The first UK national blepharospasm patient and public involvement day; identifying priorities.

PURPOSE: We describe the planning and outcomes of the first 'Blepharospasm Day' in the UK. Blepharospasm is a distressing condition for patients and carers. Our 'patient and public involvement' event aimed to: cultivate a more informed patient group via active dialogue, help clinicians more effectively prioritise research and to facilitate peer-to-peer support for affected patients and public. DESIGN: A national one-day event was organised by the oculoplastics department at Moorfields Eye Hospital. The event was divided into informative lectures delivered by professionals and a patient panel, during which patients shared their experiences and expectations. METHODS: Data were collected from a variety of sources including: an interactive voting "LiveWall" poster, a pre-event questionnaire; "living with Blepharospasm", transcripts from patient panel discussions; and a feedback questionnaire. RESULTS: The event was well-received with 100% of respondents rating it good or excellent. Four research themes were identified: "aetiology", "alternative treatments", "faster, more accurate diagnosis", and "symptom control". Delegates' self-reported knowledge of blepharospasm increased significantly after the event. Limitations of the BdSI severity-assessment tool were noted with 22% of respondents failing to utilise it appropriately. CONCLUSION: Through our innovative "Blepharospasm Day", patient's priorities for research were identified, delegates understanding of blepharospasm increased and an independent blepharospasm patients-representatives' group was established; a first in the UK. Furthermore, short-fallings identified in the BdSI tool highlight the need for better severity-assessment tools. We demonstrate the benefits of the 'patient and public involvement' approach in the management of complex conditions such as blepharospasm. ABBREVIATIONS: PPI: Patient and public involvement; SLV-PSP: sight loss and vision sector - priority setting partnership; BRC: Biomedical Research Centre; NIHR: National Institute for Health Research; BsDI: Blepharospasm Disability Index.

Qualitative investigation of patients' experience of a glaucoma virtual clinic in a specialist ophthalmic hospital in London, UK.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients felt about delivery of care in a novel technician-delivered virtual clinic compared with delivery of care in a doctor-delivered model. DESIGN: A qualitative investigation using one-to-one interviews before and after patients' appointments at either the standard outpatient glaucoma clinic or the new technician-delivered virtual glaucoma clinic (Glaucoma Screening and Stable Monitoring Service, GSMS). SETTING: A glaucoma clinic based in a tertiary ophthalmic specialist hospital in London. PARTICIPANTS: 43 patients (38 Caucasian, 5 African/Afro-Caribbean) were interviewed prior to their glaucoma appointment; 38 patients were interviewed between 4 and 6 weeks after their appointment. Consecutive patients were identified from patient reception lists and telephoned prior to their appointment inviting them to participate. RESULTS: Trust in the patient-provider relationship emerged as a key theme in patients' acceptance of not being seen in a traditional doctor-delivered service. Patients who were well informed regarding their glaucoma status and low risk of progression to sight loss were more accepting of the GSMS. Patients valued the reassurance received through effective communication with their healthcare practitioner at the time of their appointment. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients are accepting of moving to a model of service delivery whereby the doctor is removed from the consultation as long as they are informed about the status of their condition and reassured by the interaction with staff they meet. This study highlights the importance of patient engagement when introducing new models of service delivery.

The Sight Loss and Vision Priority Setting Partnership (SLV-PSP): overview and results of the research prioritisation survey process.

OBJECTIVES: The Sight Loss and Vision Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify research priorities relating to sight loss and vision through consultation with patients, carers and clinicians. These priorities can be used to inform funding bodies' decisions and enhance the case for additional research funding. DESIGN: Prospective survey with support from the James Lind Alliance. SETTING: UK-wide National Health Service (NHS) and non-NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, carers and eye health professionals. Academic researchers were excluded solely from the prioritisation process. The survey was disseminated by patient groups, professional bodies, at conferences and through the media, and was available for completion online, by phone, by post and by alternative formats (Braille and audio). OUTCOME MEASURE: People were asked to submit the questions about prevention, diagnosis and treatment of sight loss and eye conditions that they most wanted to see answered by research. Returned survey questions were reviewed by a data assessment group. Priorities were established across eye disease categories at final workshops. RESULTS: 2220 people responded generating 4461 submissions. Sixty-five per cent of respondents had sight loss and/or an eye condition. Following initial data analysis, 686 submissions remained which were circulated for interim prioritisation (excluding cataract and ocular cancer questions) to 446 patients/carers and 218 professionals. The remaining 346 questions were discussed at final prioritisation workshops to reach agreement of top questions per category. CONCLUSIONS: The exercise engaged a diverse community of stakeholders generating a wide range of conditions and research questions. Top priority questions were established across 12 eye disease categories.

Description and evaluation of the first national patient and public involvement day for thyroid eye disease in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: To ensure appropriate patient-focused outcomes, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the United Kingdom has made consultation with patients, caregivers, and the public a prerequisite to providing research funding. One method of encouraging engagement with research is through patient and public involvement (PPI) events. We describe the planning and implementation of a PPI day for thyroid eye disease (TED) and evaluate our own event using feedback from delegates. METHODS: The Moorfields NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, in partnership with TED charities, arranged the first national PPI day for TED in the United Kingdom. The event included didactic lectures; pre-event and postevent questionnaires; an exhibition with stalls, posters, and an interactive voting wall to determine research priorities; focus group sessions to explore patient experiences and perceptions of research; and one-on-one interviews recording individual patient stories. RESULTS: Of 100 attendees, 70 completed questionnaires. When asked whether the day had provided what they wanted, 48 of 52 (92%) said yes; 3 of 52 (6%) said no. Overall 6 of 52 (12%) rated the event as good; 28 of 52 (54%), very good; and 18 of 52 (34%), excellent. Thirty-six patients registered to participate in further research, identifying "finding the cause for TED," "improving psychological support," and "achieving a better cosmetic outcome" as key priorities. A poor understanding of TED among medical professionals was a common complaint. CONCLUSIONS: The event received positive feedback and achieved its key objective of engaging patients, researchers, and clinicians in a two-way discussion about research priorities and improved study design. An invaluable insight was gained into patients' needs for a better quality of life, and we have demonstrated that important data can be captured from such events, providing an evidential basis consistent with the NIHR principles of patient-centered research.

Bringing together patient and specialists: the first Birdshot Day.

BACKGROUND: The importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare decisions and research is increasingly recognised. This paper describes the aims, delivery, evaluation and impact of a 'Birdshot Day' organised for patients with birdshot uveitis, their carers and healthcare professionals. METHODS: Delivery of this event involved the close collaboration of patients with a large number of different healthcare professionals. The event's evaluation used established social research methods including qualitative questionnaires pre, post and 6 months following the event. The results were statistically analysed. RESULTS: Results indicated that this event significantly educated both patients and professionals. The sense of isolation felt by patients was reduced and networking was developed among all attendees. Patient priorities for research were recorded and invaluable insight into patients' needs for a better quality of life was gained. CONCLUSIONS: The first undertaking of this novel PPI event achieved all its aims. It became even clearer that fundamental questions remain about birdshot uveitis, including aetiology, pathogenesis, practical clinical issues and impact on quality of life. These questions can only be addressed in partnership with patients. To this end, patients and professionals came together under the banner 'Team Birdshot' and the National Birdshot Research Network was launched.