Multiple sclerosis outpatient future groups: improving the quality of participant interaction and ideation tools within service improvement activities

BMC Health Services Research

Gavin Giovannoni²  Carol Rivas¹  Alison Thomson² 

[1] School of 717 Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Building 67, 718, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK;Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary, University of London, Whitechapel, London E1 2AT, UK

关键词: Quality;    Focus group;    Outpatients;    Patient experience;    Props;    Design;    Multiple sclerosis;   

Others  :  1174783
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-015-0773-8

 received in 2014-08-04, accepted in 2015-02-27,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Improving the patient experience is a key focus within the National Health Service. This has led us to consider how health services are experienced, from both staff and patient perspectives. Novel service improvement activities bring staff and patients together to use design-led methods to improve how health services are delivered. The Multiple Sclerosis Outpatient Future Group study aimed to explore how analogies and props can be used to facilitate rich interactions between staff and patients within these activities. This paper will consider how these interactions supported participants to share experiences, generate ideas and suggest service improvements.

Method

Qualitative explorative study using ‘future groups,’ a reinterpretation of the recognised focus groups method directed towards exploring future alternatives through employing analogies and physical props to engage participants to speculate about future service interactions and health experiences. Participants were people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and outpatient staff: staff nurses, nursing assistants, junior sisters and reception staff.

Results

Use of future groups, analogies and physical props enabled PwMS and outpatient staff to invest their own ideas and feelings in the service improvement activity and envisage alternative health care scenarios. The combination of participants in the groups with their diverse perspectives and knowledge of the service led to a collaborative approach in which staff highlighted potential practical problems and patients ensured ideas were holistic. Service improvements were prototyped and tested in the outpatient clinic.

Conclusion

Design-led methods such as future groups using analogies and physical props can be used to facilitate interactions between staff and patients in service improvement activities, leading to the generation of meaningful ideas. It is hoped that improving the quality of ideation tools within design-led methods can contribute to developing successful service interventions in service improvement activities.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Thomson et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cayton H: Theory and overviews: Patients as entrepreneurs: Who is in charge of change? In Healthy Democracy: The Future of Involvement in Heath and Social Care. Department of Health. Edited by Andersson E, Tritter J, Wilson R. Involve and NHS National Centre for Involvement, London; 2006:19-26.
• [2]Patient and Public Empowerment: Understanding what matters: A guide to using patient feedback to transform care. Department of Health; 2009.
• [3]Coulter A: Measures of Patients’ Experience in Hospital: Purpose, Methods and Uses. King’s Fund, London; 2009.
• [4]Parker S, Parker S: Demos (Organization : London E: Unlocking Innovation (pbk.): Why Citizens Hold the Key to Public Service Reform. Demos, London; 2007.
• [5]Bate P, Robert G: Bringing User Experience to Healthcare Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience-Based Design. Oxford. Radcliffe Pub, New York; 2007.
• [6]The Kings Fund: The Patient-Centred Care Project. Evaluation Report. The Kings Fund, London; 2011.
• [7]Iedema R, Merrick E, Piper D, Britton K, Gray J, Verma R, et al.: Codesigning as a Discursive Practice in Emergency Health Services: The Architecture of Deliberation. J Appl Behav Sci 2010, 46:73-91.
• [8]Bowen S, McSeveny K, Lockley E, Wolstenholme D, Cobb M, Dearden A: How was it for you? Experiences of participatory design in the UK health service. CoDesign 2013, 9:230-46.
• [9]Donetto S, Tsianakas V, Robert G: Using Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) to Improve the Quality of Healthcare: Mapping Where We Are Now and Establishing Future Directions. King’s College London, London; 2014.
• [10]Freire K, Sangiorgi D: Service Design and Healthcare Innovation : From Consumption, to co-Production to co-Creation. Linkoping, Sweden; 2010.
• [11]Kimbell L: Mapping Social Design Practice: Beyond the Toolkit. Mapping Social Design Research and Practice 2013. [http://mappingsocialdesign.org/2013/11/19/mapping-social-design-practice-beyond-the-toolkit/] Accessed: 01/12/2013
• [12]Macdonald AS: The inner resource: enabling the designer within Us All – a case study. Design J 2013, 16:175-96.
• [13]Malpass M: Between Wit and reason: defining associative, speculative, and critical design in practice. Des Cult 2013, 5:333-56.
• [14]Kitzinger J: The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illness 1994, 16:103-21.
• [15]Morgan DL: Focus Group Kit 1 1. u.a.: Sage Publ, Thousand Oaks, Calif; 1998.
• [16]Bowling A: Research Methods in Health Investigating Health and Health Services. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England. McGraw Hill/Open University Press, New York, NY; 2009.
• [17]Bender DE, Ewbank D: The focus group as a tool for health research: issues in design and analysis. Health Trans Rev Cultural Soc Behav Determinants health 1994, 4:63-80.
• [18]Kitzinger J: Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995, 311:299-302.
• [19]Crossley ML: “Could you please pass one of those health leaflets along?”: exploring health, morality and resistance through focus groups. Soc Sci Med 2002, 55:1471-83.
• [20]Glaser BG, Strauss AL: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, N.J; 2012.
• [21]Dewar B, Mackay R, Smith S, Pullin S, Tocher R: Use of emotional touchpoints as a method of tapping into the experience of receiving compassionate care in a hospital setting. J Res Nurs 2009, 15:29-41.
• [22]Manen M van: Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice 2007;1
• [23]Janesick VJ: The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. 1st edition. Edited by Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 1994:209-19.
• [24]Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN: Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif; 1990.
• [25]Moreno R, Valdez A: Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educ Technol Res Dev 2005, 53:35-45.
• [26]Crosswaite C, Curtice L: Disseminating research results-the challenge of bridging the gap between health research and health action. Health Promot Int 1994, 9:289-96.
• [27]Brown D, McWilliam C, Ward-Griffin C: Client-centred empowering partnering in nursing. J Adv Nurs 2006, 53:160-8.
• [28]Bowen S, Dearden A, Wright P, Wolstenholme D, Cobb M: Participatory healthcare service design and innovation. In: Bodker K, Bratteteig T, Loi D and Robertson T, editors. PDC '10 Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. New York: ACM Press; 155-158.
• [29]Gaver B, Dunne T, Pacenti E: Design: Cultural probes. Interactions 1999, 6:21-9.
• [30]Gaver WW, Boucher A, Pennington S, Walker B: Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions 2004, 11:53.