Developing an evaluation tool for the impact of consumer partnerships in healthcare governance: a coproduced mixed methods study.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rae Parker, Jodie Nixon, Faiza El-Higzi, Melanie Lynch, Ruth Cox
{"title":"Developing an evaluation tool for the impact of consumer partnerships in healthcare governance: a coproduced mixed methods study.","authors":"Rae Parker, Jodie Nixon, Faiza El-Higzi, Melanie Lynch, Ruth Cox","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Consumer partnerships are a recent innovation in healthcare governance to diversify decision-making perspectives. These partnerships bring complexity necessitating comprehensive evaluation. This study proposes that evaluation tools should include the impact of healthcare governance partnerships. This study aimed to coproduce an impact evaluation tool for healthcare governance committee partnerships.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a coproduced mixed methods cross-sectional design conducted in two phases. The first study phase included an online focus group and online survey to identify stakeholder expectations and needs for an impact evaluation design. The second study phase used an adapted Jandhyala Method to determine participant awareness of governance committee partnership impacts and consensus agreement to establish an impact evaluation survey. The development of governance committee partnership impact items was guided by a capability development framework for successful staff and consumer partnerships for quality improvement and the Engage with Impact Toolkit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In phase one, staff (n=4) and consumer partners (n=3) provided recommendations to improve the development and acceptance of a governance committee partnership impact evaluation. Phase two was completed by 34 participants (>90% completion). An initial online survey generated 338 statements detailing broad governance committee partnership impacts. No statistically significant difference in the count of impacts by Engage with Impact Toolkit domains was found between staff and consumer partners. A second online survey resulted in a consensus ranking of 24 impact statements for inclusion. The highest consensus impact domains are knowledge, confidence and trust, equity and inclusivity and patient outcomes and experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study pragmatically used the insights of expert staff and consumer partners to develop a prioritised list of survey items to evaluate the impact of healthcare governance committee partnering effectiveness. The resulting healthcare governance committee partnership impact evaluation item list has the potential to be used in other healthcare organisations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12142092/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Consumer partnerships are a recent innovation in healthcare governance to diversify decision-making perspectives. These partnerships bring complexity necessitating comprehensive evaluation. This study proposes that evaluation tools should include the impact of healthcare governance partnerships. This study aimed to coproduce an impact evaluation tool for healthcare governance committee partnerships.

Methods: This study used a coproduced mixed methods cross-sectional design conducted in two phases. The first study phase included an online focus group and online survey to identify stakeholder expectations and needs for an impact evaluation design. The second study phase used an adapted Jandhyala Method to determine participant awareness of governance committee partnership impacts and consensus agreement to establish an impact evaluation survey. The development of governance committee partnership impact items was guided by a capability development framework for successful staff and consumer partnerships for quality improvement and the Engage with Impact Toolkit.

Results: In phase one, staff (n=4) and consumer partners (n=3) provided recommendations to improve the development and acceptance of a governance committee partnership impact evaluation. Phase two was completed by 34 participants (>90% completion). An initial online survey generated 338 statements detailing broad governance committee partnership impacts. No statistically significant difference in the count of impacts by Engage with Impact Toolkit domains was found between staff and consumer partners. A second online survey resulted in a consensus ranking of 24 impact statements for inclusion. The highest consensus impact domains are knowledge, confidence and trust, equity and inclusivity and patient outcomes and experience.

Conclusion: This study pragmatically used the insights of expert staff and consumer partners to develop a prioritised list of survey items to evaluate the impact of healthcare governance committee partnering effectiveness. The resulting healthcare governance committee partnership impact evaluation item list has the potential to be used in other healthcare organisations.

开发消费者伙伴关系对医疗保健治理影响的评估工具:一项共同制作的混合方法研究。
背景:消费者合作伙伴关系是医疗保健治理中最近的一项创新,旨在使决策视角多样化。这些伙伴关系带来了复杂性,需要进行全面评估。本研究建议,评估工具应包括医疗保健治理伙伴关系的影响。本研究旨在为医疗治理委员会合作伙伴关系提供影响评估工具。方法:本研究采用合产混合方法,分两阶段进行横断面设计。第一个研究阶段包括在线焦点小组和在线调查,以确定利益相关者对影响评估设计的期望和需求。研究的第二阶段使用了一种改编的Jandhyala方法来确定参与者对治理委员会伙伴关系影响的认识和共识协议,以建立影响评估调查。治理委员会伙伴关系影响项目的开发是由成功的员工和消费者伙伴关系的能力开发框架和参与影响工具包指导的。结果:在第一阶段,工作人员(n=4)和消费者合作伙伴(n=3)提供了建议,以改进治理委员会伙伴关系影响评估的开发和接受程度。第二阶段有34名参与者完成(>90%完成率)。最初的在线调查产生了338份声明,详细说明了治理委员会伙伴关系的广泛影响。在员工和消费者合作伙伴之间,参与影响工具包领域的影响计数没有统计学上的显著差异。第二次在线调查的结果是对24份影响声明的一致排名。共识影响最大的领域是知识、信心和信任、公平和包容以及患者的结果和经验。结论:本研究务实地利用专家员工和消费者合作伙伴的见解,制定了一个优先调查项目列表,以评估医疗治理委员会合作有效性的影响。由此产生的医疗保健治理委员会伙伴关系影响评估项目列表有可能在其他医疗保健组织中使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信