Collaboration For Leadership In Applied Health Research And Care Research Articles

Editorial Perspective: School exclusion is a mental health issue

Editorial Perspective: School exclusion is a mental health issue

From what we know to what we do: lessons learned from the translational CLAHRC initiative in England

There exists a translation gap between academic research and clinical practice in health care systems. One policy-driven initiative to address the translation gap in England are the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR). These aim to bring together NHS organizations and universities to accelerate the translation of evidence-based innovation into clinical practice. Our aim was to draw out lessons for policy-makers regarding the mobilization of such initiatives. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 174 participants across nine CLAHRCs plus in-depth case studies across four CLAHRCs. Those interviewed were staff who were central to the CLAHRCs including senior managers and directors, junior and senior academics, and health care practitioners. Social positions of the CLAHRC leaders, conceived as institutional entrepreneurs, together with the antecedent conditions for CLAHRC bids, had an impact on the vision for a CLAHRC. The process of envisioning encompassed diagnostic and prognostic framing. Within the envisioning process, the utilization of existing activities and established relationships in the CLAHRC bid influenced early mobilization. However, in some cases, it led to a translational 'lock in' towards established models regarding applied research. The CLAHRC experiment in England holds important lessons for policy-makers regarding how to address the translation gap. First, policy makers need to consider whether they set out a defined template for translational initiatives or whether variation is encouraged. We might expect a degree of learning from pilot activities within a CLAHRC that allows for greater clarity in the design of subsequent translational initiatives. Second, policy makers and practitioners need to understand the importance of both antecedent conditions and the social position of senior members of a CLAHRC (institutional entrepreneurs) leading the development of a bid. Whilst established and well-known clinical academics are likely to be trusted to lead CLAHRCs, and the presence of pre-existing organizational relationships are important for mobilization, privileging these aspects may constrain more radical change.

Collaborative action around implementation in Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: towards a programme theory

In theory, greater interaction between researchers and practitioners should result in increased potential for implementation. However, we know little about whether this is the case, or what mechanisms might operate to make it happen. This paper reports findings from a study that is identifying and tracking implementation mechanisms, processes, influences and impacts in real time, over time in the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). This is a longitudinal, realist evaluation case study. The development of the conceptual framework and initial hypotheses involved literature reviewing and stakeholder consultation. Primary data were collected through interviews, observations and documents within three CLAHRCs, and analysed thematically against the framework and hypotheses. The first round of data collection shows that the mechanisms of collaborative action, relationship building, engagement, motivation, knowledge exchange and learning are important to the processes and outcomes of CLAHRCs' activity, including their capacity for implementation. These mechanisms operated in different contexts such as competing agendas, availability of resources and the CLAHRCs' brand. Contexts and mechanisms result in different impact, including the CLAHRCs' approach to implementation, quality of collaboration, commitment and ownership, and degree of sharing and managing knowledge. Emerging features of a middle range theory of implementation within collaboration include alignment in organizational structures and cognitive processes, history of partnerships, responsiveness and resilience in rapidly changing contexts. CLARHCs' potential to mobilize knowledge may be further realized by how they develop insights into their function as collaborative entities.

The enactment of knowledge translation: a study of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care initiative within the English National Health Service.

We contribute to existing knowledge translation (KT) literature by developing the notion of 'enactment' and illustrate this through an interpretative, comparative case-study analysis of three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) initiatives. We argue for a focus on the way in which the CLAHRC model has been 'enacted' as central to the different KT challenges and capabilities encountered. A comparative, mixed method study created a typology of enactments (Classical, Home-grown and Imported) using qualitative analysis and social network analysis. We identify systematic differences in the enactment of the CLAHRC model. The sources of these different enactments are subsequently related to variation in formative interpretations and leadership styles, the implementation of different governance structures, and the relative epistemic differences between the professional groups involved. Enactment concerns the creative agency of individuals and groups in constituting a particular context for their work through their local interpretation of a particular KT model. Our theory of enactment goes beyond highlighting variation between CLAHRCs, to explore the mechanisms that influence the way a particular model is interpreted and acted upon. We thus encourage less focus on conceptual models and more on the formative role played by leaders of KT initiatives.

Accelerating the adoption and diffusion of disinvestment initiatives: is a NICE way the right way?

BackgroundWith the NHS facing one of its toughest periods financially, most, if not all, primary care trusts (PCTs) in England have started to prioritise services and sought to identify those that are either ineffective or of low clinical value for disinvestment. Although the notion of disinvestment (withdrawal of health services from an existing health-care service that is considered to deliver little or no health gain for its cost) has an obvious logic, since the practical implementation of disinvestment decisions has proven to be both controversial and problematic. The absence of a nationally accepted list of identified procedures has resulted in PCTs developing their own approaches, with many applying different priority thresholds to different procedures. This approach has created several so-called black lists of interventions that will either not be funded or their commissioning severely curtailed. With the uptake and diffusion of disinvestment decisions often affected by a range of social, financial, professional, and institutional factors rather than clinical evidence, a postcode lottery in provision has ensued across the UK. We aimed to develop an evidence-based approach towards disinvestment, which will be piloted across the UK southwest peninsula before a national roll-out. MethodsWorking in collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) research and development team, the project used NICE's do not do (DND) database to identify topics for potential disinvestment in the NHS. Each DND recommendation was formed from a debate by the independent guideline development group, who were guided by evidence presented to them by the technical team from one of the national guideline centres, which identifies specific practices as not on balance beneficial, as unsafe, or with insufficient evidence to support its continued use. These practices are then placed on the online DND database. We identified DNDs on the basis of treatments with evidence suggesting that they are ineffective or of low clinical value from the DND database, which contains 799 records. We excluded from the study DNDs relating solely to clinical safety. Procedures were further prioritised by clinical experts in participating pilot implementation sites in the southwest peninsula, who were asked to review populated lists of DNDs to ensure: clinical soundness; practicality of implementation; and any DND of potential high effect locally. We used Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data to collate volumes of DNDs still being undertaken in the NHS to give an estimate of overall usage and potential effect. Each DND identified was subjected to a cost analysis to provide an estimate of potential savings locally. FindingsWe identified 209 DND topics developed between 2007 and 2012 for use in the study. After local clinical prioritisation and exploration of HES data to give an estimate of usage, we identified 30 procedures for a pilot disinvestment programme solely from the NICE DND database. InterpretationThe study successfully developed an evidence-based approach towards disinvestment through the identification of ineffective and low clinical value treatments from the NICE DND database. Additional planned research that will implement the pilot list across the southwest peninsula will provide valuable information about the practical implications of disinvestment initiatives and identify any incentives or disincentives for future developments. National data will be collated before a national roll-out. FundingNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West.

Managing boundaries in primary care service improvement: a developmental approach to communities of practice.

BackgroundEffective implementation of change in healthcare organisations involves multiple professional and organisational groups and is often impeded by professional and organisational boundaries that present relatively impermeable barriers to sharing knowledge and spreading work practices. Informed by the theory of communities of practice (CoPs), this study explored the effects of intra-organisational and inter-organisational boundaries on the implementation of service improvement within and across primary healthcare settings and on the development of multiprofessional and multi-organisational CoPs during this process.MethodsThe study was conducted within the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester—a collaborative partnership between the University of Manchester and local National Health Service organisations aiming to undertake applied health research and enhance its implementation in clinical practice. It deployed a qualitative embedded case study design, encompassing semistructured interviews, direct observation and documentary analysis, conducted in 2010–2011. The sample included practice doctors, nurses, managers and members of the CLAHRC implementation team.FindingsThe study showed that in spite of epistemic and status differences, professional boundaries between general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers co-located in the same practice over a relatively long period of time could be successfully bridged, leading to the formation of multiprofessional CoPs. While knowledge circulated relatively easily within these CoPs, barriers to knowledge sharing emerged at the boundary separating them from other groups existing in the same primary care setting. The strongest boundaries, however, lay between individual general practices, with inter-organisational knowledge sharing and collaboration between them remaining unequally developed across different areas due to historical factors, competition and strong organisational identification. Manipulated emergence of multi-organisational CoPs in the context of primary care may thus be problematic.ConclusionsIn cases when manipulated emergence of new CoPs is problematic, boundary issues could be addressed by adopting a developmental perspective on CoPs, which provides an alternative to the analytical and instrumental perspectives previously described in the CoP literature. This perspective implies a pragmatic, situational approach to mapping existing CoPs and their characteristics and potentially modifying them in the process of service improvement through the combination of internal and external facilitation.

OC-031 Development of a collaborative inpatient alcohol strategy

IntroductionAlcohol-related medical admissions rise by 10% every year at The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, frequently readmitting patients to the medical wards. We sought to work collaboratively, crossing traditional boundaries...

Research into practice: Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire (NDL)

BackgroundTo address the problem of translation from research-based evidence to routine healthcare practice, the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Lincolnshire (CLAHRC-NDL) was funded by the National Institute for Health Research as one of nine CLAHRCs across England. This paper outlines the underlying theory and its application that CLAHRC-NDL has adopted, as a case example that might be generalised to practice outside the CLAHRC, in comparison to alternative models of implementation.DiscussionConventional approaches to health research frequently generate evidence in isolation from the environment in which it is intended for use. The premise of the CLAHRC-NDL model is that barriers to implementation can be overcome if knowledge is co-produced by academic and clinical service staff, taking account of the organisational context in which it is to be applied. This approach is founded on organisational learning theory, recognising that change is a social and political phenomenon. Evidence is produced in real time, taking full account of the environment in which it is to be implemented. To support this process, senior health service staff are seconded to the CLAHRC as ‘diffusion fellows’ (DFs) to actively bridge the research to practice gap by being a full member of both the research team and their area of clinical practice. To facilitate innovation and embed change in the local health community, existing communities of practice are enhanced and new ones are fostered around specific themes. Our approach has been adopted by 16 clinical research studies in the areas of mental health, children and young people, primary care, and stroke rehabilitation.SummaryThe CLAHRC-NDL model of implementation applies organisational learning theory by addressing the social and situational barriers and enablers to implementation, and adopting a philosophy of co-production. Two key mechanisms for translation of innovation have been utilised: DFs, to actively bridge the research to practice gap, and communities of practice, to underpin and sustain improvements in healthcare. The model shows promising results in putting research into practice, which may be transferable to other healthcare contexts.

Understanding the management of early-stage chronic kidney disease in primary care: a qualitative study.

Primary care is recognised to have an important role in the delivery of care for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, there is evidence that CKD management is currently suboptimal, with a range of practitioner concerns about its management. To explore processes underpinning the implementation of CKD management in primary care. Qualitative study in general practices participating in a chronic kidney disease collaborative undertaken as part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and practice nurses (n = 21). Normalisation Process Theory provided a framework for generation and analysis of the data. A predominant theme was anxiety about the disclosure of early-stage CKD with patients. The tensions experienced related to identifying and discussing CKD in older people and patients with stage 3A, embedding early-stage CKD within vascular care, and the distribution of work within the practice team. Participants provided accounts of work undertaken to resolve the difficulties encountered, with efforts having tended to focus on reassuring patients. Analysis also highlighted how anxiety surrounding disclosure influenced, and was shaped by, the organisation of care for people with CKD and associated long-term conditions. Offering reassurance alone may be of limited benefit, and current management of early-stage CKD in primary care may miss opportunities to address susceptibility to kidney injury, improve self-management of vascular conditions, and improve the management of multimorbidity.

The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs

The limited extent to which research evidence is utilised in healthcare and other public services is widely acknowledged. The United Kingdom government has attempted to address this gap by funding nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). CLAHRCs aim to carry out health research, implement research findings in local healthcare organisations and build capacity across organisations for generating and using evidence. This wide-ranging brief requires multifaceted approaches; assessing CLAHRCs’ success thus poses challenges for evaluation. This paper discusses these challenges in relation to seven CLAHRC evaluations, eliciting implications and suggestions for others evaluating similarly complex interventions with diverse objectives.

The NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy.

BackgroundIn response to policy recommendations, nine National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were established in England in 2008, aiming to create closer working between the health service and higher education and narrow the gap between research and its implementation in practice. The Greater Manchester (GM) CLAHRC is a partnership between the University of Manchester and twenty National Health Service (NHS) trusts, with a five-year mission to improve healthcare and reduce health inequalities for people with cardiovascular conditions. This paper outlines the GM CLAHRC approach to designing and evaluating a large-scale, evidence- and theory-informed, context-sensitive implementation programme.DiscussionThe paper makes a case for embedding evaluation within the design of the implementation strategy. Empirical, theoretical, and experiential evidence relating to implementation science and methods has been synthesised to formulate eight core principles of the GM CLAHRC implementation strategy, recognising the multi-faceted nature of evidence, the complexity of the implementation process, and the corresponding need to apply approaches that are situationally relevant, responsive, flexible, and collaborative. In turn, these core principles inform the selection of four interrelated building blocks upon which the GM CLAHRC approach to implementation is founded. These determine the organizational processes, structures, and roles utilised by specific GM CLAHRC implementation projects, as well as the approach to researching implementation, and comprise: the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework; a modified version of the Model for Improvement; multiprofessional teams with designated roles to lead, facilitate, and support the implementation process; and embedded evaluation and learning.SummaryDesigning and evaluating a large-scale implementation strategy that can cope with and respond to the local complexities of implementing research evidence into practice is itself complex and challenging. We present an argument for adopting an integrative, co-production approach to planning and evaluating the implementation of research into practice, drawing on an eclectic range of evidence sources.

Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships: a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC).

BackgroundThe English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a natural 'test bed' for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery. This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances.Design and methodsThis study is a longitudinal three-phase, multi-method realistic evaluation, which deliberately aims to explore the boundaries around knowledge use in context. The evaluation funder wishes to see it conducted for the process of learning, not for judging performance. The study is underpinned by a conceptual framework that combines the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Knowledge to Action frameworks to reflect the complexities of implementation. Three participating CLARHCS will provide in-depth comparative case studies of research implementation using multiple data collection methods including interviews, observation, documents, and publicly available data to test and refine hypotheses over four rounds of data collection. We will test the wider applicability of emerging findings with a wider community using an interpretative forum.DiscussionThe idea that collaboration between academics and services might lead to more applicable health research that is actually used in practice is theoretically and intuitively appealing; however the evidence for it is limited. Our evaluation is designed to capture the processes and impacts of collaborative approaches for implementing research, and therefore should contribute to the evidence base about an increasingly popular (e.g., Mode two, integrated knowledge transfer, interactive research), but poorly understood approach to knowledge translation. Additionally we hope to develop approaches for evaluating implementation processes and impacts particularly with respect to integrated stakeholder involvement.

Translating research into practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiPLaB): a protocol for a programme of research

BackgroundThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has funded nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). Each CLAHRC is a partnership between higher education institutions (HEIs) and the NHS in nine UK regional health economies. The CLAHRC for Leeds, York, and Bradford comprises two 'research themes' and three 'implementation themes.' One of these implementation themes is Translating Research into Practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiPLaB). TRiPLaB aims to develop, implement, and evaluate methods for inducing and sustaining the uptake of research knowledge into practice in order to improve the quality of health services for the people of Leeds and Bradford.MethodsTRiPLaB is built around a three-stage, sequential, approach using separate, longitudinal case studies conducted with collaborating NHS organisations, TRiPLaB will select robust innovations to implement, conduct a theory-informed exploration of the local context using a variety of data collection and analytic methods, and synthesise the information collected to identify the key factors influencing the uptake and adoption of targeted innovations. This synthesis will inform the development of tailored, multifaceted, interventions designed to increase the translation of research findings into practice. Mixed research methods, including time series analysis, quasi-experimental comparison, and qualitative process evaluation, will be used to evaluate the impact of the implementation strategies deployed.ConclusionTRiPLaB is a theory-informed, systematic, mixed methods approach to developing and evaluating tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing the translation of research-based findings into practice in one UK health economy. Through active collaboration with its local NHS, TRiPLaB aims to improve the quality of health services for the people of Leeds and Bradford and to contribute to research knowledge regarding the interaction between context and adoption behaviour in health services.

Tapping the potential of the National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) to develop research capacity and capability in nursing

Nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were established by the National Institute of Health Research in 2008 with the remit to undertake high-quality applied health research and support the translation of research findings into practice within the National Health Service in England. Each CLAHRC represents a collaborative partnership between one or more universities and their neighbouring NHS organisations. This investment in research infrastructure presents considerable opportunities for nursing to develop capacity and capability to undertake research and knowledge translation activity and support clinical academic careers. However, in order for the potential of CLAHRCs to be realised investment in nursing leadership is required.

Review: Tapping the potential of the National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) to develop research capacity and capability in nursing

Review: Tapping the potential of the National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) to develop research capacity and capability in nursing

The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland (LNR): a programme protocol

BackgroundIn October 2008, the National Institute for Health Research launched nine new research projects to develop and investigate methods of translating research evidence into practice. Given the title Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC), all involve collaboration between one or more universities and the local health service, but they are adopting different approaches to achieve translation.MethodsThe translation and implementation programme of this CLAHRC has been built around a pragmatic framework for undertaking research to address live concerns in the delivery of care, in partnership with the managers, practitioners, and patients of the provider organisations of the CLAHRC. Focused on long-term conditions, the constituent research themes are prevention, early detection, self-management, rehabilitation, and implementation. Individual studies have various designs, and include both randomised trials of new ways to deliver care and qualitative studies of, for example, means of identifying barriers to research translation. A mix of methods will be used to evaluate the CLAHRC as a whole, including use of public health indicators, social research methods, and health economics.DiscussionThis paper describes one of the nine collaborations, that of Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, and Rutland. Drawing a distinction between translation as an organising principle for healthcare providers and implementation as a discrete activity, this collaboration is built on a substantial programme of applied research intended to create both research generation and research use capacity in provider organisations. The collaboration in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, and Rutland has potential to provide evidence on how partnerships between practitioners, patients, and researchers can improve the transfer of evidence into practice.

Mitsui Chemicals in Singapore collaboration

International attention has focussed on the variations between research evidence and practice in healthcare. This prompted the creation of formalized translational networks consisting of academic-service partnerships. The English Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) are one example of a translational network. Using longitudinal, archival case study data from one CLAHRC over a 3-year period (2008-11), this article explores the relationship between organizational form and the function(s) of a translational network. The article focuses on the research gaps on the effective structures and appropriate governance to support a translational network. Data analysis suggested that the policy of setting up translational networks is insufficient of itself to produce positive translational activity. The data indicate that to leverage the benefits of the whole network, attention must be paid to devising a structure which integrates research production and use and facilitates lateral cross-disciplinary and cross-organizational communication. Equally, appropriate governance arrangements are necessary, particularly in large, multi-stakeholder networks, where shared governance may be questionable. Inappropriate network structure and governance inhibits the potential of the translational network. Finally, the case provides insights into the movement of knowledge within and between network organizations. The data demonstrate that knowledge mobilization extends beyond knowledge translation; knowledge mobilization includes the negotiated utilization of knowledge – a balanced power form of collaboration. Whilst much translational effort is externally focused on the health system, our findings highlight the essential need for the internal negotiation and mobilization of knowledge within academia.