King's College London

Research portal

Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: Results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making : Results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services. / Scuffham, P. A.; Moretto, N.; Krinks, R.; Burton, P.; Whitty, J. A.; Wilson, A.; Fitzgerald, G.; Littlejohns, P.; Kendall, E.

In: EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 20.06.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Scuffham, PA, Moretto, N, Krinks, R, Burton, P, Whitty, JA, Wilson, A, Fitzgerald, G, Littlejohns, P & Kendall, E 2016, 'Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: Results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services', EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2015-205663

APA

Scuffham, P. A., Moretto, N., Krinks, R., Burton, P., Whitty, J. A., Wilson, A., Fitzgerald, G., Littlejohns, P., & Kendall, E. (2016). Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: Results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services. EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2015-205663

Vancouver

Scuffham PA, Moretto N, Krinks R, Burton P, Whitty JA, Wilson A et al. Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: Results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services. EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL. 2016 Jun 20. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2015-205663

Author

Scuffham, P. A. ; Moretto, N. ; Krinks, R. ; Burton, P. ; Whitty, J. A. ; Wilson, A. ; Fitzgerald, G. ; Littlejohns, P. ; Kendall, E. / Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making : Results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services. In: EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL. 2016.

Bibtex Download

@article{b65028a8133546e497b4fda806da53bd,
title = "Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: Results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services",
abstract = "Background Policies addressing ED crowding have failed to incorporate the public's perspectives; engaging the public in such policies is needed. Objective This study aimed at determining the public's recommendations related to alternative models of care intended to reduce crowding, optimising access to and provision of emergency care. Methods A Citizens' Jury was convened in Queensland, Australia, to consider priority setting and resource allocation to address ED crowding. Twenty-two jurors were recruited from the electoral roll, who were interested and available to attend the jury from 15 to 17 June 2012. Juror feedback was collected via a survey immediately following the end of the jury. Results The jury considered that all patients attending the ED should be assessed with a minority of cases diverted for assistance elsewhere. Jurors strongly supported enabling ambulance staff to treat patients in their homes without transporting them to the ED, and allowing non-medical staff to treat some patients without seeing a doctor. Jurors supported (in principle) patient choice over aspects of their treatment (when, where and type of health professional) with some support for patients paying towards treatment but unanimous opposition for patients paying to be prioritised. Most of the jurors were satisfied with their experience of the Citizens' Jury process, but some jurors perceived the time allocated for deliberations as insufficient. Conclusions These findings suggest that the general public may be open to flexible models of emergency care. The jury provided clear recommendations for direct public input to guide health policy to tackle ED crowding.",
author = "Scuffham, {P. A.} and N. Moretto and R. Krinks and P. Burton and Whitty, {J. A.} and A. Wilson and G. Fitzgerald and P. Littlejohns and E. Kendall",
year = "2016",
month = jun,
day = "20",
doi = "10.1136/emermed-2015-205663",
language = "English",
journal = "EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL",
issn = "1472-0205",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making

T2 - Results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services

AU - Scuffham, P. A.

AU - Moretto, N.

AU - Krinks, R.

AU - Burton, P.

AU - Whitty, J. A.

AU - Wilson, A.

AU - Fitzgerald, G.

AU - Littlejohns, P.

AU - Kendall, E.

PY - 2016/6/20

Y1 - 2016/6/20

N2 - Background Policies addressing ED crowding have failed to incorporate the public's perspectives; engaging the public in such policies is needed. Objective This study aimed at determining the public's recommendations related to alternative models of care intended to reduce crowding, optimising access to and provision of emergency care. Methods A Citizens' Jury was convened in Queensland, Australia, to consider priority setting and resource allocation to address ED crowding. Twenty-two jurors were recruited from the electoral roll, who were interested and available to attend the jury from 15 to 17 June 2012. Juror feedback was collected via a survey immediately following the end of the jury. Results The jury considered that all patients attending the ED should be assessed with a minority of cases diverted for assistance elsewhere. Jurors strongly supported enabling ambulance staff to treat patients in their homes without transporting them to the ED, and allowing non-medical staff to treat some patients without seeing a doctor. Jurors supported (in principle) patient choice over aspects of their treatment (when, where and type of health professional) with some support for patients paying towards treatment but unanimous opposition for patients paying to be prioritised. Most of the jurors were satisfied with their experience of the Citizens' Jury process, but some jurors perceived the time allocated for deliberations as insufficient. Conclusions These findings suggest that the general public may be open to flexible models of emergency care. The jury provided clear recommendations for direct public input to guide health policy to tackle ED crowding.

AB - Background Policies addressing ED crowding have failed to incorporate the public's perspectives; engaging the public in such policies is needed. Objective This study aimed at determining the public's recommendations related to alternative models of care intended to reduce crowding, optimising access to and provision of emergency care. Methods A Citizens' Jury was convened in Queensland, Australia, to consider priority setting and resource allocation to address ED crowding. Twenty-two jurors were recruited from the electoral roll, who were interested and available to attend the jury from 15 to 17 June 2012. Juror feedback was collected via a survey immediately following the end of the jury. Results The jury considered that all patients attending the ED should be assessed with a minority of cases diverted for assistance elsewhere. Jurors strongly supported enabling ambulance staff to treat patients in their homes without transporting them to the ED, and allowing non-medical staff to treat some patients without seeing a doctor. Jurors supported (in principle) patient choice over aspects of their treatment (when, where and type of health professional) with some support for patients paying towards treatment but unanimous opposition for patients paying to be prioritised. Most of the jurors were satisfied with their experience of the Citizens' Jury process, but some jurors perceived the time allocated for deliberations as insufficient. Conclusions These findings suggest that the general public may be open to flexible models of emergency care. The jury provided clear recommendations for direct public input to guide health policy to tackle ED crowding.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978967696&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/emermed-2015-205663

DO - 10.1136/emermed-2015-205663

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84978967696

JO - EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL

JF - EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL

SN - 1472-0205

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454