Evaluation of a national training programme to support engagement in mental health services: Learning enablers and learning gains.
co-production
involvement
learning gains and enablers
mental health engagement
mental health governance
Journal
Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing
ISSN: 1365-2850
Titre abrégé: J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9439514
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
21
02
2019
revised:
02
06
2019
accepted:
07
06
2019
pubmed:
13
6
2019
medline:
16
4
2020
entrez:
13
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized as an increasingly important feature of healthcare research, education and public policy. In mental health, PPI is increasingly seen as evidence of the further democratization of services, which started with de-institutionalization in the 1960s and the recovery movement in the 1990s. While much is known about learning enablers and learning gains on generic community-based training programmes, less is known about PPI-specific programmes in mental health. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Participants at a national training programme to support the engagement of service users, their families and carers in mental health services identified training topics of greatest importance to them and reported on what they learnt and what helped their learning. Patient and public involvement training initiatives aimed at supporting the engagement of service users, their families and carers should emphasize individual needs and local contexts. Training programmes should not make artificial or actual distinctions between the programme participants who are health professionals and those who are non-professionals, such as service users. To our knowledge, this PPI initiative is the first time a national health service provider has sought to develop an engagement structure in mental health on a state-wide basis. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Participants in training programmes designed to support patient and public involvement believe that such programmes should include understanding how conflict is resolved, how committees work effectively and how to develop interpersonal and facilitation skills. Training programmes in mental health involving both professional and non-professional participants requires all the participants to work together in particular at commissioning and design stages to achieve their desired outcome. The evaluation of the training programme to support the roll-out of this initiative offers lessons to others who may wish to pursue similar structures in other jurisdictions. Abstract Introduction The Irish national mental health service provider commissioned a national training programme to support a patient and public involvement (PPI) initiative in mental health services. The programme evaluation afforded an opportunity to describe the learning gains and learning enablers and the factors that support PPI in mental health. Aim We aimed to evaluate a PPI training programme across nine regional administrative units in a national mental health service. Methods We conducted a participant exit survey, using the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) instrument. We analysed the survey responses using SPSS version 24 software and applied directed content analysis to the narrative comments provided in open-ended questions. Results A total of 54 participants returned the completed questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 60%. The overall mean SALG score yielded was 3.97 (SD 0.66; range 1-5), indicating that participants reported very good to excellent gains in their learning from the programme. Participants who offered narrative comments indicated an overall positive experience but suggested that all stakeholders should work together to co-produce the training. Discussion All the stakeholders in a PPI training initiative to support the engagement of service users, their families and carers in mental health should work together to achieve their desired outcome. This requires co-production in the design, delivery and evaluation of the training initiative, and co-production can impact at both individual and local levels. Implications for Practice PPI training initiatives in mental health should retain a focus on understanding conflict resolution, committee effectiveness, interpersonal and facilitation skills. Ensuring a shared understanding of key concepts, such as co-production, is a necessary prerequisite at the co-commissioning, co-design, co-planning, co-delivery and co-assessment stages of programme development, as is the need to avoid artificial or actual distinctions between health professionals and those who are non-professionals, such as service users. Relevance statement Mental health engagement and PPI are key principles underpinning modern mental health services and may increasingly impact on wider health service provision including policy and research imperatives. This paper discusses the evaluation of a PPI training programme and offers practical insights as to how such initiatives can be improved.
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
323-336Subventions
Organisme : Health Service Executive
Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Batalden, M., Batalden, P., Margolis, P., Seid, M., Armstrong, G., Opipari-Arigan, L., & Hartung, H. (2016). Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(7), 509-517. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315
Baxter, S., Clowes, M., Muir, D., Baird, W., Broadway-Parkinson, A., & Bennett, C. (2017). Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: A systematic review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 20(5), 807-817. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12491
Bee, P., Brooks, H., Fraser, C., & Lovell, K. (2015). Professional perspectives on service user and carer involvement in mental health care planning: A qualitative study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(12), 1834-1845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.07.008
Bell, D., & Pahl, K. (2018). Co-production: Towards a utopian approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1348581
Beresford, P. (2013). Beyond the usual suspects. London, UK: Shaping Our Lives.
Brogan, C., & Ryan, M. (2017). Taking a coproduction approach to integrating recovery orientated care in Irish Mental Health Services. International Journal of Integrated Care, 17(5), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.3821
Chambers, M., McAndrew, S., Nolan, F., Thomas, B., Watts, P., & Kantaris, X. (2017). Service user involvement in the coproduction of a mental health nursing metric: The Therapeutic Engagement Questionnaire. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 20(5), 871-877. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12526
Clark, M. (2015). Co-production in mental health care. Mental Health Review Journal, 20(4), 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-10-2015-0030
Coughlan, D. (2016). Inside organisations: Exploring organizational experiences. London, UK: Sage.
Coulter, A. (2013). Engaging patients in healthcare. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.
Creswell, J. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dalgarno, D., & Oates, J. (2018). The meaning of co-production for clinicians: An exploratory case study of practitioner trainers in one recovery college. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 25, 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12469
Filipe, A., Renedo, A., & Marston, C. (2017). The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care. PLoS Biology, 15(5), e2001403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001403
Fink, D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Fisher, P. (2016). Co-production: What is it and where do we begin? Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 23(6-7), 345-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12281
Fraser, C., Grundy, A., Meade, O., Callaghan, P., & Lovell, K. (2017). EQUIP training the trainers: An evaluation of a training programme for service users and carers involved in training mental health professionals in user-involved care planning. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 24(6), 367-376.
Frawley, T., Meehan, A., & De Brún, A. (2018). Impact of organisational change for leaders in mental health. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 32(8), 980-1001. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-08-2018-0220
Government of Ireland (2006). A vision for change: Report of the Expert Group on Mental Health Policy. Dublin, Ireland: Health Service Executive.
Gray-Burrows, K. A., Willis, T. A., Foy, R., Rathfelder, M., Bland, P., Chin, A., … McEachan, R. (2018). Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: A consensus study. BMJ Quality and Safety, 27(10), 858-864. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006954
Grundy, A., Walker, L., Meade, O., Fraser, C., Cree, L., Bee, P., … Callaghan, P. (2017). Evaluation of a co-delivered training package for community mental health professionals on service-user and carer-involved care planning. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 24, 358-366.
Happell, B., Gordon, S., Bocking, J., Ellis, P., Roper, C., Liggins, J., … Scholz, B. (2018). Mental health researchers’ views about service user research: A literature review. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 39(12), 1010-1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2018.1475524
Health Service Executive (2016). Partnership for change: Report of the Mental Health Reference Group. Dublin: Mental Health Division.
Higgins, A., Hevey, D., Boyd, F., Cusack, N., Downes, C., Monahan, M., … Gibbons, P. (2018). Outcomes of a co-facilitation skills training programme for mental health service users, family members and clinicians: The EOLAS project. International Journal of Mental Health, 27(2), 911-921. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12388
Horobin, A., Brown, G., Higton, F., Vanhegan, S., Wragg, A., Wray, P., & Walker, D.-M. (2017). Co-producing public involvement training with members of the public and research organisations in the East Midlands: Creating, delivering and evaluating the lay assessor training programme. Research Involvement and Engagement, 3(7), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0056-0
Howe, A., Mathie, E., Munday, D., Cowe, M., Goodman, C., Keenan, J., … Wilson, P. (2017). Learning to work together - Lessons from a reflective analysis of a research project on public involvement. BMC Research, Involvement and Engagement, 3(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0051-x
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Jootun, D., McGhee, G., & Marland, G. (2009). Reflexivity: promoting rigour in qualitative research. Nursing Standard, 23 (23), 42-46. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2009.02.23.23.42.c6800.
Lawn, S. (2015). Integrating service user participation in mental health care: What will it take? International Journal of Integrated Care, 15(e004), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.1992
Lemonsky, F. (2015). Service-user involvement in research. Lancet Psychiatry, 2(9), 780-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00365-X
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines. The Lancet, 358, 483-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6
Mawn, L., Welsh, L., Stain, H., & Windebank, P. (2015). Youth Speak: Increasing engagement of young people in mental health research. Journal of Mental Health, 24(5), 271-275. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2014.99881
McMillan, B., Fox, S., Lyons, M., Bourke, S., Mistry, M., Ruddock, A., … Van Marwijk, H. (2018). Using patient and public involvement to improve the research design and funding application for a project aimed at fostering a more collaborative approach to the NHS health check: The caVIAR project. BMC Research Involvement and Engagement, 4(18), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0101-7
Meskell, P., Murphy, K., & Shaw, D. (2009). The clinical role of lecturers in nursing in Ireland: Perceptions of key stakeholder groups in nurse education on the role. Nurse Education Today, 29(7), 784-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.03.014
Millar, S., Chambers, M., & Giles, M. (2015). Service user involvement in mental health care: an evolutionary concept analysis. Health Expectations, 19 (2), 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12353.
National Institute of Health Research [NIHR] (2012). Developing training and support for public involvement in research. London, UK: National Health Service.
Neshkova, M., & Guo, H. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance: Evidence from state agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 267-288. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur038
Ocloo, J., Garfield, S., Dawson, S., & Franklin, B. (2017). Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: A protocol for a systematic review of reviews. British Medical Journal Open, 7(10), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018426
Olasoji, M., Maude, P., & MacCauley, K. (2017). Not sick enough: Experiences of carers of people with mental illness negotiating care for their relatives with mental health services. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 24, 403-411.
Palumbo, R., & Manna, R. (2017). What if things go wrong in co-producing health services? Exploring the implementation problems of health care co-production. Policy and Society, 37(3), 368-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1411872
Pledger, A. (2018). The value of lived experience: Co-production and collaboration in Recovery Colleges. Journal of Recovery in Mental Health, 3, 21-28.
Redmond, C., Davies, C., Halligan, P., Joye, R., Carroll, L., & Frawley, T. (2018). Nursing and midwifery students’ perception of learning enablers and gains in the first semester of their BSc programmes: A cross sectional survey. Nurse Education Today, 65, 242-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.03.010
Renedo, A., Marston, C., Spyridonidis, D., & Barlow, J. (2014). Patient and public involvement in healthcare quality improvement: How organizations can help patients and professionals to collaborate. Public Management Review, 17(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.881535
Samudre, S., Shidhaye, R., Ahuja, S., Nanda, S., Khan, A., Evans-Lacko, S., & Hanlon, C. (2016). Service user involvement for mental health system strengthening in India: A qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry, 16, 269. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0981-8
Seymour, E., Wiese, D., Hunter, A., & Daffinrud, S. (2000). Creating a better mousetrap: Online student assessment of their learning gains. In: National Meetings of the American Chemical Society Symposium: “Using Real-world Questions to Promote Active Learning”. San Francisco, CA.
Slay, J., & Stephens, L. (2013). Co-production in mental health: A literature review. London, UK: New Economics Foundation.
Tofade, T., Elsner, J., & Haines, S. (2013). Best practice strategies for effective use of questions as teaching tools. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(7), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe777155
Tritter, J. (2009). Revolution or evolution: The challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world. Health Expectations, 12(3), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00564.x
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publishers.