RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FEATURE
Public contributors were compensated for their time , as per National Institute for Health Research ( NIHR ) guidance , at a rate of £ 75 per meeting ; this included preparation , participation in the meeting , reading and revising draft documents between meetings .
Work completed The group co-produced the following documents that are available on the RCOT website ( www . rcot . co . uk / public-contributors ):
• Statement of intent for patient and public involvement ;
• Guiding principles for patient and public involvement ;
• Recognition and reward policy for public contributors ; and
• a clear and easy to read welcome letter and an easy-to-use expenses form were also co-produced . These policies and processes have been adopted by RCOT and will be rolled out more broadly to support greater involvement of public contributors in other areas of our work . New public contributors have joined the Research Foundation Advisory Group , Practice Guideline Development Groups , and the Publications Group , with further opportunities planned .
Co-production : always the gold standard for involvement ? Co-production is generally viewed as the gold standard for involving people . Our PPI consultation group challenged this , firstly by highlighting that there are different perceptions and interpretations of co-production and that just because something is called ‘ coproduction ’ does not always mean that the ways of involving and including people are of a high quality and are a good experience .
Where people view co-production as a technical process , it can become a box to be ticked instead of a way of genuinely working and learning together , where everyone ’ s skills and knowledge are of equal importance . Generating understanding and change is developed through relationships and dialogue .
The group suggested that co-production was one means of involvement , and that the approach to involvement needs to be aligned with the purpose and intention of each activity or project . For example , involvement could take place through being a public contributor on a board , being part of an interview panel or advisory group .
This discussion created clarity of understanding and highlighted the importance of raising the question : What is the right approach for involving public contributors ?
Challenges The group encountered a few challenges along the way , which included : ensuring everyone felt comfortable to give their opinions ; communicating how their experience fits in and providing different avenues for feedback ; and supporting virtual participation in meetings .
Bringing a group of people together who do not know one another can create tensions for both the facilitator and public participants . Creating a safe space for everyone to have a voice is essential and the facilitator is the glue that holds the meetings together , engendering positive working relationships and supporting dialogue across the group . Some key considerations were : Ensuring access to and taking part in the meeting : Online meetings have posed technological challenges for many of us and taking time to check access and providing support as required , was essential . A warm welcome is vital to establishing relationships , and clear information is required to provide focus and keep the meeting on track .
Everyone ’ s voice is heard and valued : One of the underestimated skills of the facilitator is to ensure that everyone ’ s voice is heard and valued . We want to ensure that this is at the heart of people ’ s experience with RCOT .
Ways in which we were all supported included : use of questions that explored key points and generated understanding ; validating contributions and summarising key points ; and importantly , giving people time to express their views .
One public contributor felt that group was ‘ safe ’ and that all voices would be heard and valued during the introductions at the first meeting . Each member introduced themselves in a professional capacity and also how their lived-experience was relevant to the group , regardless of whether they were a public contributor or RCOT member of staff .
Immediately they felt that this was an inclusive group , and there was not going to be a sense of ‘ us ’ ( public contributors ) and ‘ them ’ ( staff ).
Reward and recognition addressed : There is no standardised system for how people should be compensated and recognised for their time , experience , and expertise . However , we followed NIHR guidance and worked as a group to develop a clear policy for reward and recognition , clear information regarding compensation and reimbursement processes and accessible claim forms .
For people who might not want to receive payment , access to libraries , courses and learning opportunities were explored .
Communicating how public contributor experience fits in : One dilemma for any organisation involving public contributors is how to develop a partnership that values the unique voice and perspective of the public contributor , while recognising the needs and context of the organisation .
There is sometimes the expectation that the public contributor will ‘ fit in ’ to the organisation . However , in many ways this misses the point ; the diversity public contributors bring will challenge the status quo and bring different voices to the table . So how did the RCOT and public contributors make this work ? Readiness for involvement : There have been public contributors on the RCOT Publications Group since 2015 , and there was an organisational-wide readiness to expand opportunities for public involvement .
The RCOT Board : Research and Development had discussed the need for PPI , and the James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting exercise to determine the top 10 research priorities for occupational therapy in the UK had led the way for working
© Ivan Bajic via Getty Images
OTnews December 2021 45