The impact of patient participation direct enhanced service on patient reference groups in primary care: a qualitative study.

Quality in primary care Pub Date : 2014-01-01
Lorraine Pollard, Shona Agarwal, Fawn Harrad, Louise Lester, Ainsley Cross, Paula Wray, Gordon Smith, Anthony Locke, Paul Sinfield
{"title":"The impact of patient participation direct enhanced service on patient reference groups in primary care: a qualitative study.","authors":"Lorraine Pollard,&nbsp;Shona Agarwal,&nbsp;Fawn Harrad,&nbsp;Louise Lester,&nbsp;Ainsley Cross,&nbsp;Paula Wray,&nbsp;Gordon Smith,&nbsp;Anthony Locke,&nbsp;Paul Sinfield","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>NHS policy documents continue to make a wide-ranging commitment to patient involvement. The Patient Participation Direct Enhanced Service (PP-DES), launched in 2011, aimed to ensure patients are involved in decisions about the range and quality of services provided and commissioned by their practice through patient reference groups (PRGs). The aim of this exploratory study is to review the impact of the PP-DES (2011-13) on a sample of PRGs and assess how far it has facilitated their involvement in decisions about the services of their general practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative methods design, using semi- structured interviews and focus groups, was employed to explore the experiences and views of GP practice staff (n = 24), PRG members (n = 80) at 12 GP practices, and other stakeholders (n = 4).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Wide variation in the role and remit of the participating PRGs was found, which broadly ranged from activities to improve practice resources to supporting health promotion activities. The majority of PRG members were unfamiliar with the PP-DES scheme and its aims and purpose. Stakeholders and practice staff felt strongly that the main success of the PP-DES was that it had led to an increase in the number of PRGs being established in the locality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PP-DES scheme has been a catalyst to establish PRGs. However, the picture was mixed in terms of the PRGs involvement in decisions about the services provided at their general practice as there was wide variation in the PRGs role and remit. The financial incentive alone, provided via the DES scheme, did not secure greater depth of PRG activity and power, however, as social factors were identified as playing an important role in PRGs' level of participation in decision making. Many PRGs have to become more firmly established before they are involved as partners in commissioning decisions at their practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":88096,"journal":{"name":"Quality in primary care","volume":"22 4","pages":"189-99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: NHS policy documents continue to make a wide-ranging commitment to patient involvement. The Patient Participation Direct Enhanced Service (PP-DES), launched in 2011, aimed to ensure patients are involved in decisions about the range and quality of services provided and commissioned by their practice through patient reference groups (PRGs). The aim of this exploratory study is to review the impact of the PP-DES (2011-13) on a sample of PRGs and assess how far it has facilitated their involvement in decisions about the services of their general practices.

Methods: A qualitative methods design, using semi- structured interviews and focus groups, was employed to explore the experiences and views of GP practice staff (n = 24), PRG members (n = 80) at 12 GP practices, and other stakeholders (n = 4).

Results: Wide variation in the role and remit of the participating PRGs was found, which broadly ranged from activities to improve practice resources to supporting health promotion activities. The majority of PRG members were unfamiliar with the PP-DES scheme and its aims and purpose. Stakeholders and practice staff felt strongly that the main success of the PP-DES was that it had led to an increase in the number of PRGs being established in the locality.

Conclusion: The PP-DES scheme has been a catalyst to establish PRGs. However, the picture was mixed in terms of the PRGs involvement in decisions about the services provided at their general practice as there was wide variation in the PRGs role and remit. The financial incentive alone, provided via the DES scheme, did not secure greater depth of PRG activity and power, however, as social factors were identified as playing an important role in PRGs' level of participation in decision making. Many PRGs have to become more firmly established before they are involved as partners in commissioning decisions at their practice.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者参与直接增强服务对初级保健患者参照组的影响:一项定性研究。
背景:NHS政策文件继续对患者参与做出广泛的承诺。患者参与直接增强服务(PP-DES)于2011年启动,旨在确保患者通过患者参考小组(prg)参与其诊所提供和委托的服务范围和质量的决策。本探索性研究的目的是回顾PP-DES(2011- 2013)对PRGs样本的影响,并评估它在多大程度上促进了他们参与有关其全科实践服务的决策。方法:采用定性方法设计,采用半结构化访谈和焦点小组,探讨全科医生执业人员(n = 24)、12家全科医生执业小组成员(n = 80)和其他利益相关者(n = 4)的经验和观点。结果:参与执业小组的角色和职权范围存在很大差异,从改善执业资源的活动到支持健康促进活动。大多数PRG成员不熟悉PP-DES计划及其目标和目的。利益攸关方和实务工作人员强烈地感到,方案-发展方案的主要成功之处在于,它导致了在当地建立的方案方案数量的增加。结论:PP-DES方案是建立PRGs的催化剂。但是,由于方案组的作用和职权范围各不相同,方案组参与有关其一般业务所提供服务的决定的情况参差不齐。然而,仅靠经济奖励计划提供的财政奖励并不能确保PRG的活动和权力更深入,因为社会因素被认为在PRG参与决策的程度上起着重要作用。许多prg在作为合作伙伴参与其实践中的委托决策之前,必须更加牢固地建立起来。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating improvement. Understanding processes and how to improve them. Commissioning for quality improvement. The Impact 0f Pandemic Ebola Virus 0n Global Public Health Preterm birth and factors: An institution based cross-sectional study in case of southern Ethiopia
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1