Patient participation in improving general practice

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Participatory research to strengthen the role of patient and public involvement in general practice service improvement

  • IRAS ID

    203328

  • Contact name

    Jessica Drinkwater

  • Contact email

    j.m.drinkwater@leeds.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    University of Leeds

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    3 years, 11 months, 30 days

  • Research summary

    Patient and public involvement (PPI) is seen as a way of improving health care services. But there is little evidence of what works. The NHS is committed to finding new ways of working with patients and the public to improve healthcare services.

    Our programme of work will aim to design and test a clear role for PPI in general practice service improvement. We will do this by working with patients, the public, clinicians, managers, academics, and policy makers in all parts of the research. This will involve:

    1. Setting up a co-research group representing all stakeholders to work together during the project
    2. A review of the evidence looking for examples of how the public has been involved in service improvement (Work Stream 1 - WS1).
    3. Designing an intervention that can be used in different general practices by patient groups (WS2). This will include:
    a. A prioritisation survey. Working with small groups of stakeholders we will adapt an existing list of aspects of general practice. The list will be turned into a survey and tested.
    b. Advice, facilitation, and training for patient groups/staff on how to use the survey. We will use the findings of WS1 and our experience, to develop recommendations.
    4. Testing the developed intervention (WS2) in 3-4 general practices. We will observe what happens, take notes, and interview patients and staff about their experiences. We will see how everyone understands the intervention, whether they are happy to take part, how easy it is to carry out, and what they think of the results. We will use this to make a framework to understand if it will work in other practices.

    We are applying for ethical approval now for steps 1-3. We will submit a further application for step 4 once the intervention has been designed.

  • REC name

    London - Central Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    16/LO/1894

  • Date of REC Opinion

    18 Oct 2016

  • REC opinion

    Favourable Opinion