Summary of PI in the HIDDen research project
Date	Event	Outcomes and benefits of PI in this research	PI Standards indications
Summer 2014 to 2016 Pre implementation planning
June 2014	Input by PC1 at an early team meeting to discuss acceptability of study design and clinical intervention	Highly praised input to study deign and acceptability of bedside compression ultrasonography giving the lay perspective.	Standards one, two and six. The team enabled involvement in formulating the research. Working together in management group
March 2016	Planning input at group phone conference by PC1	On important suggestion was to allow proxy consent when necessary that was immediately adopted. This had a profound beneficial effect on data collection	Standard two. Key decision taken after public contributor advice
September 2016	Input to documentation through email by PC1	Modification of wording in the lay summary and research documentation. This greatly improved accessibility for the public contributors	Standards one, two and four. PI at earliest stage. Joint wording in lay summary. Plain language ensured
September 2016	Input to recruitment through email discussion with PC 1	PC1’s approach to recruitment ‘widened’ the participation though ensuring that it remained within capacity. PC1 aimed to recruit ‘informed’ people by giving them sufficient facts in an understandable form in the documentation. This was very successful in ensuring inclusivity and a diverse group of contributors	Standards one and four. Inclusive opportunities for PI. Working together toward clear material for communication
Spring/summer 2017 Implementation Phase
30th June 2017	PC 2, who was asked to review PI activity, took part in an initial meeting with the local research team to review the whole timeline of research in terms of the UK Standards	The HIDDen research study was outlined to the second public contributor (PC2) who subsequently co-produced the review tool set of detailed questions* about all PI at each stage of the research. The tool questions probed the research – through the UK Standards. PC2 produced an outline report which was discussed and finalised at a subsequent meeting**	Standards four and five. The difference PI has made has been fed back, captured and communicated
13th Dec 2017	PC 2 later met the Principal Investigator and the research nurse at local recruitment site (Hospice)**	Further details were explored relevant to PI in the HIDDen study. Some of the review questions needed input from the research nurse and nurse manager of the hospice. The finalised tool proved flexible and useful for wider research purposes in other projects	Standard two learning (research nurse) Standard six potential PI in conferences planned
19th Jan 2018	PC 2 again met Principal Investigator, the research nurse and nurse manager at the hospice	Further questions were answered about all of the PI in the HIDDen research. This allowed a full final report to be written.	All standards: Agreed purpose for PI and intended outcomes detailed in original grant application - as a basis for impact review and for a series of reports for different audiences such as funders
Spring 2018 / 9 Review phase
Spring 2018	Both public contributors (based at different sites) agreed dissemination input	Analysis of the study from the PI perspective was completed and a final report completed with further possible PI in the dissemination phase indicated. The report forms the basis for this paper	Standard five. Further involvement in dissemination and impact
Spring 2019	HIDDen research continued to be reviewed in terms of The UK Standards	Further Interviews with Principal Investigator to assess the HIDDen research in the light of the newly released UK Standards for Public Involvement in research were undertaken	Standard five impact. Full review of HIDDen research in relation to UK Standards
Summer 2019	Data relating to the revised UK Standards analysed for reporting	Team collaboration was excellent	Standard five reviewing PI impact collaboratively