Author:
McGowan Deirdre,Morley Claire,Hansen Emily,Shaw Kelly,Winzenberg Tania
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Incorporating perspectives of health consumers, healthcare workers, policy makers and stakeholders through co-design is essential to design services that are fit for purpose. However, the experiences of co-design participants are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and perceptions of people involved in the co-design of a new service for people with high healthcare service utilisation.
Methods
A methodology informed by the principles of grounded theory was used in this qualitative study to evaluate the experiences and perceptions of co-design participants. Participants were healthcare professionals, health managers and leaders and health consumers involved in the co-design of the new service in Tasmania, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were iteratively and concurrently collected and analysed using constant comparative analysis. Audio/audio-visual recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts, memos, and an audit trail were coded for experiences and perspectives of participants.
Results
There were thirteen participants (5 health professionals, 6 health managers and leaders, and 2 health consumers). Codes were collapsed into six sub-themes and six themes. Themes were bureaucracy hinders co-design, importance of consumers and diversity, importance of a common purpose, relationships are integral, participants expectations inform their co-design experience and learning from co-design.
Conclusion
Most participants reported positive aspects such as having a common purpose, valuing relationships, and having a personal motivation for participating in co-design. However, there were factors which hindered the adaptation of co-design principles and the co-design process. Our research highlights that bureaucracy can hinder co-design, that including people with lived experience is essential and the need to consider various types of diversity when assembling co-design teams. Future co-design projects could use these findings to improve the co-design experience for participants, and ultimately the outcome for communities.
Funder
Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship
Primary Health Tasmania under the Australian Government’s Primary Health Networks Program
Tasmanian Collaboration for Health Improvement with a generous bequest to the University of Tasmania to be applied to medical research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference51 articles.
1. Shukla D, Faber E, Sick B. Defining and Characterizing Frequent Attenders: Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations. Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews. 2020;7(3):255–64.
2. Berkman ND, Chang E, Seibert J, Ali R, Porterfield D, Jiang L, et al. Management of High-Need, High-Cost Patients: A “Best Fit” Framework Synthesis, Realist Review, and Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 246. (Prepared by the RTI International–University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2015-00011-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 21(22)-EHC028. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021, p. 1–121.
3. Huang M, van der Borght C, Leithaus M, Flamaing J, Goderis G. Patients’ perceptions of frequent hospital admissions: a qualitative interview study with older people above 65 years of age. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):332.
4. Long P, Abrams M, Milstein A, Anderson G, Lewis Apton K, Lund Dahlberg M, et al. Effective Care for High-Need Patients: Opportunities for Improving Outcomes, Value, and Health. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine; 2017.
5. Das LT, Kaushal R, Garrison K, Carrillo V, Grinspan Z, Theis R, et al. Drivers of preventable high health care utilization: a qualitative study of patient, physician and health system leader perspectives. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;25(4):220–8.