Professionals learning together with patients: An exploratory study of a collaborative learning Fellowship programme for healthcare improvement

Figures & data

Table 1. Background of Fellowship participants.

Participant group	All cohorts 2010–2015	Interviews 2010–2013	Evaluation form completed 2010–2015
Professional fellows
1. Doctor	14	7	8
2. Manager	13	8	3
3. Nurse	8	4	3
4. Public health professional	6	4	0
5. Researcher	5	3	5
6. Pharmacist	3	2	2
7. Physiotherapist	3	1	1
8. Psychologist	3	1	1
Other professional roles including: Dietician, Commissioner, Audiologist, Speech & Language Therapist, Industry	6	2	2
Patient and Carer fellows	10	2	6
Total	71	34	31

Box 1. Details of the Fellowship design and curriculum.

A total of 71 fellows from a range of professional and patient backgrounds have completed the programme (2015–2016) with each annual cohort having 13–15 participants. Cohorts one, two, and three ran for nine months and cohorts four, five, and six ran for 12 months. In 2012, consistent with the broader principles of patient engagement and involvement in quality improvement, patients were actively encouraged to apply to the programme and from 2012 (cohort 3), each cohort has had at least two patients as part of the programme. Each fellow committed one day per week to the programme (one day per month as ‘protected’ group training days and three days per month project based learning). Each fellow received a bursary to support a work-based improvement project, personal development, and a study visit to a centre of excellence. The curriculum was based on the academic literature of quality improvement and the practical experience of faculty staff in working with teams to deliver improvements in healthcare. The curriculum was designed to enable participants in the programme to understand the robust academic evidence available and apply this to their workplace. The curriculum comprises three main elements: 1) Quality Improvement tools and techniques, such as the Action Effect Method (Reed, McNicholas, Woodcock, Issen, & Bell, 2014) and Plan Do Study Act cycles (Taylor, McNicholas, Nicolay, Darzi, & Bell, 2014); 2) Leadership, including transactional, transformational and engaging theories of leadership; leadership styles; and coaching and time management skills (Godfrey, 2013); 3) Peer-to-peer learning and support (participants have time to share ideas, ‘real world’ problems and learn from other professionals and patients).

Reed, J. E., McNicholas, C., Woodcock, T., Issen, L., & Bell, D. (2014). Designing quality improvement initiatives: The action effect method, a structured approach to identifying and articulating programme theory. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23, 1040–1048. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003103

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taylor, M., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., & Bell, D. (2014). Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety. First Published Online. 11(September), 2013. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862

 Google Scholar

Godfrey, M. M. (2013). Improvement capability at the front lines of healthcare helping through leading and coaching. Jonkoping University, school of health sciences ( PhD thesis). University of Jönköping, Sweden. Available from Intellecta Infolog. (urn: nbn:se:hj:diva-21751)

 Google Scholar