providers and service users can be seen as a paradigm shift. In the examples, the providers were facilitators as well as learners, and the service users were both providers and participants. Fundamental issues from PD, such as the use of creative approaches and principles of collaboration, inclusion and participation, can support the services in moving towards more collaborative practices. PD’s emphasis on facilitation as a skill to be developed and something that requires reflection is also very helpful in expanding the understanding of the role of healthcare workers in person‐centred services.
When professionals work alongside consumers in partnership, there is learning and sharing of knowledge between health professional and consumer, between consumer and consumer, and between health professional and health professional. Within the ostomy information group this collaborative approach evolved to offer STNs a vehicle to empower patients to build a solid knowledge base which can help them become more self‐sufficient in managing their life with a stoma.
From the STN perspective, the group members also provide support to their role through supporting each other, being involved in nurse education and fundraising for the ostomy association. Such efforts contribute to nurse scholarships aiming to train more STNs.
The recovery courses change the perspective by being educationally informed rather than therapeutically informed (Perkins et al. 2012, p. 3). The processes of co‐production and co‐facilitation by those with professional and lived experience, together with the creation of a supportive but challenging culture and environment, provide participants with opportunities for involvement. And maybe even more importantly, with opportunities to be someone that makes a difference. The professionals and persons with lived experience learn together and also share in the privilege of caring for others.
Professionals alone cannot define an illness, know what good treatment is or what the best solution to a person’s challenges in everyday life are. The person‐centred care movement has opened our eyes to the question: ‘What ought to be the starting point when providing services – the health system’s prescriptions or each individual patient’s needs?’ The extent of the benefits for patients and service users in taking part in collaborative approaches to health service (as illustrated in this chapter) promotes a further question: ‘Do societies that support people to live empowered lives ultimately need fewer health services?’ This question has yet to be answered scientifically but is surely now on the knowledge agenda as we move forward. Sharing the privilege of being of help to other people is satisfying for professionals, and democratisation can and does work for people and service users too.
References
1 Barbour, A. (1995). Caring for Patients: A Critique of the Medical Model. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2 Bedwell, W., Wildman, J., Diaz Granados, D. et al. (2012). Collaboration at work: an integrative multilevel conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review 22 (2): 128–145.
3 Bradd, P., Travaglia, J. and Hayen, A. (2017). Practice development and allied health – a review of the literature. International Practice Development Journal 7 (2): 1–25.
4 Cameron, J., Hart, A., Brooker, S., Neale, P. et al. (2018). Collaboration in the design and delivery of a mental health Recovery College course: experiences of students and tutors. Journal of Mental Health 27 (4): 374–381.
5 Collier, A. (2016). Practice development using video‐reflexive ethnography: promoting safe space(s) towards the end of life in hospital. International Practice Development Journal 6 (1): 1–16.
6 Eriksen, K.Å. and Storesund, C.V. (2019). Nøkkelen er likeverd – Recoverykursleiarar sine erfaringar med samskaping. Tidsskrift for psykisk helsearbeid 16 (4): 237–247.
7 Gray‐Burrows, K., Willis, T., Foy, R. et al. (2018). Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: a consensus study. BMJ Quality and Safety 27 (10): 858–864.
8 Gumuchian, S.T., Delisle, V.C., Kwakkenbos, L. et al. (2019). Reasons for attending support groups and organizational preferences: the European scleroderma support group members survey. Disability and Rehabilitation 41 (8): 974–982.
9 Hall, A., Bryant, J., Sanson‐Fisher, R. et al. (2018). Consumer input into health care: time for a new, active and comprehensive model for consumer involvement. Health Expectations 21 (4): 707–713.
10 Heggdal, K. (2015). ‘We experienced a lack of tools for strengthening coping and health in encounters with patients with chronic illness’: bridging theory and practice through formative research. International Practice Development Journal 5 (2): 1–16.
11 King, T. and Meddings, S. (2019). Survey identifying commonality across international Recovery Colleges. Mental Health and Social Inclusion 23 (3): 121–128.
12 Leamy, M., Bird, V., Le Boutillier, C. et al. (2011). Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. The British Journal of Psychiatry 199 (6): 445–452.
13 Nilsen, E.S., Myrhaug, H.T., Johansen, M. et al. (2006). Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004563.pub2
14 Ocloo, J. and Matthews, R. (2016). From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Quality and Safety 25 (8): 626–632.
15 Olasij, M., Cross, W., Reed, F. et al. (2019). Mental health nurses' attitudes towards consumer involvement in nursing handover pre and post an educational implementation. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 28 (5): 1198–1208.
16 Perkins, R., Repper, J., Rinaldi, M. et al. (2012). Recovery colleges. Implementing recovery through organisational change. London: Centre for Mental Health. https://www.merseycare.nhs.uk/media/1208/1recovery‐colleges.pdf
17 Ramsey, I., Corsini, N., Peters, M. et al. (2017). A rapid review of consumer health information needs and preferences. Patient Education and Counselling 100: 1634–1642.
18 Renedo, A., Marston, C., Spyridonidis, D. et al. (2015). Patient and public involvement in healthcare quality improvement: how organisations can help patients and professionals to collaborate. Public Management Review 17 (1): 17–34.
19 Smith, J. and Dransfield, A. (2019). Patient and carer involvement in healthcare education, service delivery and research: avoiding tokenism. Evidence Based Nursing 22 (3): 65–66.
20 World Health Organization. (2015). WHO global strategy on people‐centred and integrated health services Interim Report. Geneva: World Health Organization.
3. Turning Point: Curious Novice to Committed Advocate
Catherine Adams, Ciaran Crowe, Crystal McLeod, and Giselle Coromandel
Best practice in maternity care can be defined by the quality triad of safety, effectiveness and person‐centredness (Berwick 2013; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 2016; Department of Health and Social Care 2016; Royal College of Midwives 2014). However, despite clarity about what constitutes best practice, national and international crises in relation to maternity care continue to recur. Most notably these include Portlaoise (Ireland) (Health Information and Quality Authority 2015), Djerriwarrh Health Services (Australia) (Wallace 2015) and the Morecombe Bay investigation in England (Kirkup 2015).
Despite having access to both national and international guidelines and policies and awareness of what high‐quality maternity care looks like, the biggest challenge facing maternity services is enabling what is already known (i.e. the evidence base) to be implemented and used in clinical practice. The second challenge is understanding why some maternity providers have managed to successfully implement improvements in the quality triad whilst others