Improving communication in multi-disciplinary review teams: reflections on the co-production and use of plain language protocol summaries

Session: 

Oral session: Patient or healthcare consumers involvement and shared decision-making (1)

Date: 

Sunday 16 September 2018 - 11:00 to 11:20

Location: 

Ochil 1

All authors in correct order:

Thompson-Coon J1, Hunt H1, Gwernan-Jones R1, Boddy K1, Morris C1, Rogers M1, Bethel A1, Abbott R1
1 University of Exeter Medical School, United Kingdom
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Joanna Thompson-Coon

Contact person:

Joanna Thompson-Coon
Abstract text
Background:
Involving patients, healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals in the production of systematic reviews enhances the usefulness and relevance of findings. Mechanisms to improve understanding of systematic review processes may enhance the engagement of those without specialist systematic review skills.

Objectives:
To reflect on the co-production and use of plain language protocol summaries in two recent systematic reviews.

Methods:
Both reviews involved a core team of methodologists complemented by a wider team of individuals with clinical and lived experience. Alongside the development of the protocols for the systematic reviews, we co-produced plain language protocol summaries. Draft documents produced by the core team were circulated to the wider team for comment and feedback, with further iterations until agreement was reached on a final version. Feedback was provided on the usefulness of the document as well as the nature and structure of the contents. The plain language protocol summaries are available as appendices to the technical protocol and via the project websites. Reflection and feedback on the utility of the documents will be ongoing throughout the duration of the projects.

Results:
Some (but not all) members of the wider teams were keen to provide feedback and generally felt that the draft documents were a useful addition to the technical protocols. Participants made a number of suggestions to improve the draft document: 1) inclusion of details of the stages of the systematic process showing where and how participants could contribute, 2) a diagram to illustrate the process, 3) clear descriptions of the roles and expertise of team members and 4) inclusion of photographs of the core team. Additional comments were made to improve the accessibility of the language used.

Conclusions:
The use of plain language protocol summaries may improve communication between multi-disciplinary review teams, maximising opportunities for engagement.

Healthcare consumer involvement:
Patients and health care consumers co-produced the plain language protocol summaries. Plain language protocol summaries may allow team members without specialist systematic review skills to more fully participate in the review process.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

Patients and health care consumers co-produced the plain language protocol summaries. Plain language protocol summaries may allow team members without specialist systematic review skills to more fully participate in the review process.