QUERCC

Quantifying, Understanding and Enhancing Relational Continuity
of Care

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research means research carried out with or by patients, caregivers, and the public. It ensures that their experiences, perspectives, and priorities are integrated into every stage of the study, from its conception to dissemination of results. In the context of our study on continuity of care in primary care, PPI is essential for ensuring that the research addresses the real needs and concerns of patients and contributes to the improvement of healthcare services. By involving patients and the public, we can enhance the relevance, quality, and impact of our research, ultimately leading to better healthcare outcomes for all.

Second meeting of Patient Advisory Group, 11th March 2024

  • The PAG met in March and were briefed by PI Tom Marshall who gave an overview of the project and welcomed the PAG group.
  • PAG discussed plans for sub-groups to work together to review the website / involvement in dissemination outputs to include writing papers / work on coding qualitative data / plans for training in health economics and support for self-study.
  • PPG members shared their experiences and expressed interest in knowing more about how they can be involved in the project.
  • Plans for a newsletter were discussed and steps will be put place to develop this.
  • PAG members shared their biographies and reviewed the website. These contributions will be used to develop the web content going forward with their permission.

First meeting of Patient Advisory Group, 30th October 2023

The first meeting of patient advisory group for QUERCC study took place on Monday 30th October 2023. It lasted 1 hour and was attended by all 7 public contributors who had been invited. The lay co-applicant gave an overview of the study and its 5 work packages. After the presentation attendees were asked these questions:

Do you think:

  • the research is relevant to the priorities of the NHS, Public Health and Social Care?
  • the research is important to, and addresses the needs of patients, service users, carers and/or the public?
  • The right question(s) has been asked and if not, how could it be improved?

Public contributors were supportive of the study even if it looked like a lot of work, and said that continuity of care is important, especially for people with MLTC. One person suggested that the study could benefit from being focused on just patients with MLTC rather than everyone. Holistic care needs to be considered e.g. allergies, medication interactions, mental health. Some patients prefer to see a new doctor i.e. a fresh pair of eyes (e.g. a locum) when they struggle with developing a relationship with a practitioner or a looking for a different opinion. GP’s should read patient’s notes before the appointment. Researchers should design and test a new measure for continuity of care, and look into practices that dropped continuity of care. It is important to consider the context of the practice e.g. its location, relationship with the pharmacy, the wealth of patients and the number of GP’s.


Public contributors are interested in some form of training e.g. introduction to health economics or statistics but will have to think about it more. They also liked an idea of self-study books but will need a recommendation on what is available and not too difficult.


Lay co-applicant also presented planned PPI activities for the study:

  • input into study website
  • feedback about the website, PAG tab/bios, articles/personal stories
  • glossary of PPI terms used in medical research
  • ideas for dissemination: short videos
  • GRIPP2 short form

The group was enthusiastic about writing collaboratively a text about PPI and the patient advisory group for the study website, and welcomed the idea of preparing the glossary. Having a log of PPI impact on the study was also suggested. When asked if the group should be doing anything else, one person suggested inviting early-career researchers to present their research and answer questions from the group. The group of 7 public contributors felt that it was not necessary to recruit another member as the group was sufficient and very diverse.


Availability for future PAG meetings was brought up too. It was agreed that a doodle poll with multiple slots to choose from will be helpful. Members also need at least a two-weeks’ notice.

Skip to content