Involving Service Users in Care Regulation: A Scoping Review of Empirical Literature

Articles in Press

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

2 Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate, Utrecht, The Netherlands

3 University Library Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

4 North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South-Africa

Abstract

Background 
Ensuring the quality and safety of service delivery extends beyond the realm of health and care professionals, necessitating collaboration among various stakeholders, including external regulatory organizations. The policy agenda of care regulators increasingly features the topic of service user involvement. Despite the extensive research on participatory healthcare, scholarly attention to service user involvement in regulatory practices has been limited. This scoping review delves into the landscape of service user involvement in the regulation of care services of all types and for all different age groups, examining the characteristics and focus of peer reviewed original research. In particular, it addresses a notable knowledge gap by examining how these studies report on the practical utilization of service user input, as well as the regulator’s perspective on service user involvement.
 
Methods 
We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, and Scopus from inception to July 14, 2023. Thirteen (n=13) empirical studies were included.
 
Results 
The underlying motives for service user involvement vary, ranging from legal imperatives and political pressure to enhancing institutional legitimacy and regulatory decision-making. Care regulators employ both reactive and proactive involvement methods. Empirical evidence delineates the challenges and benefits of service user involvement, highlighting concerns about bias, time investments, and the need for a distinct skillset for inspectors. Despite the valuable insights gained, there are instances where service user input is downplayed in practice.
 
Conclusion 
The findings underscore the importance of additional research on users’ preferences for involvement, optimal communication conditions to honor the collected input, and the challenges inspectors encounter in fostering meaningful involvement with service users. Addressing these challenges is crucial for aligning regulatory efforts with the genuine needs and experiences of services users. 

Keywords

References

  1. Care Quality Commission. Our Strategy from 2021. https://www.cqc.org.uk/Strategy. Published 2022. Accessed January 12,2024.
  2. Weenink JW, Wallenburg I, Leistikow I, Bal RA. Publication of inspection frameworks: a qualitative study exploring the impact on quality improvement and regulation in three healthcare settings. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(10):804-811. doi:1136/bmjqs-2020-011337
  3. Oikonomou E, Carthey J, Macrae C, Vincent C. Patient safety regulation in the NHS: mapping the regulatory landscape of healthcare. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e028663. doi:1136/bmjopen-2018-028663
  4. Allen T, Walshe K, Proudlove N, Sutton M. The measurement and improvement of maternity service performance through inspection and rating: an observational study of maternity services in acute hospitals in England. Health Policy. 2020;124(11):1233-1238. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2020.08.007
  5. Pot AM, Kok J, Schoonmade LJ, Bal RA. Regulation of long-term care for older persons: a scoping review of empirical research. Int Psychogeriatr. 2024;36(4):289-305. doi:1017/s1041610223000704
  6. Brennan TA. The role of regulation in quality improvement. Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):709-731. doi:1111/1468-0009.00111
  7. Windholz E. Governing Through Regulation: Public Policy, Regulation and the Law. New York: Routledge; 2018.
  8. Levi-Faur D. Handbook on the Politics of Regulation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2011.
  9. Wiig S, Rutz S, Boyd A, et al. What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):616. doi:1186/s12913-020-05471-4
  10. Tritter JQ. Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world. Health Expect. 2009;12(3):275-287. doi:1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00564.x
  11. Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. Meerjarenbeleidsplan 2020-2023. https://www.igj.nl/over-ons/meerjarenbeleidsplan-2020--2023. Published 2021. Accessed January 12, 2024.
  12. Okasha R. Whose Life is it Anyway? Countering Epistemic Injustice in Social Service Scrutiny and Improvement by Involving People with Personal Experience. Dundee: Care Inspectorate; 2018.
  13. Bua A, Escobar O. Participatory-deliberative processes and public policy agendas: lessons for policy and practice. Policy Des Pract. 2018;1(2):126-140. doi:1080/25741292.2018.1469242
  14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trust in Government. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/trust-in-government.html. Published 2014. Accessed September 5, 2024.
  15. de Graaff MB, Stoopendaal A, Leistikow I. Transforming clients into experts-by-experience: a pilot in client participation in Dutch long-term elderly care homes inspectorate supervision. Health Policy. 2019;123(3):275-280. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2018.11.006
  16. Adams SA, van de Bovenkamp H, Robben P. Including citizens in institutional reviews: expectations and experiences from the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1463-1473. doi:1111/hex.12126
  17. van de Bovenkamp HM, Trappenburg MJ, Grit KJ. Patient participation in collective healthcare decision making: the Dutch model. Health Expect. 2010;13(1):73-85. doi:1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00567.x
  18. Richardson E, Walshe K, Boyd A, et al. User involvement in regulation: a qualitative study of service user involvement in Care Quality Commission inspections of health and social care providers in England. Health Expect. 2019;22(2):245-253. doi:1111/hex.12849
  19. Leistikow IP, Pot AM, Bal R. Value Driven Regulation and the role of inspections. Commentary to: Hovlid E, Husabø G, Teig IL, Halvorsen K, Frich JC. Contextual factors of external inspections and mechanisms for improvement in healthcare organizations: a realist evaluation. Soc Sci Med 2022 Apr;298:114872. Soc Sci Med. 2022;308:115170. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2022.115170
  20. Kok J, Wallenburg I, Leistikow I, Bal R. “The doctor was rude, the toilets are dirty. Utilizing ‘soft signals’ in the regulation of patient safety”. Saf Sci. 2020;131:104914. doi:1016/j.ssci.2020.104914
  21. Ryan S. NHS Inquiries and investigations; an exemplar in peculiarity and assumption. Polit Q. 2019;90(2):224-228. doi:1111/1467-923x.12703
  22. Sutton E, Eborall H, Martin G. Patient involvement in patient safety: current experiences, insights from the wider literature, promising opportunities? Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(1):72-89. doi:1080/14719037.2014.881538
  23. Renedo A, Marston CA, Spyridonidis D, Barlow J. Patient and public involvement in healthcare quality improvement: how organizations can help patients and professionals to collaborate. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(1):17-34. doi:1080/14719037.2014.881535
  24. McInerney P, Cooke R. Patients' involvement in improvement initiatives: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(10):232-290. doi:11124/jbisrir-2015-1452
  25. Dolev H, Benish A. Classifying participatory methods in social care regulation. Soc Policy Adm. 2024;58(5):814-830. doi:1111/spol.12995
  26. Cadeddu SB, Dare LO, Denis JL. Employee-driven innovation in health organizations: insights from a scoping review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:6734. doi:34172/ijhpm.2023.6734
  27. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi:7326/m18-0850
  28. Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3):240-243. doi:3163/1536-5050.104.3.014
  29. Wohlin C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery; 2014.
  30. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi:1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  31. Brady B, Kennan D, Forkan C, Tierney E, Jackson R, Holloway R. The participation of children and young people in care: insights from an analysis of national inspection reports in the Republic of Ireland. Child Care Pract. 2019;25(1):22-36. doi:1080/13575279.2018.1537257
  32. Kok J, Leistikow I, Bal R. Patient and family engagement in incident investigations: exploring hospital manager and incident investigators' experiences and challenges. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018;23(4):252-261. doi:1177/1355819618788586
  33. de Kam D, Kok J, Grit K, Leistikow I, Vlemminx M, Bal R. How incident reporting systems can stimulate social and participative learning: a mixed-methods study. Health Policy. 2020;124(8):834-841. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2020.05.018
  34. Bouwman R, de Graaff B, de Beurs D, van de Bovenkamp H, Leistikow I, Friele R. Involving patients and families in the analysis of suicides, suicide attempts, and other sentinel events in mental healthcare: a qualitative study in the Netherlands. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(6):1104. doi:3390/ijerph15061104
  35. Kok J, de Kam D, Leistikow I, Grit K, Bal R. Epistemic injustice in incident investigations: a qualitative study. Health Care Anal. 2022;30(3-4):254-274. doi:1007/s10728-022-00447-3
  36. Palimetaki F, Woutersen K, Pot AM. Correlations between care users' and the healthcare inspectorate's ratings of the quality of care in long-term care homes. BMJ Open Qual. 2023;12(1):e001897. doi:1136/bmjoq-2022-001897
  37. Campbell M. Integrated inspection of services for people with learning disabilities in Scotland: the way forward? Int J Integr Care. 2007;7:e40. doi:5334/ijic.212
  38. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371-385. doi:1002/jrsm.1123
  39. Bouwman R, Bomhoff M, Robben P, Friele R. Patients' perspectives on the role of their complaints in the regulatory process. Health Expect. 2016;19(2):483-496. doi:1111/hex.12373
  40. Griffiths A, Leaver MP. Wisdom of patients: predicting the quality of care using aggregated patient feedback. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(2):110-118. doi:1136/bmjqs-2017-006847
  41. van de Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Verhoef LM, van der Weide MJ, Schoonhoven L, Kool RB. Using patient experiences on Dutch social media to supervise health care services: exploratory study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(1):e7. doi:2196/jmir.3906
  42. Braithwaite J, Makkai T. Can resident-centred inspection of nursing homes work with very sick residents? Health Policy. 1993;24(1):19-33. doi:1016/0168-8510(93)90085-4
  43. Rutz S, van de Bovenkamp H, Buitendijk S, Robben P, de Bont A. Inspectors' responses to adolescents' assessment of quality of care: a case study on involving adolescents in inspections. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):226. doi:1186/s12913-018-2998-9
  44. Pålsson D. Conditioned agency? The role of children in the audit of Swedish residential care. Child Fam Soc Work. 2017;22(S2):33-42. doi:1111/cfs.12234
  45. Verver D, Stoopendaal A, Merten H, Robben P, Wagner C. What are the perceived added values and barriers of regulating long-term care in the home environment using a care network perspective: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):946. doi:1186/s12913-018-3770-x
  46. Adams SA, Paul KT, Ketelaars C, Robben P. The use of mystery guests by the Dutch Health Inspectorate: results of a pilot study in long-term intramural elderly care. Health Policy. 2015;119(6):821-830. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2015.02.008
  47. Wiig S, Schibevaag L, Tvete Zachrisen R, Hannisdal E, Anderson JE, Haraldseid-Driftland C. Next-of-kin involvement in regulatory investigations of adverse events that caused patient death: a process evaluation (part ii: the inspectors' perspective). J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e1707-e1712. doi:1097/pts.0000000000000634
  48. Kleefstra SM, Zandbelt LC, Borghans I, de Haes HJ, Kool RB. Investigating the potential contribution of patient rating sites to hospital supervision: exploratory results from an interview study in the Netherlands. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(7):e201. doi:2196/jmir.5552
  49. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:1136/bmj.n71
  50. Kleefstra SM, Frederiks BJM, Tingen A, Reulings PGJ. The value of experts by experience in social domain supervision in the Netherlands: results from a 'mystery guests' project. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):187. doi:1186/s12913-024-10692-y
  51. Kok JH. A Standard Story: On the Use and Consequences of Standards in Healthcare Regulation [dissertation]. Rotterdam: Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management; 2021.
  52. Carel H, Kidd IJ. Epistemic injustice in healthcare: a philosophial analysis. Med Health Care Philos. 2014;17(4):529-540. doi:1007/s11019-014-9560-2
  53. Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. Toezichtvernieuwing (Regulatory innovation). 2024.
  54. Pot AM. Who Can Tell? Regulating Person-Centred Long-Term Care. Inaugural lecture. Rotterdam: Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management; 2022.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 01 March 2025

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 March 2024
  • Revise Date: 23 January 2025
  • Accept Date: 26 February 2025
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics