One Year On: Reflections from Our Undergraduate Public Partners Group
We're delighted to share this blog from our Oxford Primary Care Public Partners Group, which marks just over a year since the group was established. Brought together in October 2024, the group unites seven members of the public from across the Thames Valley with our course leads to ensure that the people our students will go on to care for have a genuine say in how they are taught. Over the past year, the group has made a real difference — refining the language in our teaching materials, shaping how we present healthcare access and equity, and contributing to wider departmental discussions. The blog reflects honestly on the challenges too, including the risk that partnership can become box-ticking rather than meaningful, and the importance of continually asking whose voices are still missing.
By Mike Etkind, Julia Hamer-Hunt, Anne Knowland, Richard Mandunya, Heather Pike, Aziza Shafique, Karen Swaffield, Laura Ingle & Sophie Park
![Doubleday_meeting_photo_2[1].jpg](https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/images/blog/doubleday_meeting_photo_2-1.jpg "Doubleday_meeting_photo_2[1].jpg")
The Oxford primary care clinical education Public Partners Group was established in October 2024, with the goal of embedding patient and public involvement (PPI) directly into our undergraduate medical education programme. Dr Laura Ingle and Professor Sophie Park support and coordinate the group, which brings together members of the public and course-leads to shape how primary care education stays connected to lived experience.
Why we formed the group
Research highlights a growing gap between the capacity of clinical educators and the demands of a rapidly changing healthcare system (1). At the same time, patient needs and expectations are evolving. Not only in relation to care, but also in how they are represented within medical education (2,3,4). These shifts require us to rethink how future doctors are trained, and to recognise patients and communities as active partners.
Primary care bears a particular responsibility. Students learn across geographically distant practices and diverse communities. They meet people living with multimorbidity, social complexity and uncertainty. Biomedical knowledge is essential, but not sufficient. Frequent student–patient encounters mean our curriculum shapes how future doctors understand access to healthcare, continuity and relationships. If lived experience matters in practice, it should shape how we teach.
These considerations led us to create a dedicated group to strengthen the link between education and the lived experience of patients.
Bringing the group together
The group includes seven members of the public from across the Thames Valley, where our students undertake GP placements. We recruited members through the department’s PPI mailing list and outreach to local patient groups.
From the outset, we chose to build a standing group that meets regularly with the course leads. This builds continuity and relationships, rather than being a one-off consultation. The group meets termly, in person. We then focus on a specific item or aspect of the course that is under review, such as a teaching session, assessment approach or curriculum change. This allows public perspectives to shape direction, not simply respond to decisions already made.
These discussions have influenced teaching in practical ways. Members have refined the language we use in learning materials, reshaped how healthcare access and equity are presented in case-based learning, and strengthened how we gather and use patient feedback within placements.
A framework for partnership
We use Professor Angela Towle’s taxonomy of patient involvement (5) to reflect on levels of engagement. Historically patients have often contributed as teachers of personal experience. The taxonomy pushes us further, towards involvement in curriculum design, assessment and governance, and asks whether we are building partnership or drifting into symbolism. It serves as a prompt to examine both our intentions and our impact.
What we learned
Building the group has required time, coordination and institutional support. We chose to meet in person to build trust, knowing this would require flexibility and resource.
Turning discussion into change remains challenging. We aim for open conversation, but we also need clarity about constraints. A simple ‘you said, we did’ feedback loop now structures each meeting, helping us demonstrate where input has shaped decisions.
We are also clear about limits. Seven people cannot represent every patient perspective. By choosing to meet in-person, we have limited representation in the group further. The group offers one source of insight among many, not a single “patient voice.”
There is also a deeper challenge. In busy systems, partnership can quietly become procedural: another meeting, another agenda item. We have had to ask ourselves whether we are truly sharing influence or simply seeking reassurance. Sustaining meaningful involvement requires ongoing scrutiny of power, not just good intentions.
One year on
It’s now over a year since we formed the Public Partners Group and it has provided a consistent forum linking lived experience and curriculum design. It has influenced teaching in tangible ways and created space for challenge as well as affirmation.
The group has contributed beyond the curriculum. Members attended the 2025 Doubleday Collaboration meeting in Oxford, alongside educators and colleagues from the General Medical Council, to discuss patient partnership in medical education. The group also contributed to the department’s Education Working Group within its strategic review.
The group’s work remains ongoing. Embedding partnership more deeply, widening whose voices are heard, and sustaining momentum within busy systems will require continued attention. We are seeking to build stronger links with PPI groups in education across the University and in research, and nationally, creating opportunities to share learning and shape this work together.
This blog has been reviewed and co-authored by members of the Public Partners Group. Together, we recognise both the progress made and the responsibility to ensure this partnership remains meaningful.