the design of the Guide. An extended iterative process involving researchers from each participant country was then used to populate the Guide.

Setting: The research was carried out in two hospitals in each of five European countries.

Participants: In total, 389 interviews with healthcare practitioners and 803 hours of observations.

Intervention: None.

Main outcome measure: None.

Results: The QUASER Hospital Guide was designed for leadership teams to diagnose their organization’s strengths and weaknesses in the eight QI challenges. The Guide supports organizational dialogue about QI challenges, enables leaders to share perspectives, and helps teams to develop solutions to their situated problems. The Guide includes extensive examples of QI strategies drawn from the data and is published online and on paper.

Conclusion: The QUASER Hospital Guide is empirically based, draws on a dialogical approach to Organizational Development and complexity science and can facilitate hospital leadership teams to identify the best solutions for their organization.

Background

Increasing use of emergency departments among older patients with palliative needs has led to the development of several service-level interventions intended to improve care quality. There is little evidence of patient and family involvement in developmental processes, and little is known about the experiences of − and preferences for – palliative care delivery in this setting. Participatory action research seeking to enable collaborative working between patients and staff should enhance the impact of local quality improvement work but has not been widely implemented in such a complex setting.

Objectives

To critique the feasibility of this methodology as a quality improvement intervention in complex healthcare settings, laying a foundation for future work. Setting an Emergency Department in a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Experience-based Co-design incorporating: 150 h of nonparticipant observation; semi-structured interviews with 15 staff members about their experiences of palliative care delivery; 5 focus groups with 64 staff members to explore challenges in delivering palliative care; 10 filmed semi-structured interviews with palliative care patients or their family members; a co-design event involving staff, patients and family members.

Findings

The study successfully identified quality improvement priorities leading to changes in Emergency Department-palliative care processes. Further outputs were the creation of a patient-family-staff experience training DVD to encourage reflective discussion and the identification and application of generic design principles for improving palliative care in the Emergency Department. There were benefits and challenges associated with using Experience-based Co-design in this setting. Benefits included the flexibility of the approach, the high levels of engagement and responsiveness of patients, families and staff, and the impact of using filmed narrative interviews to enhance the ‘voice’ of seldom heard patients and families. Challenges included high levels of staff turnover during the 19 month project, significant time constraints in the Emergency Department and the ability of older patients and their families to fully participate in the co-design process.

Conclusion

Experience-based Co-design is a useful approach for encouraging collaborative working between vulnerable patients, family and staff in complex healthcare environments. The flexibility of the approach allows the specific needs of participants to be accounted for, enabling fuller engagement with those who typically may not be invited to contribute to quality improvement work. Recommendations for future studies in this and similar settings include testing the ‘accelerated' form of the approach and experimenting with alternative ways of increasing involvement of patients/families in the co-design phase. 

Background

Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is promoted as harnessing the knowledge of patients, carers and staff to make changes about which they care most. However, little is known regarding the impact of co-production on patient, staff or organisational outcomes in these settings.

Aims

To identify and appraise reported outcomes of co-production as an intervention to improve quality of services in acute healthcare settings.

Design

Rapid evidence synthesis.

Data sources

Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, HMIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCIE, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, EThOS, OpenGrey; CoDesign; The Design Journal; Design Issues.

Study selection

Studies reporting patient, staff or organisational outcomes associated with using co-production in an acute healthcare setting.

Findings

712 titles and abstracts were screened; 24 papers underwent full-text review, and 11 papers were included in the evidence synthesis. One study was a feasibility randomised controlled trial, three were process evaluations and seven used descriptive qualitative approaches. Reported outcomes related to (a) the value of patient and staff involvement in co-production processes; (b) the generation of ideas for changes to processes, practices and clinical environments; and (c) tangible service changes and impacts on patient experiences. Only one study included cost analysis; none reported an economic evaluation. No studies assessed the sustainability of any changes made.

Conclusions

Despite increasing interest in and advocacy for co-production, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation in acute healthcare settings. Future studies should evaluate clinical and service outcomes as well as the cost-effectiveness of co-production relative to other forms of quality improvement. Potentially broader impacts on the values and behaviours of participants should also be considered. 

Hospitals are awash with patient experience data, much of it collected with the ostensible purpose of improving the quality of patient care. However, there has been comparatively little consideration of the nature and capacities of data itself. Using insights from actor-network theory, we propose that paying attention to patient experience data as having agency in particular hospital interactions allows us to better trace how and in what circumstances data lead (or fail to lead) to quality improvement.

Background

In response to a policy-driven workforce expansion in England new models of preparing health visitors for practice have been implemented. ‘Community of Learning hubs’ (COLHs) are one such model, involving different possible approaches to student support in clinical practice placements (for example, ‘long arm mentoring’ or ‘action learning set’ sessions). Such models present opportunities for studying the possible effects of spatiality on the learning experiences of students and newly qualified health visitors, and on team relationships more broadly.

Objectives

To explore a ‘community of learning hub’ model in health visitor education and reflect on the role of space and place in the learning experience and professional identity development of student health visitors.

Design

Qualitative research conducted during first year of implementation.

Settings

Three ‘community of learning hub’ projects based in two NHS community Trusts in London during the period 2013–2015. Participants Managers and leads (n = 7), practice teachers and mentors (n = 6) and newly qualified and student health visitors (n = 16).

Methods

Semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews analysed thematically.

Results

Participants had differing views as to what constituted a ‘hub’ in their projects. Two themes emerged around the spaces that shape the learning experience of student and newly qualified health visitors. Firstly, a generalised need for a ‘quiet place’ which allows pause for reflection but also for sharing experiences and relieving common anxieties. Secondly, the role of physical arrangements in open-plan spaces to promote access to support from more experienced practitioners.

Conclusions

Attention to spatiality can shed light on important aspects of teaching and learning practices, and on the professional identities these practices shape and support. New configurations of time and space as part of educational initiatives can surface new insights into existing practices and learning models. 

The embodied experience of nursing practice is rarely studied. Drawing on data from an internationally relevant larger study conducted in 2013–14, here we explore the sensory dimension of the embodied experiences of nursing staff working on two acute NHS hospital wards before and after a move to all-single room inpatient accommodation. We undertook a secondary analysis of 25 interviews with nursing staff (12 before and 13 after the move with half [13/25] using photographs taken by participants) from a mixed-method before-and-after study. This analysis focused on the sensory dimensions of nursing staff's experiences of their working practices and the effect of the built environment upon these. Drawing on Pallasmaa's theoretocal insights, we report how the all-single room ward design prioritises ‘focused vision’ and hinders peripheral perception, whilst the open ward environment is rich in contextual and preconscious information. We suggest all-single room accommodation may offer staff an impoverished experience of caring for patients and of working with each other. 

Background

Although NHS organisations have access to a wealth of patient experience data in various formats (e.g. surveys, complaints and compliments, patient stories and online feedback), not enough attention has been paid to understanding how patient experience data translate into improvements in the quality of care.

Objectives

The main aim was to explore and enhance the organisational strategies and practices through which patient experience data are collected, interpreted and translated into quality improvements in acute NHS hospital trusts in England. The secondary aim was to understand and optimise the involvement and responsibilities of nurses in senior managerial and front-line roles with respect to such data.

Design

The study comprised two phases. Phase 1 consisted of an actor–network theory-informed ethnographic study of the ‘journeys’ of patient experience data in five acute NHS hospital trusts, particularly in cancer and dementia services. Phase 2 comprised a series of Joint Interpretive Forums (one cross-site and one at each trust) bringing together different stakeholders (e.g. members of staff, national policy-makers, patient/carer representatives) to distil generalisable principles to optimise the use of patient experience data.

Setting

Five purposively sampled acute NHS hospital trusts in England.

Results

The analysis points to five key themes: (1) each type of data takes multiple forms and can generate improvements in care at different stages in its complex ‘journey’ through an organisation; (2) where patient experience data participate in interactions (with human and/or non-human actors) characterised by the qualities of autonomy (to act/trigger action), authority (to ensure that action is seen as legitimate) and contextualisation (to act meaningfully in a given situation), quality improvements can take place in response to the data; (3) nurses largely have ultimate responsibility for the way in which data are collected, interpreted and used to improve care, but other professionals also have important roles that could be explored further; (4) formalised quality improvement can confer authority to patient experience data work, but the data also lead to action for improvement in ways that are not formally identified as quality improvement; (5) sense-making exercises with study participants can support organisational learning.

Limitations

Patient experience data practices at trusts performing ‘worse than others’ on the Care Quality Commission scores were not examined. Although attention was paid to the views of patients and carers, the study focused largely on organisational processes and practices. Finally, the processes and practices around other types of data were not examined, such as patient safety and clinical outcomes data, or how these interact with patient experience data.

Conclusions

NHS organisations may find it useful to identify the local roles and processes that bring about autonomy, authority and contextualisation in patient experience data work. The composition and expertise of patient experience teams could better complement the largely invisible nursing work that currently accounts for a large part of the translation of data into care improvements.

Future work

To date, future work has not been planned.

We draw on the concept of dignity to consider the ethics of the disposal of amputated limbs. The ethics of the management and disposal of human tissue has been subject to greater scrutiny and discussion in recent years, although the disposal of the limbs often remains absent from such discourses. In light of the recent UK controversy regarding failures in the medical waste disposal and the stockpiling of waste (including body parts), the appropriate handling of human tissue has been subject to further scrutiny. Although this scandal has evoked concern regarding procurement and supply chain issues, as well as possible health and safety risks from such a stockpile', the dignity of those patients' implicated in this controversy has been less widely discussed. Drawing at Foster's (2014) work, we argue that a dignity framework provides a useful lens to frame consideration of the disposal of limbs after amputation. Such a framework may be difficult to reconcile with the logic of business and the biovalue' of the medical waste, but would we argue afford more patient-centred approaches towards disposal. It may also facilitate better practices to help mitigate future stockpiling incidences. 

In the context of an austere financial climate, local health care budget holders are increasingly expected to make and enact decisions to decommission (reduce or stop providing) services. However, little is currently known about the experiences of those seeking to decommission. This paper presents the first national study of decommissioning in the English National Health Service drawing on multiple methods, including: an interview-based review of the contemporary policy landscape of health care decommissioning; a national online survey of commissioners of health care services responsible for managing and enacting budget allocation decisions locally; and illustrative vignettes provided by those who have led decommissioning activities. Findings are presented and discussed in relation to four themes: national-local relationships; organisational capacity and resources for decommissioning; the extent and nature of decommissioning; and intended outcomes of decommissioning. Whilst it is unlikely that local commissioners will be able to ‘successfully’ implement decommissioning decisions unless aspects of engagement, local context and outcomes are addressed, it remains unclear what ‘success’ looks like in terms of a decommissioning process. 

Background

Health systems worldwide are increasingly holding boards of healthcare organisations accountable for the quality of care that they provide. Previous empirical research has found associations between certain board practices and higher quality patient care; however, little is known about how boards govern for quality improvement (QI).

Methods

We conducted fieldwork over a 30-month period in 15 healthcare provider organisations in England as part of a wider evaluation of a board-level organisational development intervention. Our data comprised board member interviews (n=65), board meeting observations (60 hours) and documents (30 sets of board meeting papers, 15 board minutes and 15 Quality Accounts). We analysed the data using a framework developed from existing evidence of links between board practices and quality of care. We mapped the variation in how boards enacted governance of QI and constructed a measure of QI governance maturity. We then compared organisations to identify the characteristics of those with mature QI governance.

Results

We found that boards with higher levels of maturity in relation to governing for QI had the following characteristics: explicitly prioritising QI; balancing short-term (external) priorities with long-term (internal) investment in QI; using data for QI, not just quality assurance; engaging staff and patients in QI; and encouraging a culture of continuous improvement. These characteristics appeared to be particularly enabled and facilitated by board-level clinical leaders.

Conclusions

This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how boards govern for QI. The identified characteristics of organisations with mature QI governance seemed to be enabled by active clinical leadership. Future research should explore the biographies, identities and work practices of board-level clinical leaders and their role in organisation-wide QI. 

Background: Healthcare systems worldwide are concerned with strengthening board-level governance of quality. We applied Lozeau, Langley and Denis' typology (transformation, customisation, loose coupling and corruption) to describe and explain the organisational response to an improvement intervention in six hospital boards in England.

Methods: We conducted fieldwork over a 30-month period as part of an evaluation in six healthcare provider organisations in England. Our data comprised board member interviews (n=54), board meeting observations (24 hours) and relevant documents.

Results: Two organisations transformed their processes in a way that was consistent with the objectives of the intervention, and one customised the intervention with positive effects. In two further organisations, the intervention was only loosely coupled with organisational processes, and participation in the intervention stopped when it competed with other initiatives. In the final case, the intervention was corrupted to reinforce existing organisational processes (a focus on external regulatory requirements). The organisational response was contingent on the availability of 'slack' - expressed by participants as the 'space to think' and 'someone to do the doing' - and the presence of a functioning board.

Conclusions: Underperforming organisations, under pressure to improve, have little time or resources to devote to organisation-wide quality improvement initiatives. Our research highlights the need for policy-makers and regulators to extend their focus beyond the choice of intervention, to consider how the chosen intervention will be implemented in public sector hospitals, how this will vary between contexts and with what effects. We provide useful information on the necessary conditions for a board-level quality improvement intervention to have positive effects.

INTRODUCTION:

Cocreation, coproduction and codesign are advocated as effective ways of involving citizens in the design, management, provision and evaluation of health and social care services. Although numerous case studies describe the nature and level of coproduction in individual projects, there remain three significant gaps in the evidence base: (1) measures of coproduction processes and their outcomes, (2) mechanisms that enable inclusivity and reciprocity and (3) management systems and styles. By focusing on these issues, we aim to explore, enhance and measure the value of coproduction for improving the health and well-being of citizens.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS:

Nine ongoing coproduction projects form the core of an interactive research programme ('Samskapa') during a 6-year period (2019-2024). Six of these will take place in Sweden and three will be undertaken in England to enable knowledge exchange and cross-cultural comparison. The programme has a longitudinal case study design using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Cross-case analysis and a sensemaking process will generate relevant lessons both for those participating in the projects and researchers. Based on the findings, we will develop explanatory models and other outputs to increase the sustained value (and values) of future coproduction initiatives in these sectors.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:

All necessary ethical approvals will be obtained from the regional Ethical Board in Sweden and from relevant authorities in England. All data and personal data will be handled in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations. Given the interactive nature of the research programme, knowledge dissemination to participants and stakeholders in the nine projects will be ongoing throughout the 6 years. External workshops-facilitated in collaboration with participating case studies and citizens-both during and at the end of the programme will provide an additional dissemination mechanism and involve health and social care practitioners, policymakers and third-sector organisations. 

BACKGROUND: Schwartz Center Rounds® (henceforce Rounds) were developed in the United States (US) in 1995 to provide a regular, structured time and safe place for staff to meet to share the emotional, psychological and social challenges of working in healthcare. Rounds were adopted in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2009 and have been subsequently implemented in over 180 healthcare organisations. Using Rounds as a case study, we aim to inform current debates around maintaining fidelity when an intervention developed in one country is transferred and implemented in another.

METHODS: Interpretive design using nine qualitative interviews (UK = 3, US = 6) and four focus groups (UK: Focus group 1 (4 participants), Focus group 2 (5 participants; US: focus group 1 (5 participants) focus group 2 (2 participants) with participants involved in Rounds design and implementation, for example, programme architects, senior leaders, mentors and trainers. We also conducted non-participant observations of Rounds (UK = 42: USA = 2) and training days (UK = 2). Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS: We identified four core and seven sub-core Rounds components, based upon the US design, and seven peripheral components, based on our US and UK fieldwork. We found high core component fidelity and examples of UK adaptations. We identified six strategies used to maintain high fidelity during Rounds transfer and implementation from the US to UK settings: i) having a legal contract between the two national bodies overseeing implementation, ii) requiring adopting UK healthcare organisations to sign a contract with the national body, iii) piloting the intervention in the UK context, iv) emphasising the credibility of the intervention, v) promoting and evaluating Rounds, and vi) providing implementation support and infrastructure.

CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies how fidelity to the core components of a particular intervention was maintained during transfer from one country to another by identifying six strategies which participants argued had enhanced fidelity during transfer of Rounds to a different country, with contractual agreements and legitimacy of intervention sources key. Potential disadvantages include limitations to further innovation and adaptation.

Patient or user involvement in health research is well-established but is often limited to advising on research questions and design, leaving researchers to collect and analyse ‘data’ (which in this paper means written copies of interviews with patients about their experiences). We were working with sets of interviews with 1) young people with depression and 2) people with experiences of stroke. We were looking for key themes that it would be useful for the NHS to know about, and we developed short films which healthcare staff can use to think about how to make care more patient-centred. We wanted to see what user involvement in this analysis would bring, and how best to achieve it practically.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore how the concepts of co-production and co-design have been defined and applied in the context of health and social care and to identify the temporal adoption of the terms.

METHODS: A systematic scoping review of CINAHL with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify studies exploring co-production or co-design in health and social care. Data regarding date and conceptual definitions were extracted. From the 2933 studies retrieved, 979 articles were included in this review.

RESULTS: A network map of the sixty most common definitions and-through exploration of citations-eight definition clusters and a visual representation of how they interconnect and have informed each other over time are presented. Additional findings were as follows: (i) an increase in research exploring co-production and co-design in health and social care contexts; (ii) an increase in the number of new definitions during the last decade, despite just over a third of included articles providing no definition or explanation for their chosen concept; and (iii) an increase in the number of publications using the terms co-production or co-design while not involving citizens/patients/service users.

CONCLUSIONS: Co-production and co-design are conceptualized in a wide range of ways. Rather than seeking universal definitions of these terms, future applied research should focus on articulating the underlying principles and values that need to be translated and explored in practice.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The search strategy and pilot results were presented at a workshop in May 2019 with patient and public contributors and researchers. Discussion here informed our next steps. During the analysis phase of the review, informal discussions were held once a month with a patient who has experience in patient and public involvement. As this involvement was conducted towards the end of the review, we agreed together that inclusion as an author would risk being tokenistic. Instead, acknowledgements were preferred. The next phase involves working as equal contributors to explore the values and principles of co-production reported within the most common definitions.

Objectives: Analyse reported processes of co-design and co-production in the context of health and social care to explore the underlying mechanisms that enable inclusive and reciprocal engagement.

Search strategy: Peer review research was obtained from a prior scoping review searching eight databases consisting of all methodologies relevant to co-design or co-production in the context of health and social care services and involving service-users.

Methods of selection: Articles were included for synthesis if they reported a process of dialogue, with mutuality, insight and clarification in their engagement process. Ninety-three peer-review articles informed our programme theory development.

Analysis: Data relating to co-design and co-production processes were extracted and analysed through inductive, abductive, and deductive analysis leading to the development of an initial programme theory.

Main results: This realist synthesis finds that co-design and co-production can occur at different times, in part or all of the research and participatory process. There is an over reliance on the term ‘co-design’ or ‘co-production’ to convey complex engagement or participatory processes. We identified six mechanisms (intention, assets, dialogue, documentation, interpretation and understanding). Interaction between these six identified mechanisms in context, even if only brief, is important for supporting meaningful engagement, alignment and agreement within a co-design or co-production process.

Implications for practice: The initial programme theory presented in this article provides clarity by identifying essential mechanisms which can guide the design and implementation of a range of participatory approaches. Rather than relying on a single label to convey complex participatory methods or processes, the values and principles of co-design or co-production, in combination with this programme theory, could be applied to guide implementation and reporting of specific activities within a range of research or participatory methods.

Patient and public contribution: The initial programme theory was presented and piloted in a series of collaborative workshops between May 2023 and March 2024 with patient and public contributors, health professionals and researchers. This engagement process is currently underway to refine the programme theory and it is anticipated that this next phase will be completed in September 2024.

OBJECTIVES: The review aimed to 1) explore the constituents of nurse-patient therapeutic engagement on acute mental health wards; 2) map factors that influence engagement to the Theoretical Domains Framework and 3) integrate results into a conceptual model of engagement to inform the development of interventions to improve engagement.

DESIGN: A systematic integrative review using an established framework specific to the integrative review methodology.

DATA SOURCES: Database searches (CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI and Cochrane Library) and hand searching identified 3414 articles. After screening, applying eligibility criteria, and quality appraisal, 37 articles were included: n = 27 empirical research studies, n = 10 expert opinion pieces, n = 1 case study and n = 1 theoretical report.

REVIEW METHODS: Peer-reviewed empirical studies, theoretical reports or expert opinion pieces that explored therapeutic engagement as a stated aim and were conducted in acute mental health inpatient settings from the patient or nurse perspective were included. Data were extracted from the introduction, results and discussion sections of empirical research, and the complete article of theoretical and expert opinion pieces. Data were coded then grouped into subthemes and themes. Data relating to influencing factors were further categorised according to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results were synthesised into a conceptual model of engagement.

RESULTS: Five conceptually distinct, but closely related constructs of engagement - called the "Principles of Engagement" - emerged: 1) Understanding the person and their experiences; 2) Facilitating growth; 3) Therapeutic use of self; 4) Choosing the right approach and 5) Authoritative vs. emotional containment. Influences on engagement ranged across all 14 theoretical domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework.

CONCLUSION: A holistic understanding of the essential components of engagement may make it easier for nurses to recognise what they do, and to do it well. The model can be used to generate testable hypotheses about how and where to target behavioural change interventions. The Principles of Engagement must be reflected in the development of interventions to improve engagement.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in coproduction are shaping public service reform in diverse contexts around the world. Although many innovations are local, others have expanded and evolved over time. We know very little, however, about the process of implementation and evolution of coproduction. The purpose of this study was to explore the adoption, implementation and assimilation of three approaches to the coproduction of public services with structurally vulnerable groups.

METHODS: We conducted a 4 year longitudinal multiple case study (2019-2023) of three coproduced public service innovations involving vulnerable populations: ESTHER in Jönköping Region, Sweden involving people with multiple complex needs (Case 1); Making Recovery Real in Dundee, Scotland with people who have serious mental illness (Case 2); and Learning Centres in Manitoba, Canada (Case 3), also involving people with serious mental illness. Data sources included 14 interviews with strategic decision-makers and a document analysis to understand the history and contextual factors relating to each case. Three frameworks informed the case study protocol, semi-structured interview guides, data extraction, deductive coding and analysis: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Diffusion of Innovation model and Lozeau's Compatibility Gaps to understand assimilation.

RESULTS: The adoption of coproduction involving structurally vulnerable populations was a notable evolution of existing improvement efforts in Cases 1 and 3, while impetus by an external change agency, existing collaborative efforts among community organizations, and the opportunity to inform a new municipal mental health policy sparked adoption in Case 2. In all cases, coproduced innovation centred around a central philosophy that valued lived experience on an equal basis with professional knowledge in coproduction processes. This philosophical orientation offered flexibility and adaptability to local contexts, thereby facilitating implementation when compared with more defined programming. According to the informants, efforts to avoid co-optation risks were successful, resulting in the assimilation of new mindsets and coproduction processes, with examples of how this had led to transformative change.

CONCLUSIONS: In exploring innovations in coproduction with structurally vulnerable groups, our findings suggest several additional considerations when applying existing theoretical frameworks. These include the philosophical nature of the innovation, the need to study the evolution of the innovation itself as it emerges over time, greater attention to partnered processes as disruptors to existing power structures and an emphasis on driving transformational change in organizational cultures.

BACKGROUND: Codesign has the potential to transform health and other public services. To avoid unintentionally reinforcing existing inequities, better understanding is needed of how to facilitate involvement of vulnerable populations in acceptable, ethical and effective codesign.

OBJECTIVE: To explore citizens' involvement in codesigning public services for vulnerable groups, identify challenges and suggest improvements.

DESIGN: A modified case study approach. Pattern matching was used to compare reported challenges with a priori theoretical propositions.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A two-day international symposium involved 28 practitioners, academics and service users from seven countries to reflect on challenges and to codesign improved processes for involving vulnerable populations.

INTERVENTION STUDIED: Eight case studies working with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations in three countries.

RESULTS: We identified five shared challenges to meaningful, sustained participation of vulnerable populations: engagement; power differentials; health concerns; funding; and other economic/social circumstances. In response, a focus on relationships and flexibility is essential. We encourage codesign projects to enact a set of principles or heuristics rather than following pre-specified steps. We identify a set of principles and tactics, relating to challenges outlined in our case studies, which may help in codesigning public services with vulnerable populations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Codesign facilitators must consider how meaningful engagement will be achieved and how power differentials will be managed when working with services for vulnerable populations. The need for flexibility and responsiveness to service user needs may challenge expectations about timelines and outcomes. User-centred evaluations of codesigned public services are needed.

Background: Co-production is promoted as an effective way of improving the quality of health and social care but the diversity of measures used in individual studies makes their outcomes difficult to interpret.

Objective: The objective is to explore how empirical studies in health and social care have described the outcomes of co-production projects and how those outcomes were measured.

Design and methods: A scoping review forms the basis for this systematic review. Search terms for the concepts (co-produc∗ OR coproduc∗ OR co-design∗ OR codesign∗) and contexts (health OR 'public service∗ OR "public sector") were used in: CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOHost), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (Wiley), MEDLINE (EBSCOHost), PsycINFO (ProQuest), PubMed (legacy) and Scopus (Elsevier). There was no date limit. Papers describing the process, original data and outcomes of co-production were included. Protocols, reviews and theoretical, conceptual and psychometric papers were excluded. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline was followed. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool underpinned the quality of included papers.

Results: 43 empirical studies were included. They were conducted in 12 countries, with the UK representing >50% of all papers. No paper was excluded due to the Mixed Methods Quality Appraisal screening and 60% of included papers were mixed methods studies. The extensive use of self-developed study-specific measures hampered comparisons and cumulative knowledge-building. Overall, the studies reported positive outcomes. Co-production was reported to be positively experienced and provided important learning.

Conclusions: The lack of common approaches to measuring co-production is more problematic than the plurality of measurements itself. Co-production should be measured from three perspectives: outputs of co-production processes, the experiences of participating in co-production processes and outcomes of co-production. Both self-developed study-specific measures and established measures should be used. The maturity of this research field would benefit from the development and use of reporting guidelines.

Healthcare systems redesign and service improvement approaches are adopting participatory tools, techniques and mindsets. Participatory methods increasingly used in healthcare improvement coalesce around the concept of coproduction, and related practices of cocreation, codesign and coinnovation. These participatory methods have become the new Zeitgeist - the spirit of our times in quality improvement. The rationale for this new spirit of participation relates to voice and engagement (those with lived experience should be engaged in processes of development, redesign and improvements), empowerment (engagement in codesign and coproduction has positive individual and societal benefits) and advancement (quality of life and other health outcomes and experiences of services for everyone involved should improve as a result). This paper introduces Mental Health Experience Co-design (MH ECO), a peer designed and led adapted form of Experience-based Co-design (EBCD) developed in Australia. MH ECO is said to facilitate empowerment, foster trust, develop autonomy, self-determination and choice for people living with mental illnesses and their carers, including staff at mental health services. Little information exists about the underlying mechanisms of change; the entities, processes and structures that underpin MH ECO and similar EBCD studies. To address this, we identified eight possible mechanisms from an assessment of the activities and outcomes of MH ECO and a review of existing published evaluations. The eight mechanisms, recognition, dialogue, cooperation, accountability, mobilisation, enactment, creativity and attainment, are discussed within an 'explanatory theoretical model of change' that details these and ideal relational transitions that might be observed or not with MH ECO or other EBCD studies. We critically appraise the sociocultural and political movement in coproduction and draw on interdisciplinary theories from the humanities - narrative theory, dialogical ethics, cooperative and empowerment theory. The model advances theoretical thinking in coproduction beyond motivations and towards identifying underlying processes and entities that might impact on process and outcome. Trial registration number: The Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000457640 (results). 

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in interest in the nature and extent of co-production in the health and social care sectors. Due to the intense proliferation of work on co-production, there is intense variation in practice in how co-production is defined, understood and used in practice.

METHODS: We conducted a narrative review to explore, and provide an overview of, which models of health and social care co-production have been developed, applied and critiqued over the last few decades.

RESULTS: Seventy-three peer reviewed articles met our inclusion criteria. In this set of articles, we identified three broad types of models: conceptual/theoretical; practice-oriented; and presenting a typology. We found that practice-oriented models, predominantly from the Health Services Research and Quality Improvement literature, had largely not drawn on conceptual/theoretical models from the disciplinary fields of Public Administration & Management and Sociology. In particular, they have largely neglected theoretical perspectives on relationships and power and agency in co-production work, as well as the concepts of Service-Dominant Logic and Public Service-Dominant Logic as ways to think about the joint, collaborative process of producing new value, particularly in the context of the use of a service.

CONCLUSION: Our review has identified distinct literatures which have contributed a variety of models of health and social care co-production. Our findings highlight under-explored dimensions of co-production that merit greater attention in the health and social care contexts. The overview of models of co-production we provide aims to offer a useful platform for the integration of different perspectives on co-production in future research and practice in health and social care.

Objectives: Schwartz Center Rounds ('Rounds') are a multidisciplinary forum in which healthcare staff within an organisation discuss the psychological, emotional and social challenges associated with their work in a confidential and safe environment. Implemented in over 375 North American organisations, since 2009, they have been increasingly adopted in England. This study aimed to establish how many and what types of organisations have adopted Rounds in England, and to explore why they did so.

Setting: Public healthcare organisations in England.

Participants: Secondary data analysis was used to map and profile all 116 public healthcare organisations that had adopted Rounds in England by July 2015. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 45 Round coordinators within adopting organisations.

Results: The rate of adoption increased after a major national report in 2013. Rounds were typically adopted in order to improve staff well-being. Adopting organisations scored better on staff engagement than non-adopters; among adopting organisations, those performing better on patient experience were more likely to adopt earlier. Most adoption decision-making processes were straightforward. A confluence of factors-a generally favourable set of innovation attributes (including low cost), advocacy from opinion leaders in different professional networks, active dissemination by change agents and a felt need to be seen to be addressing staff well-being-initially led to Rounds being seen as 'an idea whose time had come'. More recent adoption patterns have been shaped by the timing of charitable and other agency funding in specific geographical areas and sectors, as well as several forms of 'mimetic pressure'.

Conclusions: The innate attributes of Rounds, favourable circumstances and the cumulative impact of a sequence of distinct informal and formal social processes have shaped the pattern of their adoption in England.

BACKGROUND: The 'Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care' programme is a quality improvement (QI) intervention introduced in English acute hospitals a decade ago to: (1) Increase time nurses spend in direct patient care. (2) Improve safety and reliability of care. (3) Improve experience for staff and patients. (4) Make changes to physical environments to improve efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how timing of adoption, local implementation strategies and processes of assimilation into day-to-day practice relate to one another and shape any sustained impact and wider legacies of a large-scale QI intervention.

DESIGN: Multiple methods within six hospitals including 88 interviews (with Productive Ward leads, ward staff, Patient and Public Involvement representatives and senior managers), 10 ward manager questionnaires and structured observations on 12 randomly selected wards.

RESULTS: Resource constraints and a managerial desire for standardisation meant that, over time, there was a shift away from the original vision of empowering ward staff to take ownership of Productive Ward towards a range of implementation 'short cuts'. Nonetheless, material legacies (eg, displaying metrics data; storage systems) have remained in place for up to a decade after initial implementation as have some specific practices (eg, protected mealtimes). Variations in timing of adoption, local implementation strategies and contextual changes influenced assimilation into routine practice and subsequent legacies. Productive Ward has informed wider organisational QI strategies that remain in place today and developed lasting QI capabilities among those meaningfully involved in its implementation.

CONCLUSIONS: As an ongoing QI approach Productive Ward has not been sustained but has informed contemporary organisational QI practices and strategies. Judgements about the long-term sustainability of QI interventions should consider the evolutionary and adaptive nature of change processes.

Introduction: Increased interest in collaborative and inclusive approaches to healthcare improvement makes revisiting Elinor Ostrom’s ‘design principles’ for enabling collective management of common pool resources (CPR) in polycentric systems a timely endeavour.

Theory and method: Ostrom proposed a generalisable set of eight core design principles for the efficacy of groups. To consider the utility of Ostrom’s principles for the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future health(care) improvement we retrospectively apply them to a recent co-design project.

Results: Three distinct aspects of co-design were identified through consideration of the principles. These related to: (1) understanding and mapping the system (2) upholding democratic values and (3) regulating participation. Within these aspects four of Ostrom’s eight principles were inherently observed. Consideration of the remaining four principles could have enhanced the systemic impact of the co-design process.

Discussion: Reconceptualising co-design through the lens of CPR offers new insights into the successful system-wide application of such approaches for the purpose of health(care) improvement.

Conclusion: The eight design principles – and the relationships between them – form a heuristic that can support the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future healthcare improvement projects adopting co-design. They may help to address questions of how to scale up and embed such approaches as self-sustaining in wider systems.

Background

The ‘Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care’™ programme (Productive Ward; PW) was introduced in English NHS acute hospitals in 2007 to give ward staff the tools, skills and time needed to implement local improvements to (1) increase the time nurses spend on direct patient care, (2) improve the safety and reliability of care, (3) improve staff and patient experience and (4) make structural changes on wards to improve efficiency. Evidence of whether or not these goals were met and sustained is very limited.

Objective

To explore if PW had a sustained impact over the past decade.

Design

Multiple methods, comprising two online national surveys, six acute trust case studies (including a secondary analysis of local audit data) and telephone interviews.

Data sources

Surveys of 56 directors of nursing and 35 current PW leads; 88 staff and patient and public involvement representative interviews; 10 ward manager questionnaires; structured observations of 12 randomly selected wards and documentary analysis in case studies; and 14 telephone interviews with former PW leads.

Results

Trusts typically adopted PW in 2008–9 on their wards using a phased implementation approach. The average length of PW use was 3 years (range < 1 to 7 years). Financial and management support for PW has disappeared in the majority of trusts. The most commonly cited reason for PW’s cessation was a change in quality improvement (QI) approach. Nonetheless, PW has influenced wider QI strategies in around half of the trusts. Around one-third of trusts had impact data relating specifically to PW; the same proportion did not. Early adopters of PW had access to more resources for supporting implementation. Some elements of local implementation strategies were common. However, there were variations that had consequences for the assimilation of PW into routine practice and, subsequently, for the legacies and sustainability of the programme. In all case study sites, material legacies (e.g. display of metrics data; storage systems) remained, as did some processes (e.g. protected mealtimes). Only one case study site had sufficiently robust data collection systems to allow an objective assessment of PW’s impact; in that site, care processes had improved initially (in terms of patient observations and direct care time). Experience of leading PW had benefited the careers of the majority of interviewees. Starting with little or no QI experience, many went on to work on other initiatives within their trusts, or to work in QI at regional or national level within the NHS or in the private sector.

Limitations

The research draws on participant recall over a lengthy period characterised by evolving QI approaches and system-level change.

Conclusions

Little robust evidence remains of PW leading to a sustained increase in the time nurses spend on direct patient care or improvements in the experiences of staff and/or patients. PW has had a lasting impact on some ward practices. As an ongoing QI approach continually used to make ongoing improvements, PW has not been sustained, but it has informed current organisational QI practices and strategies in many trusts. The design and delivery of future large-scale QI programmes could usefully draw on the lessons learnt from this study of the PW in England over the period 2008–18.

Although Elinor Ostrom’s principles for collaborative group working could promote effective and equitable collaborative endeavours among diverse actors/stakeholders, they are largely untested in public service design and delivery. This article demonstrates how Ostrom’s principles could help to mitigate the potential for co-creating dis/value and instead support all involved to co-create systemic public value. The authors develop Ostrom’s work by proposing: an original, systemically-informed re-classification of Ostrom’s principles; that co-creation endeavours can be reconceptualized as a novel way of creating a ‘common pool resource’ and; that failure to adequately address the potential to co-create dis/value can lead to ‘tragedies of co-design’.

IMPACT

This article provides a way to promote more effective and equitable collaboration in the design and delivery of public services. Increasingly public services are designed with service users, but it is common for these provider?user endeavours to perform sub-optimally and/or to have negative outcomes. The authors offer a set of principles and a novel framework for applying them that have been designed to: firstly, mitigate the potential for sub-optimal and/or negative performance and, secondly, promote more positive processes and outcomes for provider?user collaborations. Improving provider?user collaboration in this way will ultimately lead to better design and delivery of public services.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department-based palliative care services are increasing, but research to develop these services rarely includes input from emergency clinicians, jeopardizing the effectiveness of subsequent palliative care interventions.

AIM: To collaboratively identify with emergency clinicians' improvement priorities for emergency department-based palliative care for older people.

DESIGN: This was one component of an experience-based co-design project, conducted using semi-structured interviews and feedback sessions.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In-depth interviews with 15 emergency clinicians (nurses and doctors) at a large teaching hospital emergency department in the United Kingdom exploring experiences of palliative care delivery for older people. A thematic analysis identified core challenges that were presented to 64 clinicians over five feedback sessions, validating interview findings, and identifying shared priorities for improving palliative care delivery.

RESULTS: Eight challenges emerged: patient age; access to information; communication with patients, family members, and clinicians; understanding of palliative care; role uncertainty; complex systems and processes; time constraints; and limited training and education. Through feedback sessions, clinicians selected four challenges as improvement priorities: time constraints; communication and information; systems and processes; and understanding of palliative care. As resulting improvement plans evolved, "training and education" replaced "time constraints" as a priority.

CONCLUSION: Clinician priorities for improving emergency department-based palliative care were identified through collaborative, iterative processes. Though generally aware of older palliative patients' needs, clinicians struggled to provide high-quality care due to a range of complex factors. Further research should identify whether priorities are shared across other emergency departments, and develop, implement, and evaluate strategies developed by clinicians.