A coproduced patient and public event: An approach to developing and prioritizing ambulance performance measures.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized as an important component of high-quality health services research. PPI is integral to the Pre-hospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) programme. The PPI event described in detail in this article focusses on the process of involving patients and public representatives in identifying, prioritizing and refining a set of outcome measures that can be used to support ambulance service performance measurement. OBJECTIVE: To obtain public feedback on little known, complex aspects of ambulance service performance measurement. DESIGN: The event was codesigned and coproduced with the PhOEBE PPI reference group and PhOEBE research team. The event consisted of brief researcher-led presentations, group discussions facilitated by the PPI reference group members and electronic voting. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from eighteen patient and public representatives who attended an event venue in Yorkshire. RESULTS: The results of the PPI event showed that this interactive format and mode of delivery was an effective method to obtain public feedback and produced a clear indication of which ambulance performance measures were most highly favoured by event participants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The event highlighted valuable contributions the PPI reference group made to the design process, supporting participant recruitment and facilitation of group discussions. In addition, the positive team working experience of the event proved a catalyst for further improvements in PPI within the PhOEBE project.

Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Members of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included electronic database searching, reference list screening, citation searching and scrutinizing online sources. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included studies of any design including published and unpublished documents which outlined preparation or guidance relating to public participants who were members of interview panels or representatives on other types of panels or committees. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results were synthesised via narrative methods. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six documents were included in the review. Scrutiny of this literature highlighted ten areas which require consideration when including members of the public on interview panels: financial resources; clarity of role; role in the interview process; role in evaluation; training; orientation/induction; information needs; terminology; support; and other public representative needs such as timing, accessibility and support with information technology. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of the review emphasize a range of elements that need to be fully considered when planning the involvement of public participants on interview panels. It highlights potential issues relating to the degree of involvement of public representatives in evaluating/grading decisions and the need for preparation and on-going support.