Development of a Peer Support Model Using Experience-Based Co-Design to Improve Critical Care Recovery.

To use experience-based co-design to identify the key design requirements of a peer support model for critical care survivors; understand the use of the experience-based co-design method from clinician, patients, and family perspectives.
Design: Using experience-based co-design, qualitative data about participants' preferences for a peer support model were generated via workshops. Participants' perspectives of experience-based co-design were evaluated with focus groups.
Setting: University-affiliated hospital in Melbourne, Australia.
Subjects: Snowball sampling was used to recruit clinicians from across the care spectrum (ICU-community); critical care survivors and nominated family members were recruited using convenience sampling.
Measurements and Main Results: Consensus on a peer support model was reached through the experience-based co-design process, with the following key themes: 1) socialization and group cohesion; 2) management of potential risks; and 3) individualized needs of patients and families. Evaluation of participants' perspectives of the experience-based co-design method identified five key themes: 1) participation as a positive experience; 2) emotional engagement in the process; 3) learning from patients and family members; 4) feeling heard; and 5) practical challenges of experience-based co-design and readiness to participate.
Conclusions: Experience-based co-design was a feasible approach to developing a peer support model for use with critical care survivors and was well received by participants. Future testing of the co-designed peer support model in a pilot randomized controlled trial will enhance understanding of peer support in critical care and the use of experience-based co-design as a design methodology.
Competing Interests: Drs. Haines’s, Holdsworth’s, Cranwell’s, Skinner’s, Holton’s, Bates’s, Booth’s, Carmody’s, Searle’s, and Shackell’s institutions received funding from Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) (THRIVE grant) and Western Health. Dr. Skinner’s institution also received funding from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), HCF Research Foundation (Australia), and Deakin University (Australia), and she received funding from Western Health and Melbourne Health. Dr. Iwashyna disclosed that he is a government employee (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs). Dr. French’s institution received funding from SCCM. Dr. Maher’s institution received funding from Western Health. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
(Copyright (c) 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)