Coproduction: a personal journey
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-06-2014-0021 |
| Pages | 267-278 |
| Published date | 14 December 2015 |
| Date | 14 December 2015 |
| Author | Susan Fairlie |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health |
Coproduction: a personal journey
Susan Fairlie
Professor Susan Fairlie is
Managing Director at Mindset
Matters Ltd, Malvern, UK and
Visiting Professor at Institute of
Health, University of Worcester,
Worcester, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to offer some personal reflections and experience of
using coproduction in the NHS. The purpose is to demystify coproduction and it is hoped that sharing
personal experience will encourage others who may be contemplating using this approach in their
quality improvement work.
Design/methodology/approach –Informed by underpinning literature, the approach is a combination of
sharing case studies that span several decades at both the macro and micro level. Whilst several of the
examples used are not mental health specific, they are equally applicable in this setting.
Findings –Coproduction principles can be used at all levels of the health and care system and are generally
empowering for those involved. By soliciting insights from those who would not normally have a voice, it can
help to overcome blind spots and produce better products and services. There is a correlation between staff
engagement and patient outcomes which provides compelling evidence for coproduction approaches to be
incorporated into organisational practice. Furthermore, patients and service users should no longer be
considered as passive recipients of care but as an integral component of quality improvement processes.
Originality/value –The case studies offer examples of using coproduction at a national, organisational and
individual level. In particular, the lessons learned from design science such as “thinking like an anthropologist”
are shared. The distinction is made between patient satisfaction and patient experience and the impact that
coproduction can have on organisational culture is discussed. By mobilising resources, knowledge and
expertise across communities, coproduction capitalises on the “wisdom of the crowds”philosophy.
Keywords Improvement, Coproduction, Engagement, Quality, Experience, Co-design
Paper type Viewpoint
This paper offers some personal reflections and experience of using coproduction in the NHS.
The experiences shared span several decades at both the macro or system level and micro level
in clinical practice. Whilst several of the examples used are not mental health specific, they are
equally applicable in this setting. There are opportunities to coproduce with patients and
stakeholders at all levels of the system and whilst not professing expertise, it is hoped that
sharing this experience will encourage others who may be contemplating using this approach in
their quality improvement work.
So what is coproduction and how does it differ from consultation? There are numerous
definitions for coproduction but one that particularly appeals from a public service perspective is
from Boyle and Harris (2009, p. 11) who state that “Co-production means delivering public
services in an equal and reciprocal relationship between professionals, people using services,
their families and their neighbours. Where activities are coproduced in this way, both services
and neighbourhoods become far more effective agents of change”. Consultation on the other
hand, is effectively the process of seeking opinions on options before decisions are reached.
Those opinions may not affect the ultimate outcome and in such instances can feel like tokenism
and result in disengagement. The premise of coproduction is that no one group or person is
more important than any other group or person –everyone is an asset to the process.
There are also the differences between coproduction and consultation relating to time and
power. Regarding the former, consultation is often a one-off exercise over a short period of time,
Received 6 June 2014
Revised 5 March 2015
2 October 2015
Accepted 15 October 2015
DOI 10.1108/MHRJ-06-2014-0021 VOL. 20 NO. 4 2015, pp. 267-278, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1361-9322
j
MENTALHEALTH REVIEW JOURNAL
j
PAG E 26 7
To continue reading
Request your trial