Service User Involvement, Co-Design and Quality Improvement in the NHS
Research type
Research Study
Full title
For Whose Benefit? Mobilising Service User Involvement for the Co-Design of Public Services: The Case of Quality Improvement in the NHS
IRAS ID
260651
Contact name
Arbaz Kapadi
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Sheffield
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, 0 days
Research summary
There is growing urgency for healthcare providers to involve service users meaningfully in the design and delivery of services. This has led to the introduction of terms such as co-production and co-design to emphasise the importance of using the experiences and knowledge provided by service users. Moreover, services continue to seek new and innovative ways to help improve the quality of care. One such development has seen organisations adopting quality improvement methodology, traditionally used in the manufacturing industry, to help review systems and practices. Within these methods, service users and professionals are encouraged to come together to co-produce and co-design the very services they use.
There are, however, calls for more robust evidence regarding the actual process of co-design in quality improvement. This is partly a result of variation in how co-design is understood and limited accounts into what activities are undertaken, and why, within these processes. As such, further understanding of how different people interpret co-design is needed alongside how this translates in practice. This research responds by attempting to make sense of the various interpretations, conditions and mechanisms facilitating and constraining co-design. This line of enquiry is vital as service users and professionals find themselves in new settings requiring a different set of skills, knowledge and resources.
This research aims to recognise the views and experiences of a range of personnel involved in quality improvement, including service users. Individual interviews will be complemented by observation of quality improvement meetings across two settings – a Specialist Community Care site and a Mental Health Rehabilitation Inpatient ward - paying specific attention to the respective discussions and actions taking place. Both cases have been purposively identified with an interest in mental health, where, historically, additional challenges have been faced in relation to the involvement of service users.
REC name
North West - Preston Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
19/NW/0258
Date of REC Opinion
10 Jun 2019
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion