Reaching a consensus on service-user involvement in courses for professionals
Gary Hickey Public and patient involvement lead, Centre for Public Engagement, Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George’s, University of London, UK
Mary Chambers Professor of mental health nursing and director, Centre for Public Engagement, Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George’s, University of London, UK
Aim To describe how a workshop that used a modified nominal group technique (NGT) was used at the end of a research project to develop a standard of education and training requiring UK education providers to include service users in the design and delivery of education and training.
Background Often the objective of a research project is to deliver a decision where there is insufficient objective evidence. In this particular instance a decision was sought on whether service users should be involved in the design and delivery of education and training for healthcare professionals and what this involvement might look like. One solution can be to use a formal approach to decision making. NGT is one of several approaches to decision making that seeks to achieve consensus among participants.
Data sources A modified NGT workshop was used and included students, service users and academic staff.
Discussion This paper describes the workshop, its outcomes and points to consider when using such an approach.
Conclusion This paper outlines a modified NGT that was used in a workshop to complement other research techniques and provides practical tips on how to maximise the chances of the success of the approach. Modifications were necessary to address the particular challenges posed in this research.
Implications for research/practice The modified NGT approach outlined in this paper could be used by nurses when addressing questions and issues related to service-user involvement in planning the design and delivery of education and training.
21, 6, 22-27.
This article has been subject to double blind peer review
Conflict of interest
Received: 30 April 2013
Accepted: 13 August 2013
Want to read more?
Already subscribed? Log in
Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today
Save over 50% on your first 3 months
Your subscription package includes:
- Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
- Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
- RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
- RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
- Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now