Co-designing an Integrated Health and Social Care Hub With and for Families Experiencing Adversity

Teresa Hall; Sarah Loveday; Sandie Pullen; Hayley Loftus; Leanne Constable; Kate Paton; Harriet Hiscock

doi:10.5334/ijic.6975

Figures & Tables

Overview of project stages supporting the co-design of the Hub.

Table 1

Thematic inputs, format and engagement strategy for co-design workshops and consultations.

TOPIC	INPUT TYPE	FOCUS AREA	ENGAGEMENT FORMAT	USER TESTING	STAKEHOLDERS
*Client journey*
Entice	Flexible	How families first become aware of the Hub	Workshops 1 and 2	Core team testing, community conversation at shopping centre	Families experiencing adversity; Wyndham community members; health, social, family service and education practitioners
Enter	Flexible	How families first enter the Hub including the appeal of the physical space	Workshops 3 and 4	Core team testing, community conversation at shopping centre	Families experiencing adversity; Wyndham community members; health, social, family service and education practitioners
Engage, Exit and Extend	Flexible	How to create a trusted and holistic Wellbeing Coordination program at the Hub	Workshops 5, 6, and 7	Core team testing, community conversation at community centre	Families experiencing adversity; Wyndham community members; health, social, family service and education practitioners
*Workforce capabilities and infrastructure*
Workforce training and development	Fixed	Preferences for delivery of practitioner training. Development of new practitioner roles within the Hub including child speech pathologist.	Workforce consultations	n/a	Health, social, family service practitioners
Learning collaboratives	Fixed	Preference of timing and structure of monthly learning collaboratives	Workforce consultations	n/a	Health, social, family service practitioners
Community directory	Fixed	Preference for presentation of community directory i.e., online or in a physical folder	Workforce consultations	n/a	Health, social, family service practitioners

Table 2

Demographics of participants across all project stages.

PARTICIPANT TYPE	n	MEDIAN AGE IN YEARS	GENDER: FEMALE n (%)	ENGLISH MAIN LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME n (%)	ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STATUS n (%)
FAMILY
Interviews	17	35–44	17 (100)	15 (88.2)	2 (11.8)
Online consensus study	2	25–34	2 (100)	0 (0)	0
Co-design workshops	2	25–34	2 (100)	1 (50)	0
User testing in community conversations	100	*	*	*	*
TOTAL	121	*	*	*	*
PRACTITIONER
Interviews	26	35–44	25 (96)	26 (100)	0
Online consensus study	17	35–44	17 (100)	15 (88)	1 (5)
Observation	5	35–44	5 (100)	5 (100)	0
Co-design workshops	5	35–44	5 (100)	4 (80)	0
Workforce consultation	27	*	23 (85.2)	*	*
TOTAL	80	*	75(93.8)	*	*

[i] * Not recorded.

Table 3

Rapid realist review identified eight guiding principles for effective community engagement in an integrated care setting [47].

PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT	OPERATIONALISATION IN CO-DESIGN OF CHILD AND FAMILY HUB
(1) Ensure staff provide supportive and facilitative leadership to citizens based on transparency	Transparent articulation of project scope (i.e., fixed and flexible inputs) and core project concepts (i.e., co-design and adversity) Transparent processes for progressing ideations to storyboards to prototypes using group decision making and independent voting
(2) Foster a safe and trusting environment enabling citizens to provide input	Use of existing community platforms for community members to find out about the project Recruitment of community representatives and participants in advisory group, formative research and co-design workshops through trusted community platforms
(3) Ensure citizens’ early involvement	Community members engaged from outset of the project during stakeholder engagement phase and later formative research phase preceding the active co-design workshops and consultations
(4) Share decision-making and governance control with citizens	Community members and community organisations represented on advisory group and co-design team Peer researcher member of research team
(5) Acknowledge and address citizens’ experiences of power imbalances between citizens and professionals	Iterative negotiation of power differentials between our mixed stakeholder co-design team Design process and tools engaged stakeholders on equal footing as team members Hands on, practical aspect of design tools enabled participation
(6) Invest in citizens who feel they lack the skills and confidence to engage	Preparatory scope setting and team building to support community members to meaningfully participate in the co-design workshops. Iterative checking in with community representatives on advisory group and co-design team to promote confidence and problem solve barriers to participation
(7) Create quick and tangible wins	Tangible prototypes rapidly developed and tested Rapid feedback on desirable and viable Hub prototypes
(8) Take into account both citizens’ and organisations’ motivations	Multiple avenues for participation to account for different levels of motivation and ability to participate in the project Personas captured child and family motivations for service usage Mapping of service and system barriers included practitioner motivations and experience of care provision

Co-designing an Integrated Health and Social Care Hub With and for Families Experiencing Adversity

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Table 1

Figure 2

Table 2

Figure 3

Table 3

Paradigm

My account