Interprofessional collaboration with service users in the development of cancer services: The Cancer Partnership Project

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is a cornerstone of UK National Health Service (NHS) policy. The Cancer Partnership Project (CPP) is the leading national PPI initiative in cancer care. The CPP espouses a "partnership" model, with a "Partnership Group" - collaborative service...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of interprofessional care 2006, Vol.20 (1), p.60-74
Main Authors: Sitzia, John, Cotterell, Phil, Richardson, Alison
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Cancer
Cancer Care Facilities - organization & administration
Cancer services
Community Participation
Cooperative Behavior
Evaluation
Female
Health Policy
Humans
Interprofessional Relations
Interviews as Topic
Leadership
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Organizational
partnership
Partnerships
patient and public involvement
Patient participation
Program Development
Regional Health Planning - organization & administration
Services
State Medicine - organization & administration
United Kingdom
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is a cornerstone of UK National Health Service (NHS) policy. The Cancer Partnership Project (CPP) is the leading national PPI initiative in cancer care. The CPP espouses a "partnership" model, with a "Partnership Group" - collaborative service improvement groups formed of NHS staff and service users - in each of 34 cancer networks in England. These groups aim to enable service users to influence local cancer service development and thereby improve the effectiveness of services. We interviewed 59 cancer service users and NHS staff in a reflective evaluation of CPP. Groups were active and visible in 30 networks, their main activities being: providing an accessible source of consumer opinion; prolific networking and representation; patient information and communication projects; and lobbying for service improvements. The groups exhibited some significant tensions. The motivations of professional staff varied markedly, and "obligatory" involvement as part of a person's job was counter-productive when not coupled with a "personal" belief in the value of PPI. Other controversial areas were the disclosure by patients' of personal health and treatment experiences, and emotional attachment to the group. It was concluded that partnership groups represent a useful PPI model, but more attention generally should be paid to the complexities of PPI and timescales required for meaningful cultural change.
ISSN:1356-1820
1469-9567
DOI:10.1080/13561820500515304