2016 – the year I went to the International Forum of Quality and Safety in Healthcare in Gothenburg. There were many memorable moments. It inspired a passion in me for showcasing quality improvement in primary care and in Scotland. These ambitions are still to be realised.
It also took me to Jönköping where I visited Qulturum, an amazing resource for bringing healthcare improvement ideas into practice. Here is where I first saw a description of a citizen’s jury, and a reasoned explanation for why they are valuable.
Before this, I had only seen single patients being asked about single issues. These lone lay people have attended meetings, to represent all patients, all demographics, all ethnographic minorities, and orientations. The agenda has been set by the medical establishment, and the lay person has been, at best, a commentator. Their participation has allowed organisations to tick the box on patient participation.
A Citizen’s jury changes this. First of all, a group of people get to debate the issues. This gets around the need for one person to represent all demographics. Secondly, this is more than a poll. The jury is provided with facts, as well as well reasoned and possibly opposing expert opinions. Members of the jury develop knowledge about a specific policy area. They may call expert witnesses to present evidence relevant to the issue being explored. Their viewpoint is therefore both independent and well-informed, and not fixed to one demographic.
The BMJ published an analytical article examining how citizens’ juries can review current medical practice. The article looks at the role of these juries in evaluating acceptability and legitimacy of screening policies. Relevant examples are provided.
References:
Hebridean Adventures in Realistic Medicine 