Daniel Wolstenholme

“Seeing” the Difference: The Importance of Visibility and Action as a Mark of “Authenticity” in Co-production; Comment on “Collaboration and Co-production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges”

The Rycroft-Malone paper states that co-production relies on ‘authentic’ collaboration as a context for action. Our commentary supports and extends this assertion. We suggest that ‘authentic’ co-production involves processes where participants can ‘see’ the difference that they have made within the project and beyond. We provide examples including: the use of design in health projects which seek to address power issues and make contributions visible through iteration and prototyping; and the development of ‘actionable outputs’ from research that are the physical embodiment of co-production. Finally, we highlight the elements of the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) architecture that enables the inclusion of such collaborative techniques that demonstrate visible co-production. We reinforce the notion that maintaining collaboration requires time, flexible resources, blurring of knowledge producer-user boundaries, and leaders who promote epistemological tolerance and methodological exploration.

Improving self-efficacy in spinal cord injury patients through "design thinking" rehabilitation workshops

Advances in surgical and medical management have significantly reduced the length of time that patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) have to stay in hospital, but has left patients with potentially less time to psychologically adjust. Following a pilot in 2012, this project was designed to test the effect of “design thinking” workshops on the self-efficacy of people undergoing rehabilitation following spinal injuries. Design thinking is about understanding the approaches and methods that designers use and then applying these to think creatively about problems and suggest ways to solve them. In this instance, design thinking is not about designing new products (although the approaches can be used to do this) but about developing a long term creative and explorative mind-set through skills such as lateral thinking, prototyping and verbal and visual communication. The principles of “design thinking” have underpinned design education and practice for many years, it is also recognised in business and innovation for example, but a literature review indicated that there was no evidence of it being used in rehabilitation or spinal injury settings. Twenty participants took part in the study; 13 (65%) were male and the average age was 37 years (range 16 to 72). Statistically significant improvements were seen for EQ-5D score (t = -3.13, p = 0.007) and Patient Activation Measure score (t = -3.85, p = 0.001). Other outcome measures improved but not statistically. There were no statistical effects on length of stay or readmission rates, but qualitative interviews indicated improved patient experience.

The TiM system: developing a novel telehealth service to improve access to specialist care in motor neurone disease using user-centered design

Abstract Objectives: Attendance at a specialist multidisciplinary motor neurone disease (MND) clinic is associated with improved survival and may also improve quality of life and reduce hospital admissions. However, patients struggle to travel to clinic and may experience difficulties between clinic visits that may not be addressed in a timely manner. We wanted to explore how we could improve access to specialist MND care. Methods: We adopted an iterative, user-centered co-design approach, collaborating with those with experience of providing and receiving MND care including patients, carers, clinicians, and technology developers. We explored the unmet needs of those living with MND, how they might be met through service redesign and through the use of digital technologies. We developed a new digital solution and performed initial testing with potential users including clinicians, patients, and carers. Results: We used these findings to develop a telehealth system (TiM) using an Android app into which patients and carers answer a series of questions about their condition on a weekly basis. The questions aim to capture all the physical, emotional, and social difficulties associated with MND. This information is immediately uploaded to the internet for review by the MND team. The data undergoes analysis in order to alert clinicians to any changes in a patient or carer’s condition. Conclusions: We describe the benefits of developing a novel digitally enabled service underpinned by participatory design. Future trials must evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the TiM system within a clinical environment.

Services: Service design in chronic health

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the design of acute care settings with a focus on the evolution of design practice over the last decade. In particular, ideas around healing environments describe how design is contributing to enhanced health and wellbeing and how recent developments are helping to create better designs. The chapter covers aspects of the theoretical hypothesis explaining the relationship between people, the environment and healing with a focus on three elements: how people perceive the environment, social interaction as part of healing and the influence of peoples sociocultural background. The chapter looks at evidence-informed design in the context of acute healthcare settings whilst also covering trends, challenges and opportunities in healthcare design, and how this field is developing. A case study demonstrates elements of a real project on a before and after basis. The chapter concludes with the message that design of acute care settings involves much more than simply providing a space for care services to take place.This chapter explores the role of design in the context of behaviour change for people living with long-term conditions. A series of short case studies illustrates how design can facilitate the development of products and interventions that better support the needs of individuals and how these can lead to positive coping behaviours. The chapter concludes with a broader discussion of the complexities and ethical issues that design in the context of behaviour change promotes.

‘Collective making’ as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare

The discourse in healthcare Knowledge Mobilisation (KMb) literature has shifted from simple, linear models of research knowledge production and action to more iterative and complex models. These aim to blend multiple stakeholders’ knowledge with research knowledge to address the research-practice gap. It has been suggested there is no ‘magic bullet’, but that a promising approach to take is knowledge co-creation in healthcare, particularly if a number of principles are applied. These include systems thinking, positioning research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core, and paying attention to process within the partnership. This discussion paper builds on this proposition and extends it beyond knowledge co-creation to co-designing evidenced based interventions and implementing them. Within a co-design model, we offer a specific approach to share, mobilise and activate knowledge, that we have termed ‘collective making’. We draw on KMb, design, wider literature, and our experiences to describe how this framework supports and extends the principles of co-creation offered by Geenhalgh et al. [1] in the context of the state of the art of knowledge mobilisation. We describe how collective making creates the right ‘conditions’ for knowledge to be mobilised particularly addressing issues relating to stakeholder relationships, helps to discover, share and blend different forms of knowledge from different stakeholders, and puts this blended knowledge to practical use allowing stakeholders to learn about the practical implications of knowledge use and to collectively create actionable products. We suggest this collective making has three domains of influence: on the participants; on the knowledge discovered and shared; and on the mobilisation or activation of this knowledge.