Nigel Westwood, Judith Tanner, Lyn Brierley-Jones, Ann Cheng, Melissa Rochon, Ricky Vaja, Jeremy Dearling, Keith Wilson, Gavin J Murphy, Luke J Rogers
Involving a patient and public involvement (PPI) peer researcher with lived experience in clinical research is a relatively new concept and to our knowledge, has not been described in adult cardiac surgery. The integration of a PPI peer researcher with a lived experience of a surgical site infection (SSI) was an exploratory component of work associated with an NIHR-funded, mixed-methods study evaluating patients and caregivers' preferences for post-discharge SSI monitoring. The PPI peer researcher worked alongside an academic colleague, participating in patient observations, qualitative interviews, and thematic analysis. Their shared and personal experiences appeared to encourage some participants to disclose nuanced concerns that differed in tone and content from those shared with the academic researcher, offering an additional perspective to inform collaborative reflection. This approach did, however, present a series of practical challenges: inconsistent hospital approvals, fragmented site-based training requirements, and unclear approval processes created barriers and increased the workload of the academic team. This commentary aims to describe the practical feasibility, perceived benefits and challenges encountered when integrating a PPI peer researcher into this cardiac surgical research programme.