ArticleBMJ open2019
Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians' Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reframing Patient Experience Approaches and Methods to Achieve Patient-Centeredness in Healthcare: Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- 'What is the risk to me from COVID-19?': Public involvement in providing mortality risk information for people with 'high-risk' conditions for COVID-19 (OurRisk.CoV).Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Royal College of Physician's (RCP) Future Hospital Programme (FHP) set out a blueprint for a radical new model of care that put patient experience centre stage. This paper reports on the results of an independent evaluation of the FHP and focuses on the role public patient involvement (PPI) played in these projects. The paper explores the perceptions and experiences of those involved in the FHP of how PPI was operationalised in this context, and develops an 'ex-post' programme theory of PPI in the FHP. We conclude by assessing the benefits and challenges of this work.
settingSecondary care. The FHP consisted of eight clinician-led healthcare improvement hospital development sites with two phases.
participantsDevelopment site clinical teams, patient representatives, the RCP's Patient and Carer Network, members of the FHP team, and fellows and members of the RCP. DESIGN/
methodsWe conducted an independent evaluation of the FHP using FHP documentation and data collected specifically for the evaluation: qualitative interviews, focus groups and a web-based survey.
resultsThe PPI initiatives set out to develop more patient-centred care and improve the patient experience. The mechanisms designed to meet these goals were (1) a programme of PPI in the development site's projects, (2) a better understanding of patient experience and (3) evaluation of patient experience.
conclusionThis evaluation of the FHP identifies some key elements that need to be considered when attempting to more closely integrate PPI and co-production in service re-design. The structure of FHP over two phases enabled learning from phase I to be incorporated into phase II. Having the PPI representatives closely involved, developing communities of practice, and the oversight and measuring activities acted as 'disciplinary structures' that contributed to embedding PPI in the FHP and kept the patient experience at the forefront of the improvement initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.