PPIE Quality mark
What is the Quality mark?
Involving and engaging patients and members of the public (Public Contributors) within the Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health (FBMH) is important to us because so much of what we do as a Faculty, from teaching clinical skills to scientific breakthroughs has an effect on local communities and further afield. Public Contributors bring unique and valuable insights to our teaching and research, so it is therefore essential to recognise the achievements of projects and activities that successfully embed Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE).
The Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health has co-created a Quality mark to recognise when good quality PPIE has been included in our research and teaching. This will help to ensure an inclusive and high standard of PPIE within the Faculty, highlight the value of PPIE and widen its use and acceptability.
How the Quality mark works
How the Quality mark works
- It is open to staff, students and Public Contributors
- It is self-assessed. Projects/activities/groups who feel they have met the Quality mark criteria can display the award logo on their website pages, project outputs, email signatures etc.
- For the self-assessment you will work through each criteria and award yourself the level which describes your work
- Awarded as bronze, silver or gold award (see below for award levels)
- You can self-assess the Quality mark at any stage of a project/activity and can 'work towards' a bronze, silver or gold award ('work towards' logo must be downloaded)
Points to note
We understand that our Public Contributors have different requirements. This Quality mark is meant to be flexible so, for example if your resources are more appropriate for your audience (such as Public Contributors with Dementia or Autism) please use these alongside the Faculty’s templates and award yourself this criteria level.
Quality mark award levels
There are three main levels of awards; bronze, silver and gold. To gain the various award levels you will need to achieve the following:
Bronze – x criteria (level 1 only – minimum x overall)
Silver – x criteria (mix of level 2 and level 3 – minimum x overall)
Gold – x criteria – must receive a minimum of x at level 3
You can also receive a ‘working towards award’ for any of the levels
*The word ‘Output’ is used to reference any results achieved during an involvement/engagement activity or project e.g. resources, articles/blog posts, focus/advisory groups, etc.
Quality mark award criteria
Criteria |
Level 1 |
Level 2 |
Level 3 |
| 1) Data Management: Public Contributors to be fully informed about how their data will be collected, used and stored during the project/activity in relation to the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. |
|
||
|
2) Inclusivity: Involve/engage a diverse range of Public Contributors. Includes contributors from under-represented or ‘lesser heard’ backgrounds |
Involve/engage Public Contributors with a range of lived experience |
Involve/engage a diverse range of Public Contributors to ensure our research and teaching meets the needs of the whole population. | Involve/engage a diverse range of Public Contributors to ensure our research and teaching meets the needs of the whole population. Includes people from under-represented groups or ‘lesser heard’ backgrounds, people with a range of experience etc. Inclusive research training can be accessed here |
|
|
|||
| 3) Involvement: Public Contributors[i]involvement in the design, delivery, dissemination and review (where appropriate) of the project/activity/output. |
Public Contributors have participated in at least one aspect of the project e.g. co-design, co-delivery, dissemination or review |
Public Contributors have participated in at least two aspects of the project e.g. co-design, co-delivery, dissemination or review | Public Contributors have participated in at least three aspects of the project or as a co-applicant, e.g. co-design, co-delivery, dissemination or review |
|
|
|||
| 4) Accessibility: Disability/accessibility requirements, additional support and necessary training related to the involvement/engagement [i] is provided to allow Public Contributors to fully contribute. Equality Act 2010is adhered to. |
Disability/accessibility requirements are provided for Public Contributors |
Disability/accessibility requirements and any additional support are provided for Public Contributors | Disability/accessibility requirements, additional support and necessary training related to the involvement/engagement [i] is provided. Public Contributors are invited to attend the Faculty’s Public Contributor Induction Session(optional attendance) |
|
|
|||
|
5) Information: Essential information must be communicated to Public Contributors before they begin their involvement/engagement, including:
|
Essential information has been provided to all Public Contributors. Information must be provided in an accessible format and lay language used. |
Essential information has been provided to all Public Contributors plus additional information including information about the team, project etc.
Information must be provided in an accessible format and lay language used. |
Essential information has been provided to all Public Contributors plus additional information including information about the team, project etc. Public Contributors have also been sent the Faculty’s Public Contributor appointment letter and Induction guide where appropriate. (if your resources are more appropriate for your audience (e.g. you involve Public Contributors with Dementia) please use these in place of the Faculty’s templates and award yourself this criteria) Information must be provided in an accessible format and lay language used. |
|
|
|||
6) Feedback:Public Contributors to be kept informed with:
Information must be provided in an accessible format and lay language used. |
Public Contributors have been informed about the outcome of the project. Information must be provided in an accessible format and lay language used. |
Public Contributors have been kept informed with some of the projects milestones.
Information must be provided in an accessible format and lay language used. |
Public Contributors have been kept informed with the project milestones, how the project/activity is progressing/continuing and any next steps. The ending or outcome of the project has also been communicated to the Public Contributor and any impact/feedback it has received. Information must be provided in an accessible format and lay language used.
|
|
|
|||
| 7) Outputs:All outputs created as a result of involving/engaging Public Contributors must be freely accessible in print and/or digitally online and must contain a lay language section. Public Contributors to be involved in writing these outputs where appropriate.
Confidentiality must be adhered to where appropriate. *please note: some terminology cannot be translated into a different language |
Public Contributors to have access to the outputs created by the project. Resource outputs to be written in lay language and be in an accessible format. |
Public Contributors and those associated (e.g. key stakeholders) with the project to have access to the outputs created by the project. All resource outputs to contain a lay language section and be in an accessible format. |
Everyone to have access to the outputs created as a result of involving/engaging Public Contributors - must be freely accessible in print and/or digitally online and be in an accessible format.
Public Contributors to be cited as an author and to reference that PPIE has been used.
All resource outputs to contain a lay language section and Public Contributor outputs to be written in lay language. Outputs to be added to the Faculty’s PPIE Toolkit and promoted via the Public Engagement Digest (send to srbmh@manchester.ac.uk)
|
|
|
|||
| 8) Evaluation: PPIE event, project or activity to be evaluated to determine what went well and lessons learned |
PPIE event, project or activity to be evaluated |
Evaluation to be planned from the beginning of the project. What went well and lessons learnt to be included. Public Contributor feedback to be sought and included. |
Evaluation to be planned from the beginning of the project. Public Contributors to be involved in the evaluation of the project (e.g. how it will be evaluated) and their feedback sought and included in the report. Evaluation report to be sent to all involved with the project. |
|
|
|||
| 9) Reimbursement: Public Contributors to be financially reimbursed for their time, skills and travel where possible. If financially reimbursement cannot be provided, justification must be given prior to their involvement. |
Public Contributors to be financially reimbursed for their time or justification has been provided prior to their involvement if financial reimbursement cannot be provided. |
Public Contributors to be financially reimbursed for their time. Staff adhere to the Faculty’s fees and payments guidance for paying Public Contributor e.g. use a PR20 form or justification has been provided prior to their involvement if financial reimbursement cannot be provided. |
Public Contributors to be financially reimbursed for their time, skills and travel. Staff adhere to the Faculty’s fees and payments guidance e.g. use a PR20 form and payments must be processed in a timely manner or justification has been provided prior to their involvement if financial reimbursement cannot be provided |
|
|
|||
| 10) Dissemination:
Share best practice of involvement/engagement internally and externally to the University e.g. writing case studies/articles etc. |
Staff/Students/Public Contributors write about their involvement/engagement and promote via the Faculty’s news. Lessons learned to be included. |
Staff/Students/Public Contributors write about their involvement/engagement and promote via the Faculty’s news, Public Engagement Digest, PPIE blog. Must reference that public involvement/engagement has been used and be transparent about lessons learned. | Staff/ Students/Public Contributors write about their involvement/engagement and be transparent about lessons learned. Promote via Faculty’s news, Public Engagement Digest, PPIE blog and submit as an external case study/article/publication. Must reference that public involvement/engagement has been used and Public Contributors to be cited as an author |
Total per column |
|
||
Further Information and contact details:
To view information, templates and resources created specifically for PPIE related activities visit the Faculty’s PPIE Toolkit.
For further information about PPIE within the Faculty including events, training and funding opportunities sign up to the monthly Public Engagement digest, visit the Faculty’s PPIE website and PPIE blog, follow @FBMH_SR on Twitter or email the Social Responsibility and Public Engagement Team srbmh@manchester.ac.uk.
[i] Public Contributor is a commonly used term to describe a member of the public involved or engage in our research and teaching
[i] “As far as is practicable for the applying organisation. Examples include: provision of universally accessible meeting spaces; accommodation of environmental sensory needs (e.g. light, heat, odour); fulfilment of formatting requests (e.g. provision of video captioning, audio files, signing, interpretation services)” as advised by Patients Included. Use resources such as AccessAble to assess the accessibility of your activity venues.
[i] “As far as is practicable for the applying organisation. Examples include: provision of universally accessible meeting spaces; accommodation of environmental sensory needs (e.g. light, heat, odour); fulfilment of formatting requests (e.g. provision of video captioning, audio files, signing, interpretation services)” as advised by Patients Included. Use resources such as AccessAble to assess the accessibility of your activity venues.