Benefits and challenges of a Patient & Public Involvement (PPI) peer researcher
TL;DR
The PPI peer researcher’s lived experience of an SSI appeared to encourage patients to speak more openly about their anxieties and daily practical concerns, providing some candid insights, and provided a perspective that would not otherwise have been recognised.
Abstract
Involving a patient and public involvement (PPI) peer researcher with lived experience in clinical research is a relatively new concept and to our knowledge, has not been described in adult cardiac surgery. The integration of a PPI peer researcher with a lived experience of a surgical site infection (SSI) was an exploratory component of work associated with an NIHR-funded, mixed-methods study evaluating patients and caregivers’ preferences for post-discharge SSI monitoring. The PPI peer researcher worked alongside an academic colleague, participating in patient observations, qualitative interviews, and thematic analysis. Their shared and personal experiences appeared to encourage some participants to disclose nuanced concerns that differed in tone and content from those shared with the academic researcher, offering an additional perspective to inform collaborative reflection. This approach did, however, present a series of practical challenges: inconsistent hospital approvals, fragmented site-based training requirements, and unclear approval processes created barriers and increased the workload of the academic team. This commentary aims to describe the practical feasibility, perceived benefits and challenges encountered when integrating a PPI peer researcher into this cardiac surgical research programme. This commentary highlights some of the challenges of involving a patient and public involvement (PPI) peer researcher with a lived experience of surgical site infection (SSI) in research on wound monitoring for cardiac surgery patients. Unlike traditional research, led solely by academics, this co-production partnered a PPI peer researcher and an academic researcher to conduct interviews, site observations, and thematic analysis. The PPI peer researcher’s lived experience of an SSI appeared to encourage patients to speak more openly about their anxieties and daily practical concerns, providing some candid insights. This provided a perspective that would not otherwise have been recognised. It was not without its challenges; hospitals struggled to accommodate the role of PPI peer researchers, site-based training was repetitive, time-consuming, and support was inconsistent. These barriers highlight the need for streamlined credentialing and standardised protocols for PPI peer researchers to facilitate systematic evaluation of the PPI peer researcher role.