Search

Background: The Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care. Aims and objectives: They aimed to encourage 'research-informed commissioning' and 'commissioning-informed research'. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact. Methods: Data sources from brokers included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation. Findings: Stable, solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, 'buddying up', team leadership, brokers' interpersonal skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other's 'insider' knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more successful in fostering 'commissioning-informed research' with co-produced research grants than 'research-informed commissioning'. Discussion and conclusions: Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change.

Background: People with severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD) who experience combinations of homelessness, substance misuse, violence, abuse, and poor mental health have high health needs and poor access to primary care. Aim: To improve access to general practice for people with SMD by facilitating collaborative service improvement meetings between healthcare staff, people with lived experience of SMD, and those who support them; participants were then interviewed about this work. Design and setting: The Bridging Gaps group is a collaboration between healthcare staff, researchers, women with lived experience of SMD, and a charity that supports them in a UK city. A project was co-produced by the Bridging Gaps group to improve access to general practice for people with SMD, which was further developed with three inner-city general practices. Method: Nine service improvement meetings were facilitated at three general practices, and six of these were formally observed. Nine practice staff and four women with lived experience of SMD were interviewed. Three women with lived experience of SMD and one staff member who supports them participated in a focus group. Data were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis. Results: By providing time and funding opportunities to motivated general practice staff and involving participants with lived experience of SMD, service changes were made in an effort to improve access for people with SMD. These included prioritising patients on an inclusion patient list with more flexible access, providing continuity for patients via a care coordinator and micro-team of clinicians, and developing an information-sharing document. The process and outcomes improved connections within and between general practices, support organisations, and people with SMD. Conclusion: The co-designed strategies described in this study could be adapted locally and evaluated in other areas. Investing in this focused way of working may improve accessibility to health care, health equity, and staff wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Policymaking decisions are often uninformed by research and research is rarely influenced by policymakers. To bridge this 'know-do' gap, a boundary-spanning knowledge mobilisation (KM) team was created by embedding researchers-in-residence and local policymakers into each other's organisations. Through increasing the two-way flow of knowledge via social contact, KM team members fostered collaborations and the sharing of 'mindlines', aiming to generate more relevant research bids and research-informed decision-making. This paper describes the activities of the KM team, types of knowledge and how that knowledge was exchanged to influence mindlines. Discussion: KM team activities were classified into--relational, dissemination, transferable skills, evaluation, research and awareness raising. Knowledge available included: profession-specific (for example, research methods, healthcare landscape), insider (for example, relational, organisation and experiential) and KM theory and practice. KM team members brokered relationships through conversations interweaving different types of knowledge, particularly organisational and relational. Academics were interested in policymakers' knowledge of healthcare policy and the commissioning landscape. More than research results, policymakers valued researchers' methodological knowledge. Both groups appreciated each other as 'critical friends'. Conclusion: To increase research impact, 'expertise into practice' could be leveraged, specifically researchers' critical thinking and research methodology skills. As policymakers' expertise into practice also bridges the know-do gap, future impact models could focus less on evidence into practice and more on fostering this mutual flow of expertise. Embedded knowledge brokers from the two communities working in teams can influence the mindlines of both. These ambassadors can create improvements in 'inter-cultural competence' to draw academia and policymaking closer.

Men at risk of suicide often face difficulties with finances, employment, or housing, yet support services are usually psychologically based. This study evaluated the Hope service which provides integrated psychosocial support alongside practical, financial and specialist advice. To examine how the Hope service supports men at risk of suicide and factors that influence its impact and usefulness. Twenty-six qualitative interviews with 16 service users, six Hope staff, two specialist money advice workers funded to work for Hope and two NHS referral staff, thematically analysed. The Hope service provided an essential service for men at risk of suicide, with complex needs including addiction, job loss, homelessness, debt, relationship-breakdown and bereavement who often would otherwise have fallen through service provision gaps. Working in a person-centred, non-judgemental way elicited trust and specialist advice tackled problems such as housing needs, debt, benefit claims and employment, enabling men to regain a sense of control over their lives. Some men shared histories of abuse, for which specialist counselling was hard to access. Hope provides an effective integrated support package for suicidal men. Funding for services like Hope are important to tackle structural issues such as homelessness and debt, alongside emotional support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health, social care, charitable and justice sectors are increasingly recognising the need for trauma‐informed services that seek to recognise signs of trauma, provide appropriate paths to recovery and ensure that services enable people rather than retraumatise. Foundational to the development of trauma‐informed services is collaboration with people with lived experience of trauma. Co‐production principles may provide a useful framework for this collaboration, due to their emphasis on lived experience, and intent to address power imbalances and promote equity. This article aims to examine trauma‐informed and co‐production principles to consider the extent to which they overlap and explore how to tailor co‐production approaches to support people who have experienced trauma. Methods: Bridging Gaps is a collaboration between women who have experienced complex trauma, a charity that supports them, primary care clinicians and health researchers to improve access to trauma‐informed primary care. Using co‐production principles, we aimed to ensure that women who have experienced trauma were key decision‐makers throughout the project. Through reflective notes (n = 19), observations of meetings (n = 3), interviews with people involved in the project (n = 9) and reflective group discussions on our experiences, we share learning, successes and failures. Data analysis followed a framework approach, using trauma‐informed principles. Results: Co‐production processes can require adaptation when working with people who have experienced trauma. We emphasise the need for close partnership working, flexibility and transparency around power dynamics, paying particular attention to aspects of power that are less readily visible. Sharing experiences can retrigger trauma. People conducting co‐production work need to understand trauma and how this may impact upon an individual's sense of psychological safety. Long‐term funding is vital to enable projects to have enough time for the establishment of trust and delivery of tangible results. Conclusions: Co‐production principles are highly suitable when developing trauma‐informed services. Greater consideration needs to be given as to whether and how people share lived experiences, the need for safe spaces, honesty and humility, difficult dynamics between empowerment and safety and whether and when blurring boundaries may be helpful. Our findings have applicability to policy‐making, funding and service provision to enable co‐production processes to become more trauma‐informed. Public Contribution: Bridging Gaps was started by a group of women who have experienced complex trauma, including addiction, homelessness, mental health problems, sexual exploitation, domestic and sexual violence and poverty, with a general practitioner (GP) who provides healthcare to this population, alongside a support worker from the charity One25, a charity that supports some of the most marginalised women in Bristol to heal and thrive. More GPs and healthcare researchers joined the group and they have been meeting fortnightly for a period of 4 years with the aim of improving access to trauma‐informed primary care. The group uses co‐production principles to work together, and we aim to ensure that women who have experienced trauma are key decision‐makers throughout our work together. This article is a summary of our learning, informed by discussion, observations and interviews with members of the group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems are seeking to harness digital tools to promote patient autonomy and increase the efficiency of care worldwide. The NHS Long Term Plan created the right for patients to access 'digital first' primary care by 2023–2024, including online patient access to full medical records. Aim: To identify and understand the unintended consequences of online patient access to medical records. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study in 10 general practices in South West and North West England. Method: Semi-structured individual interviews with 13 patients and 16 general practice staff with experience of patient online access to health records. Results: Online access generated unintended consequences that negatively impacted patients' understanding of their health care, with patients finding surprising or difficult to interpret information. Online access impacted GPs' documentation practices, such as when GPs pre-emptively attempted to minimise potential misunderstandings to aid patient understanding of their health care. In other cases, this negatively impacted the quality of the records and patient safety when GPs avoided documenting speculations or concerns. Contrary to assumptions that workload would be reduced, online access introduced extra work, such as managing and monitoring access, and taking measures to prevent possible harm to patients. Conclusion: The unintended consequences described by both staff and patients show that, to achieve the intended consequences set out in NHS policy, additional work is necessary to prepare records for sharing and to prepare patients about what to expect. It is crucial that practices are adequately supported and resourced to manage the unintended consequences of online access, now that it is the default position. A table of potential unintended consequences and mitigation measures is provided to aid practice managers and clinicians implementing online access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Designing within complex service systems implies navigating across a plurality of norms and beliefs that multiple stakeholder groups uphold, designers included. Transformational processes may be challenged by minimum, moderate, or extensive conflict depending on the centrality or compatibility of competing logics. This article reflects on how the complexity inherent in higher level institutional orders of society can support or inhibit the potential of co-design in complex systems, particularly in the public sector. Using the context of public mental healthcare transformation as a backdrop, we identified and reflected on four predominant logics: the logic of state; the logic of market; the logic of profession; and the logic of community. We then developed a set of tools to support reflexivity—the excel Logic Multiplicity Workbook and the Layers of Logics Map—that can be used to take project logics snapshots to represent the perceived strength of project stakeholder logics at the micro, meso, and macro levels and their centrality and compatibility. Three co-design project examples were used to retrospectively develop and refine these tools, and support the process of making explicit the role of competing logics in project challenges or triumphs. While we acknowledge that logics are often highly institutionalized and difficult to become aware of, we value as fundamental the creation of tools to better enable designers to consciously adopt adequate strategies to navigate this complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health services are increasingly using digital tools to deliver care, and online consultations are being widely adopted in primary care settings. The intended consequences of online consultations are to increase patient access to care and increase the efficiency of care.Aim: To identify and understand the unintended consequences of online consultations in primary care.Design and Setting: Qualitative interview study in eight general practices using online consultation tools in South West and North West England between February 2019 and January 2020.Method: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 19 patients and 18 general practice staff.Results: Consequences of online consultations were identified that restricted patient access to care by making it difficult for some patients to communicate effectively with a GP and disadvantaging digitally-excluded patients. This stemmed from patient uncertainty about how their queries were dealt with, and whether practices used online consultations as their preferred method for patients to contact the practice. Consequences were identified that limited increases in practice efficiency by creating additional work, isolation, and dissatisfaction for some staff.Conclusion: Unintended consequences often present operational challenges that are foreseeable and partly preventable. However, these challenges must be recognised and solutions resourced sufficiently. Not everyone may benefit and local decisions will need to be made about trade-offs. Process changes tailored to local circumstances are critical to making effective use of online consultation tools. Unintended consequences also present clinical challenges that result from asynchronous communication. Online consultation tools favour simple, well-formulated information exchange that leads to diffuse relationships and a more transactional style of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]