Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers. RESULTS: Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion. CONCLUSION: Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

The Role and Development of Advanced Clinical Practice Within Allied Health Professions: A Mixed Method Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the profiles of advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) in the allied health professions (AHPs) and their skills, attributes, experiences and involvement in new models of care. METHODS: A 2 phase, cross sectional, mixed method survey of AHP ACPs across London was conducted in 2018-2019. Online questionnaires were completed by 127 AHP ACPs and then semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 AHP ACPs. RESULTS: The survey results gave a comprehensive overview of the attributes of AHPs in ACP roles across London. There was considerable variability between role titles, types and levels of qualification, and evolution of the roles. The respondents predominately worked in clinical practice, and less frequently in other ACP domains (research, leadership and management, education). The interview findings provided in-depth insights into the AHP ACP roles within four themes: being advanced, career pathways, outcomes of the advanced practitioner role and influencing and transforming. The "Being advanced" theme highlighted that expert practice comprised confident and autonomous practice, leadership, and applying specialist and expert decision-making skills. "Career pathways" highlighted the diversity within the participants' roles, titles, career opportunities and development. In the "Outcomes of the advanced clinical practitioner role" theme, the ACPs described their services as prompter, more accessible and providing an improved patient journey. The "Influencing and transforming" theme highlighted networking and dissemination and ideas for innovation, influencing and transforming services. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive profile of ACP roles across AHPs and indicates that these roles are already having a positive impact on healthcare services and supporting new models of care. However, establishing the necessary infrastructure, standardization and governance for ACP roles across sectors, along with the career pathways, funding, sustainability and education, could increase impact in the future.