Interpersonal relationships in quality improvement v1.0
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Use of ‘close-to-practice’ methodologies to explain and change impact of interpersonal relationships in quality improvement
IRAS ID
275651
Contact name
Sarah Yardley
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University College London
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
Z6364106/2020/04/54, UCL Data Protection Office reference no.
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 2 months, 1 days
Research summary
Background:
In Palliative Care (for people with potentially life-limiting illnesses) and Psychiatry (for people with mental health conditions), care depends on:
1. therapeutic relationships between professionals, patients and carers;
2. specialists in Palliative Care and Psychiatry working with healthcare professionals (commonly called generalists) in primary/community care and hospitalsThis is especially important when patients move between home and hospitals. Excellent care is not just safe but also gives patients and carers confidence to feel safe. We do not really understand how to achieve this in care shared between generalists and specialist services. Quality improvement research can help get this understanding.
Aims:
1. Apply interpersonal relationship-focused research methods to study care
2. Study who talks to whom, when and how this affects care and what works for patients and carers in care shared between specialists and generalists
3. Explore and explain successful and unsuccessful improvementsDesign and methods:
Patient and public engagement occurs throughout the study. In Palliative Care and Psychiatry, we will:
- Examine how improvement tools are used in practice to consider what might work better
- Use Egonetworks (a research concept) to study relationships and what happens as a result of these, interviewing patients, carers and professionals from different healthcare settings to understand different views and experiences
- Examine data with a group of patients, carers and professionals using Change Laboratory (a research tool) to determine how to improve care and define success.Benefits:
Understanding of examples of good, and not so good, care, including how and why.
Research methods and practice recommendations for improving care.REC name
London - Camden & Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
20/LO/1176
Date of REC Opinion
7 Jan 2021
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion