Co-production Of Care Research Articles

Implementing co-production to enhance patient safety: the introduction of the patient safety consent tool, an example of a simple local solution to a common challenge.

Zero harm is one of the priorities that all healthcare systems are aspiring for. However, more than two decades after 'To Err is Human' report, many systems are struggling to identify or implement strategies to achieve this important goal [1]. One of the very powerful, yet underutilized strategies towards transforming patient safety and achieving Zero Harm is 'co-production' [2]. Co-production of health is defined as 'the interdependent work of users and professionals who are creating, designing, producing, delivering, assessing, and evaluating the relationships and actions that contribute to the health of individuals and populations' [2]. Simply put, co-production means that patients contribute alongside professionals to the provision of health services [3]. While we know the importance and potential value of co-production, many health systems are underutilizing the approach. Actions to effectively implement and sustain changes to service provision to use co-production are elusive [4]. To realize improvements, a key requirement for health professionals is addressing the question: how can we implement and sustain co-production in efficient, effective ways? To address this challenge, and thereby improve patient safety and work towards zero harm, we introduce the 'Patient Safety Consent' (PSC) tool, a simple co-production tool to empower patients and families to become more active members in their own healthcare. Implementing the co-production of care, requires a shift in the traditional attitudes and power dynamics between healthcare professionals and patients [2]. Professionals explicitly share service information, diagnosis assessments, treatment options, decision-making and involve patients and their families in determining the direction and actions for their care; conversely, patients and families take on an active role in engaging in discussions, potential care pathways, and ongoing decisions about their treatment and care. Hence, the PSC tool is a direct, engaging, comprehensive and, where used effectively, a powerful strategy for changing the dynamics and outcomes of care. The co-production process using the PSC tool involves engaging the patient/family in discussing and recording the patient risk profile. This means addressing potential clinical risks that could take place during the care process such as: venous thromboembolism; patient falls; hospital acquired infections (HAIs); medication side effects or errors; and, adverse events that are specific to the patient and their treatment plan. The patient risk profile is also a tool for the care team to assess and understand an individual patient's self-care ability, capacity for comprehending medical information, treatment directions and decisions, their goals from treatment and, emotional and psychological resilience. Once the patient risk profile is identified and recorded, the co-production process continues by determining the responsibilities of the patient/families and different healthcare professionals on how to monitor, prevent and, where necessary, respond and alleviate them. The PSC tool recognizes that a patient's thoughts, emotions, expectations, needs and resilience changes during the care process; hence is it an evolving document that is updated regularly across the care process. The PSC tool integrates and personalizes the responsibilities of patients/families and healthcare professionals across the three phases of the patient journey: 1. Pre-admission phase; 2. Admission (hospital) Phase; 3. Post-discharge phase. 1.Pre-admission phase: during this phase, together the healthcare professionals and patient/family assess the patient risk profile, based on their medical history and treatment plan, recording the details on the Patient Safety Consent form. 2. Admission phase: on admission to the ward the care team and patient review the Patient Safety Consent form to confirm the details and ensure its implementation. These tasks can involve, as necessary, (re)assessing potential risks, the responsibilities of each person, and how and when the PSC approach will be reviewed. 3. Post-discharge phase: during the discharge phase, the care team discuss and document with the patient/family outcomes, ongoing care actions, future medical requirements and potential risks and remedy actions. Successful implementation of a co-production strategy or tools that challenge and change practice, such as the PSC tool, requires a project to create a 'learning health system' [2]. Making co-production a consistent, standard philosophy and behavior in care practice necessitates: strong organizational endorsement support, including support and adoption by managers; education and training of healthcare personnel to change practice interactions; planning and integration into care processes, supervision arrangements and information systems; evolution of organizational and services cultures; investigation of staff and patient experiences; and, ongoing review and evaluation of the project. There are important research studies into health systems driving such changes: see the collaborative, comparative work in Sweden and England [4]. In conclusion, we know that co-production in healthcare has a positive impact on patient safety, and experience, and staff wellbeing [2]. By bringing patients and professionals together and placing the patient at the center of the care process, co-production creates a more collaborative, and transparent healthcare system. Developing and translating co-production strategies into specific tools, such as PSC tool, standardizes and institutionalizes new expectations, behaviors and cultures to improve patient care and outcomes.

696 Previsit planning incorporating co-production of care in a joint pediatric and adult cystic fibrosis center

696 Previsit planning incorporating co-production of care in a joint pediatric and adult cystic fibrosis center

What is best for Esther? A simple question that moves mindsets and improves care

BackgroundPersons in need of services from different care providers in the health and welfare system often struggle when navigating between them. Connecting and coordinating different health and welfare providers is a common challenge for all involved. This study presents a long-term regional empirical example from Sweden—ESTHER, which has lasted for more than two decades—to show how some of those challenges could be met. The purpose of the study was to increase the understanding of how several care providers together could succeed in improving care by transforming a concept into daily practice, thus contributing with practical implications for other health and welfare contexts.MethodsThe study is a retrospective longitudinal case study with a qualitative mixed-methods approach. Individual interviews and focus groups were performed with staff members and persons in need of care, and document analyses were conducted. The data covers experiences from 1995 to 2020, analyzed using an open inductive thematic analysis.ResultsThis study shows how co-production and person-centeredness could improve care for persons with multiple care needs involving more than one care provider through a well-established Quality Improvement strategy. Perseverance from a project to a mindset was shaped by promoting systems thinking in daily work and embracing the psychology of change during multidisciplinary, boundary-spanning improvement dialogues. Important areas were Incentives, Work in practice, and Integration, expressed through trust in frontline staff, simple rules, and continuous support from senior managers. A continuous learning approach including the development of local improvement coaches and co-production of care consolidated the integration in daily work.ConclusionsThe development was facilitated by a simple question: “What is best for Esther?” This question unified people, flattened the hierarchy, and reminded all care providers why they needed to improve together. Continuously focusing on and co-producing with the person in need of care strengthened the concept. Important was engaging the people who know the most—frontline staff and persons in need of care—in combination with permissive leadership and embracing quality improvement dimensions. Those insights can be useful in other health and welfare settings wanting to improve care involving several care providers.

ENGAGING PATIENTS IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE CARE — WHAT DETERMINES ACTIVE PARTICIPATION?

Patient-provider co-production of care is integral to managing inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), chronic and incurable conditions that affect patients’ quality of life. Patients in the IBD Qorus Learning Health System self-report symptoms and treatment goals prior to clinic visits via electronic surveys, which helps their providers develop patient-centered treatment plans. This study examines factors that predict patients’ active participation in the program to inform future strategies to promote programmatic engagement and continuity of care.

EFFECTS OF ACTIVE PATIENT PARTICIPATION IN AN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ON HEALTHCARE UTILIZATION OUTCOMES

Although previous studies have shown that participating in a structured national quality improvement program improves healthcare utilization for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), it is not known whether the extent of active participation influences health outcomes. Patients in the IBD Qorus Learning Health System self-report symptoms and treatment goals prior to clinic visits via electronic surveys, which facilitates disease surveillance and patient-provider co-production of care. This study assesses the relationship between active patient participation and IBD-related healthcare utilization outcomes.

ENGAGING PATIENTS IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE CARE — WHAT DETERMINES ACTIVE PARTICIPATION?

Abstract BACKGROUND Patient-provider co-production of care is integral to managing inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), chronic and incurable conditions that affect patients’ quality of life. Patients in the IBD Qorus Learning Health System self-report symptoms and treatment goals prior to clinic visits via electronic surveys, which helps their providers develop patient-centered treatment plans. This study examines factors that predict patients’ active participation in the program to inform future strategies to promote programmatic engagement and continuity of care. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic health records and survey results from a private community gastrointestinal practice engaged with Qorus between 2016 and 2021. Patients with IBD who consented to participate in Qorus were followed for two years after they submitted the first pre-clinic visit survey. The primary outcome was the ratio of eligible surveys (submitted within two weeks prior to clinic visits) to the number of clinic visits, with a ratio <0.5 representing inactive participation and ≥0.5 representing active participation. The first survey and its associated clinic visit were excluded from participation score calculation because it does not reflect patients’ longitudinal involvement. Multivariable logistics regression was performed with patient demographics, mental health status, prior healthcare utilization, and disease severity as covariates. RESULTS Among 244 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 122 were inactive participants and 122 were active participants. Inactive participants completed a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) surveys and 3 (IQR 1-5) clinic visits, while active participants completed a median of 2 (IQR 1-3) surveys and 2 (IQR 2-4) clinic visits (Table 1). Multivariable logistics regression shows that older age, history of anxiety or depression, and higher number of clinic visits were associated with inactive participation. Compared to the age group 18-24 years old, patients ≥35 were less likely to participate actively: 35-44 (OR 0.32 [95% CI 0.11-0.90]), 45-54 (OR 0.24 [95% CI 0.07-0.72]), ≥55 (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.12-0.94]). Patients with a history of anxiety or depression showed less active participation than those without (OR 0.44 [95% CI 0.25-0.77]). Higher number of clinic visits was also associated with less active participation (OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.78-0.99]) (Table 2). CONCLUSION Age ≥35, history of anxiety or depression, and frequent clinic visits were associated with less active participation in an IBD Learning Health System. Lack of familiarity with digital health resources, concomitant mental health disorders, or participation fatigue may potentially explain these findings. Further research is needed to investigate the causes of inactive participation to design interventions that address these causes.

EFFECTS OF ACTIVE PATIENT PARTICIPATION IN AN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ON HEALTHCARE UTILIZATION OUTCOMES

Abstract BACKGROUND Although previous studies have shown that participating in a structured national quality improvement program improves healthcare utilization for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), it is not known whether the extent of active participation influences health outcomes. Patients in the IBD Qorus Learning Health System self-report symptoms and treatment goals prior to clinic visits via electronic surveys, which facilitates disease surveillance and patient-provider co-production of care. This study assesses the relationship between active patient participation and IBD-related healthcare utilization outcomes. METHODS We reviewed electronic health records and surveys of patients with IBD from a private community gastrointestinal practice participating in Qorus for two years after they submitted the first pre-clinic survey. The study period was from 2016 to 2021. Primary outcomes were times from the first survey to an IBD-related ED visit/hospitalization, urgent message*, and CT-scan use. Participation score was calculated as a ratio of eligible surveys (submitted within two weeks prior to clinic visits) to the number of clinic visits, with a ratio <0.5 representing inactive participation and ≥0.5 representing active participation. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to determine the relationship between active participation and healthcare utilization, controlling for potential confounders such as IBD subtype, baseline clinical disease activity, steroid use, and six-months-prior IBD-related ED visit/hospitalization and CT scan use. The “survival time” was defined as the time from the first survey to IBD-related healthcare utilization events, loss of follow-up in the electronic health records, or two years, whichever occurred earliest. RESULTS Out of 244 patients, 122 were inactive participants and 122 were active participants. Among inactive participants, 23.8% experienced an IBD-related ED visit/hospitalization, 27.9% sent an urgent message, and 12.3% received a CT scan. Among active participants, 18.9 % experienced an IBD-related ED visit/hospitalization, 21.3% sent an urgent message, and 12.3% received a CT scan (Table 1). Active and inactive (reference) Qorus participants were not statistically different in their healthcare utilization: ED visit/hospitalization (HR 0.61[95% CI 0.34-1.09]), sending an urgent message (HR 0.68 [95% CI 0.40-1.15]), and CT scan use (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.47-2.13]), after adjusting for confounders (Table 2). CONCLUSION Although active participants show numerically less frequent ED visit/hospitalization and urgent message than inactive participants, there was not a statistically significant association between participation and healthcare utilization. A greater sample size is needed to draw further conclusions to inform future strategies to engage patients and optimize health outcomes.

How a point-of-care dashboard facilitates co-production of health care and health for and with individuals with psychotic disorders: a mixed-methods case study

BackgroundIndividuals with psychotic disorders experience widespread treatment failures and risk early death. Sweden’s largest department specializing in psychotic disorders sought to improve patients’ health by developing a point-of-care dashboard to support joint planning and co-production of care. The dashboard was tested for 18 months and included more than 400 patients at two outpatient clinics.MethodsThis study evaluates the dashboard by addressing two questions:Can differences in health-related outcome measures be attributed to the use of the dashboard?How did the case managers experience the accessibility, use, and usefulness of the dashboard for co-producing care with individuals with psychotic disorders?This mixed-method case study used both Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) and data from a focus group interview with case managers. Data collection and analysis were framed by the Clinical Adoption Meta Model (CAMM) phases: i) accessibility, ii) system use, iii) behavior, and iv) clinical outcomes. The PROM used was the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), which assesses functional impairment and disability. Patients at clinics using the dashboard were matched with patients at clinics not using the dashboard. PROM data were compared using non-parametric statistics due to skewness in distribution. The focus group included five case managers who had experience using the dashboard with patients.ResultsCompared to patients from clinics that did not use the dashboard, patients from clinics that did use the dashboard improved significantly overall (p = 0.045) and in the domain self-care (p = 0.041). Focus group participants reported that the dashboard supported data feedback-informed care and a proactive stance related to changes in patients’ health. The dashboard helped users identify critical changes and enabled joint planning and evaluation.ConclusionDashboard use was related to better patient health (WHODAS scores) when compared with matched patients from clinics that did not use the dashboard. In addition, case managers had a positive experience using the dashboard. Dashboard use might have lowered the risk for missing critical changes in patients’ health while increasing the ability to proactively address needs. Future studies should investigate how to enhance patient co-production through use of supportive technologies.

Integrated [Primary +] Memory Care Clinic.

The Integrated Memory Care Clinic (IMCC) is a model of care for people living with dementia directed by advanced practice registered nurses. The post-diagnosis model incorporates the expertise of nursing, social work and nurse practitioners certified in gerontology, palliative care and/or geriatric psychiatry. The Clinic nurse practitioners provide comprehensive and coordinated primary care for dementia and other stable chronic conditions and episodic care for minor acute illnesses. Care delivery is structured to maximize ongoing dialogue with patients and their caregivers during office visits and by phone and patient portal access. The Clinic provides a number of services to care partners, including an after-hours line, stage-based educational groups, and a monthly support group. The IMCC aims to reduce the overall burden of dementia by partnering with affected individuals and their caregivers in the co-production of care. Now at full capacity, the IMCC serves 525 active patients and their care partners with 1.3 FTE primary care nurse practitioners. The mean age is 78.6 years; most are female (63%); and 42% identify as a racial minority. The majority of patients are moderate (27% early-moderate; 36% late-moderate) stage of dementia clinical syndrome. The mean monthly rate of hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions in 2022 is 1.42%. The published rate for this population is 13-15%. Finally, the model is financially neutral in a fee-for-service environment. Open in 2015, the IMCC has combined primary care and dementia care in one clinical practice. The IMCC developed strong rapport and trust with patients and families to achieve outstanding health outcomes. The model is an American Academy of Nursing Emerging Edge Runner, recognized by NCQA as a Patient Centered Medical Home, recognized as a Level 2 Age-Friendly Health System participant, and a Best Practice Exemplar by the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care.

Key stakeholders' experiences and expectations of the care system for individuals affected by borderline personality disorder: An interpretative phenomenological analysis towards co-production of care.

BackgroundThe diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) consists of extreme emotional dysregulation and long-term disability when left untreated. It is associated with ineffective use of health care systems and mismanaged care in emergency departments, which can result in a revolving door phenomenon of urgent system usage, poor treatment outcomes, or patients falling out of care entirely–all of which primarily affect patients with BPD as well as their caregivers and clinicians. This crisis must be addressed with a comprehensive understanding of key stakeholder perspectives on the challenges of the system and potential solutions.ObjectiveThis study explored the perspectives of three key stakeholder groups (i.e., patients, clinicians, and caregivers) in relation to their experiences with and future expectations of the care system for those affected by BPD.MethodsFour patients with BPD, three generalist clinicians with experience treating BPD, and three caregivers of individuals with BPD participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Participants were asked about their experiences with the current healthcare system and their suggestions for improvement. Responses were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.FindingsIn-depth analysis of the qualitative data revealed twelve shared themes and three themes that were unique to each key stakeholder group. These themes are discussed and used to inform recommendations for promising practices, policies, and training in this area.ConclusionFindings support the importance of a comprehensive mental health system approach for improving the accessibility, effectiveness, and acceptability of the management and treatment of BPD.

Co-design of an Electronic Dashboard to Support the Coproduction of Care in Pediatric Rheumatic Disease: Human-Centered Design and Usability Testing.

BackgroundThe coproduction of care involves patients and families partnering with their clinicians and care teams, with the premise that each brings their own perspective, knowledge, and expertise, as well as their own values, goals, and preferences, to the partnership. Dashboards can display meaningful patient and clinical data to assess how a patient is doing and inform shared decision-making. Increasing communication between patients and care teams is particularly important for children with chronic conditions. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the most common chronic pediatric rheumatic condition, is associated with increased pain, decreased function, and decreased quality of life.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to design a dashboard prototype for use in coproducing care in patients with JIA. We evaluated the use and needs of end users, obtained a consensus on the necessary dashboard data elements, and constructed display prototypes to inform meaningful discussions for coproduction.MethodsA human-centered design approach involving parents, patients, clinicians, and care team members was used to develop a dashboard to support the coproduction of care in 4 ambulatory pediatric rheumatology clinics. We engaged a multidisciplinary team (n=18) of patients, parents, clinicians, nurses, and staff during an in-person kick-off meeting followed by biweekly meetings. We also leveraged advisory panels. Teams mapped workflows and patient journeys, created personas, and developed dashboard sketches. The final dashboard components were determined via Delphi consensus voting. Low-tech dashboard testing was completed during clinic visits, and visual display prototypes were iterated by using the Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology. Patients and clinicians were surveyed regarding their experiences.ResultsTeams achieved consensus on what data mattered most at the point of care to support patients with JIA, families, and clinicians collaborating to make the best possible health care decisions. Notable themes included the right data in the right place at the right time, data in once for multiple purposes, patient and family self-management components, and the opportunity for education and increased transparency. A final set of 11 dashboard data elements was identified, including patient-reported outcomes, clinical data, and medications. Important design considerations featured the incorporation of real-time data, clearly labeled graphs, and vertical orientation to facilitate review and discussion. Prototype paper-testing with 36 patients and families yielded positive feedback, with 89% (8/9) to 100% (9/9) of parents (n=9) and 80% (8/10) to 90% (9/10) of clinicians (n=10) strongly agreeing or agreeing that the dashboard was useful during clinic discussions, helped to talk about what mattered most, and informed health care decision-making.ConclusionsWe developed a dashboard prototype that displays patient-reported and clinical data over time, along with medications that can be used during a clinic visit to support meaningful conversations and shared decision-making among patients with JIA, their families, and their clinicians and care teams.

"Acquiring the Skills Needed to Communicate What Is in Our Teams' Heart: Love, Compassion and Partnership": Qualitative Analysis of Intact Multidisciplinary Teams' Experience of Relationship-Centered Communication Training.

The Partnership Enhancement Program (PEP) is a 6-hour relationship-centered communication training for intact cystic fibrosis (CF) teams. The aim of this study was to analyze qualitative responses from survey participants regarding their takeaways from the training. A total of 210 professionals participated in 20 pilot workshops at 19 care centers in the United States from November 2018 to December 2019. After the workshop, qualitative feedback was captured by PEP facilitators during a feedback gathering session or submitted immediately in writing by participants. The manuscript team used grounded theory and qualitative methods of coding to identify recurring themes across participant responses. Thematic analysis revealed 5 primary themes and a web of interconnected subthemes. Primary themes include the acquisition of skills to improve communication, strengthened patient/provider connection, improved quality of communication, improved team building, and the ability to change and enhance practice. Participants who completed PEP training endorse acquiring communication skills that increase coproduction of care with patients and caregivers as well as improve relationships across the healthcare system.

Paideia Education in primary care: an analysis of institutional democracy and power relations in health sector work practices

This article looks at two pedagogical initiatives based on "Paideia Education" in order to analyze their contributions to the production of democratic relations and the co-production of care in primary health care. The first of these initiatives was a seminar on matrix support (2015-2016) that trained 94 specialists, and the second was a seminar on family care (2018-2020) that trained 149 professionals. The 243 participating health professionals came from five different municipalities in Brazil. The results obtained through questionnaires and field diaries kept during the seminars indicate that "Paideia Education" has the ability to motivate professionals to incorporate notions such as the expanded clinic and matrix support into primary health care, and fosters the sharing of care and the co-construction of autonomy with users. However, authoritarian management practices are still frequently directed towards professionals, practiced among professionals themselves, and directed towards patients, and therefore it is necessary to invest in a greater democratization of services beyond training.

Balancing power in co-production: introducing a reflection model

The role and position of users in health and welfare has recently changed to become more active in co-production of care. When more co-production is preferred, challenges related to power need to be considered. In this paper, power is seen as the possibility to influence. The paper focuses on power in co-produced improvement work by introducing a reflection model based on Franzén’s power triangle, further developed from improvement coaches’ perceptions. First, empirical data from interviews with improvement coaches were analyzed and then the theoretical model was created. Twelve coaches were included in the interviews, all of them with experience of co-production and improvement work within a region in southeast Sweden. By combining the empirical results with the power triangle, a reflection model concerning power dimensions was developed. The results showed the necessity of reflection regarding several power-related factors. Resources were found to be important and depending on contextual settings. Attitudes and perceptions among personnel and users were also vital. To accomplish co-production, the power dimension must be considered, and the power triangle acknowledges different power dimensions and how they affect each other. The model has a systematic character and allows adjustments to the power dimensions within any other context. It can inspire and be used by improvers working with co-production to promote deeper professional and organizational reflection and thereby contribute to new insights on how to balance power in co-producing health and welfare services.

Co-production in coping with care dependency in Germany: How can integrated local care centres contribute?

In Germany, most care dependent people are looked after by family members at home. Professional support can help ease the burden of caring relatives and stabilise home care. Ideally, care then is provided through the co-production of formal and informal caregivers. This article analyses how care dependent people and their family caregivers integrate professional support into their care arrangements. An analysis was conducted using data collected for a qualitative study evaluating integrated local care centres in North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. The study is based on episodic interviews with users of these care centres and their family caregivers (N=26). During the analysis, three interpretive and practice patterns relating to co-production of care were identified. These patterns reveal how the interviewees deal with (increasing) needs for assistance and care while incorporating professional care into their lives. The patterns help differentiate whether the interviewees (a) use developed care skills to contribute actively to the co-production with their layman knowledge, or (b) seek relief of their care responsibilities and withdraw temporarily from the direct sphere of care applying freed capacities to organise family daily life, or (c) use the services of the care centres to meet with other older people and to develop spaces for mutual help and co-production. The interpretive and practice patterns thus differ in the extent to which care users and family caregivers continue to play an 'active role' in the care process and contribute their own knowledge, ideas, expectations and particular care activities. In order to achieve a functioning co-production, professionals face the challenge of understanding these patterns that have been established over many years and of taking them into account appropriately.

Co-Production of Care During COVID-19

This feature article explores how Danish authorities have worked to secure public health in cooperation with citizens, companies, and civil society organizations amid an unfolding pandemic.

Patient experience in co-production of care: perceptions about patient safety protocols.

Objective:to analyze the experience of the patient during hospitalization, focusing on the co-production of care related to patient safety protocols.Method:qualitative study, whose data were collected through the triangulation of multiple sources: document analysis, observation of 10 professionals in the provision of care and 24 interviews with patient-families from 12 clinical and surgical inpatient units of a hospital. Thematic analysis was carried out, based on the concept of co-production.Results:safety protocols according to the experience of the patient portrayed the role of patient-families as co-producers of safe care. It was found an alignment between perceptions of the patients, institutional definitions and basic national and international patient safety protocols. However, these protocols are not always followed by professionals.Conclusion:co-production was perceived in the protocols for safe surgery and prevention of injuries resulting from falls. In patient identification, hand hygiene and medication process, it was found that co-production depends on the proactive behavior of patient-families, as it is not encouraged by professionals. The research contributes with subsidies to leverage the participation of the patient as an agent of their safety, highlighting the co-production of health care as a valuable resource for advancing patient safety.

Pilot implementation of co-designed software for co-production in mental health care planning: a qualitative evaluation of staff perspectives

Background: Mental health policies advocate service user participation in care planning. However, service users often feel they’re not fully involved and direct access to users’ own electronic care plans in the community can be an obstacle. To address this, an electronic care pathway tool (CPT) was co-designed by service users, staff and software developers, to facilitate co-production of care and crisis plans.Aims: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the pilot implementation of the CPT in professionals’ practice to co-produce care plans and enable efficient working.Method: Qualitative interviews with fifteen mental health practitioners, and five service development/management staff. Normalisation process theory, which outlines the social processes involved in implementing technology, and co-production theory, informed interviews and data analysis.Results: Multiple factors influenced CPT usage, including people’s views of technology, practitioners’ relationships with service users, service users’ mental health needs, and their capacity for reflective thinking. The CPT’s visual and interactive features could enable co-production of care plans. The CPT supported practitioners’ efficiency, but its features did not easily streamline with electronic patient records.Conclusions: CPT interactive touchpoints supported service users’ therapeutic reflection and facilitated care planning involvement. Information technology system interoperability was an obstacle.

Ambulatory Education: Time to Move From Process to Outcome.

Ambulatory Education: Time to Move From Process to Outcome.

A learning health system for people with severe mental illness: a promise for continuous learning, patient coproduction and more effective care

A Learning Health System (LHS) promotes the patient being at the very center of his or her care. Patient coproduction of care in an LHS is enabled by a focus on improving outcomes through the use of tools and visualizations that use the harnessed knowledge obtained from every previous treatment of similar patients. Interest in the concept of LHS is growing, and there are promising results in real-world applications. Almost no research has focused on LHSs for severe mental illness (LHS4SMI). By using a user-centered system design approach, a persona and use-case scenarios were created to illustrate how schizophrenia care could be co-produced in an LHS compared to standard care in a non-LHS. The illustration highlight increased participation through decisions informed by all treatments for all similar patients through the use of user interfaces that support continuous evaluation, increased understanding, compensation for cognitive impairment and participation of next of kin in the care process. We propose that an LHS4SMIs like schizophrenia has enormous potential in enabling continuous learning, patient coproduction, and more effective care.