Using patient and public involvement to improve the research design and funding application for a project aimed at fostering a more collaborative approach to the NHS Health Check: The CaVIAR Project (better Care Via Improved Access to Records)

Background: Following an initial NHS Health Check appointment, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suggest patients with QRISK2 scores of ≥ 10% should be offered advice on lifestyle and the risks and benefits of starting a statin. NICE recommend GPs should ascertain patients’ pre-existing knowledge of cardiovascular disease risk, explore health beliefs, assess readiness to change, offer support, and engage family members. Condensing this complex discussion into a short consultation may result in inadequate patient understanding of the benefits of preventive measures. An alternative approach is needed. We propose a digital adjunct giving patients the opportunity to interact with their health check results from home before returning to see their GP. Before embarking on funding applications we sought the views of patients and members of the public. Methods: We consulted the Primary Care Research in Manchester Engagement Resource (PRIMER), an established departmental Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group (N=9) and then ran a workshop with 19 members of the public, co-facilitated by 4 members of PRIMER. Following a brief presentation on the background to the project, attendees were split into four groups and introduced to Ketso, a toolkit for creative engagement. Ketso was used to encourage group discussions regarding the project idea. Results: This PPI work improved the study design and proposed intervention. Discussions focussed on three themes: 1) positive feedback, 2) challenges and solutions, and 3) improvements/alternatives. Positive feedback included benefits to the NHS and patients. Challenges identified related to: 1) access, 2) data security, 3) engagement, and 4) negative consequences. Workshop members generated various solutions to these challenges and made additional suggestions for improvement relating to: 1) population (e.g. also including those with QRISK2 scores ≤ 10%), 2) duration (e.g. ongoing access to provide continued feedback), and 3) platform content (e.g. signposting to relevant services). Conclusions: This PPI work helped identify potential challenges and solutions not previously considered by the research team. Findings have informed the subsequent intervention design and strengthened the bid for funding. We aim to ensure ongoing patient and public involvement in all future stages.