Key stakeholders' views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement in healthcare professions' education: a qualitative study

Megan Cullen; Cathal Cadogan; Susmi George; Siobhan Murphy; Siobhan Freeney; Robbie Fitzpatrick; Judith Strawbridge

doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03373-z

Key stakeholders' views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement in healthcare professions' education: a qualitative study

BMC Med Educ. 2022 Apr 22;22(1):305. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03373-z.

Authors

Megan Cullen^{1

2}, Cathal Cadogan³, Susmi George⁴, Siobhan Murphy⁵, Siobhan Freeney⁶, Robbie Fitzpatrick⁶, Judith Strawbridge⁴

Affiliations

¹ School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, Ireland. mecullen@tcd.ie.
² Beaumont Hospital Pharmacy Department, Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont, Dublin 9, Ireland. mecullen@tcd.ie.
³ School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
⁴ School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, Ireland.
⁵ Department of Surgery, RCSI Education and Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont, Dublin 9, Ireland.
⁶ Patient and Public Representative, Dublin, Ireland.

Abstract

Background: Patients and the public have an integral role in educating healthcare professionals. Authentic partnerships between higher education institutions and patients and the public are essential. This study examined key stakeholders' views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement (PPI) including the nature of the involvement and requirements for partnership.

Methods: Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit key stakeholders, including patients and members of the public involved in health professions education, and academics interested in PPI. Focus groups were held with patient and public participants, providing the opportunity to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting. Academics with an interest in PPI were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Topic guides were derived from the literature and piloted prior to data collection. Focus groups and interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. All data was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and thematically analysed.

Results: Four focus groups were conducted involving 23 patient and public participants (median number of participants per focus group of 6). Nine interviews were conducted with academics (face-to-face [n = 8] or by telephone [n = 1]). Five themes were developed: previous experiences of PPI, training requirements, challenges/barriers to PPI, facilitators of PPI and future ideas for PPI. All participants held positive views of the value of PPI. Participants had mixed views in terms of training, which depended on the level of involvement, but similar views on the challenges and facilitators for PPI in education. There was agreement that PPI requires institutional vision and investment to build strong relationships and a culture of PPI best practice.

Conclusions: There is a need for more strategic and formal involvement of patients and the public to ensure that that PPI becomes sustainably embedded in health professions education.

Keywords: Health professions education; Patient Educator; Patient Partner; Patient and public involvement.

MeSH terms

Focus Groups
Humans
Motivation*
Patient Participation*
Qualitative Research