Research-active Clinicians Research Articles

Enhancing current guidance for psoriatic arthritis and its comorbidities: recommendations from an expert consensus panel.

Existing guidelines for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cover many aspects of management. Some gaps remain relating to routine practice application. An expert group aimed to enhance current guidance and develop recommendations for clinical practice that are complementary to existing guidelines. A steering committee comprising experienced, research-active clinicians in rheumatology, dermatology and primary care agreed on themes and relevant questions. A targeted literature review of PubMed and Embase following a PICO framework was conducted. At a second meeting, recommendations were drafted and subsequently an extended faculty comprising rheumatologists, dermatologists, primary care clinicians, specialist nurses, allied health professionals, non-clinical academic participants and members of the Brit-PACT patient group, was recruited. Consensus was achieved via an online voting platform when 75% of respondents agreed in the range of 7-9 on a 9-point scale. The guidance comprised 34 statements covering four PsA themes. Diagnosis focused on strategies to identify PsA early and refer appropriately, assessment of diagnostic indicators, use of screening tools and use of imaging. Disease assessment centred on holistic consideration of disease activity, physical functioning and impact from a patient perspective, and on how to implement shared decision-making. For comorbidities, recommendations included specific guidance for high-impact conditions such as depression and obesity. Management statements (which excluded extant guidance on pharmacological therapies) covered multidisciplinary team working, implementation of lifestyle modifications and treat-to-target strategies. Minimising corticosteroid use was recommended where feasible. The consensus group have made evidence-based best practice recommendations for the management of PsA to enhance the existing guidelines.

Clinical research in the NHS: a cross-sectional study of research engagement during the monkeypox pandemic

BackgroundRecruitment and retention of clinical academics in the UK is under threat. Acute clinical crises can increase opportunities for clinical research. We aimed to examine research involvement among clinicians working...

Development of a framework and research impact capture tool for nursing, midwifery, allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs)

BackgroundThere is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts.MethodsThe framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations.ResultsThe impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population.ConclusionsThe impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

The RESearch PARamedic Experience (RESPARE) study: a qualitative study exploring the experiences of research paramedics working in the United Kingdom.

The research paramedic position is a relatively niche role undertaken by a small number of paramedics who support, deliver and promote research. Research paramedic roles provide opportunities to develop talented researchers who are recognised as vital elements of developing a research culture within ambulance services. The benefits of research-active clinicians have been recognised at a national level. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of people who work, or have worked, as research paramedics. A generic qualitative approach underpinned by phenomenological concepts was used. Volunteers were recruited via ambulance research leads and social media. Online focus groups allowed participants to discuss their roles with peers who may be geographically distant. Semi-structured interviews expanded on the focus group findings. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using framework analysis. Eighteen paramedics (66% female, median involvement in research six (interquartile range 2-7) years) representing eight English NHS ambulance trusts participated in three focus groups and five interviews lasting around one hour, in November and December 2021.Six key themes were identified: starting as a research paramedic; barriers and facilitators to working as a research paramedic; research careers; opportunities; the community (support and networking); and the value of a clinical identity. Many research paramedics had similar experiences in terms of starting their career by delivering research for large studies, then building on this experience and the networks they create to develop their own research. There are common organisational and financial barriers to working as a research paramedic. Career progression in research beyond the research paramedic role is not well defined, but often involves building links outside of the ambulance service.

Rapid adaptation of a local healthcare digital system to COVID-19: The experience in Birmingham (UK)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented pressure on hospitals globally. Digital tools developed before the crisis provided novel aspects of management, and new digital tools were rapidly developed as the crisis progressed. In our institution, a digitally mature NHS Trust in England which builds software systems, development during the early months of the crisis allowed increased patient safety and care, efficient management of the hospital and publication of data. The aim of this paper is to present this experience as a case study, describing development and lessons learned applicable to wider electronic healthcare record development. MethodsRequest, triage, build and test processes for the digital systems were altered in response to the pandemic. Senior Responsible Officers appointed for the emergency triaged all changes and were supported by expert opinion and research active clinicians. Build and test cycles were compressed. New tools were built or existing ones modified in the central Electronic Healthcare Record, PICS (Prescribing, Information and Communication System), Clinical Dashboards and video platforms for remote consultation were developed. Findings2236 patients were admitted to UHB with suspected COVID-19 between March and May 2020. Dashboards and visualisation tools enabled by efficient real-time data collection for all new patients, contributed to strategic, operational and clinical decision making.Over 70 urgent changes were made to digital systems, including a screening proforma, improved infection control functions, help and order panels, data dashboards, and updated prescribing features. Novel uses were found for existing functions. InterpretationDigital tools contributed to a co-ordinated response to COVID-19 in an area with a high disease burden. Change management processes were modified during the pandemic and successfully delivered rapid software modifications and new tools. Principal benefits came from the ability to adapt systems to rapidly changing clinical situations. Lessons learned from this intense development period are widely applicable to EHR development. Lay summaryDigital tools, which are well designed, can help clinicians and safeguard patients. Health crises such as the COVID pandemic drove rapid development of digital tools. This case study outlines accelerated development within a governance framework that successfully reused existing tools and built new ones. The lessons from this development are generalizable to digital developments in healthcare.

Supporting general adult psychiatry higher trainees to develop research competencies: a training improvement project

AimsEvidence shows that research-active trusts have better clinical patient outcomes. Psychiatric trainees are required to develop knowledge and skills in research techniques and critical appraisal to enable them to practice evidence-based medicine and be research-active clinicians. This project aimed to evaluate and improve the support for developing research competencies available to general adult psychiatry higher trainees (HT) in the North-West of England.MethodGeneral Adult HT in the North–West of England completed a baseline survey in November 2019 to ascertain trainee's experience of research training provision. The following interventions were implemented to address this feedback:A trainee research handbook was produced, containing exemplar activies for developing research competencies and available training opportunities, supervisors and active research studies.The trainee research representative circulated research and training opportunities between November 2019 – August 2020.Research representatives held a trainee Question and Answer session in September 2020.All General Adult HT were asked to complete an electronic survey in November 2020 to evaluate the effect of these interventions.Result18 General Adult HT completed the baseline survey in November 2019. 29.4% of trainees thought they received enough information on research competencies and 88.9% wanted more written guidance. 38.9% of trainees knew who to contact about research within their NHS Trust and 33.3% were aware of current research studies. Identified challenges for meeting research competencies included lack of time, difficulty identifying a mentor and topic and accessibility of projects.20 General Adult HT completed the repeat survey in November 2020. 50% of trainees wanted to be actively involved in research and 35% wanted to develop evidence-based medicine skills. A minority of trainees aimed to complete only the minimum ARCP requirements. All trainees thought the handbook was a useful resource for meeting research competencies and would recommend it to other trainees. In trainees who received the handbook, 94.7% thought they had received adequate support on meeting research competencies and 94.7% knew who to contact about research in their trust. 68.4% of trainees would like further written guidance on meeting research competencies. Trainees highlighted ongoing practical difficulties with engaging with research and concern about lacking required skills for research.ConclusionTrainees are motivated to engage with research on various different levels, not purely for ARCP purposes. Simple interventions can help trainees feel adequately supported with meeting research competencies. Further work to support trainee involvement in research and improve trainee confidence in engaging with research is required.

What is a clinical academic? Qualitative interviews with healthcare managers, research-active nurses and other research-active healthcare professionals outside medicine.

To explore the concept of "clinical academic" from the perspectives of healthcare managers and research-active healthcare professionals outside medicine. Clinical academics are understood to be healthcare professionals who combine clinical and research responsibilities within their role. However, there is no agreed definition for this term either within or across nursing, midwifery and the other healthcare professions outside medicine. Qualitative service evaluation, reported using the COREQ checklist. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of eight healthcare managers and 12 research-active clinicians within a UK hospital group. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method. Clinical academics were described in four themes. Two themes explored the components of the role and the contribution of these individuals to their profession: combining clinical practice, research and education; and pushing boundaries. The third theme identified the clinical academic label as: a title that doesn't fit. The final theme examined a characteristic mindset of research-active clinicians. There were no clear differences in the perceptions of managers and research-active clinicians. Clinical academics were perceived as valuable members of their team and were able to push the boundaries to move their profession forward. Some research-active clinicians did not identify with the term "clinical academic" and for some managers and research-active clinicians, the term was viewed as jargonistic. A clear and accepted definition would aid development of clinical academic career pathways and identities. It would also assist in evaluating the impact of these roles. As clinical academic roles and opportunities are being developed across the professions outside medicine, it is important to have a shared common understanding of "clinical academic" to support the creation of career pathways and curricula, and to enable the evaluation of these roles.

Informing National Health Service patients about participation in clinical research: A comparison of opt-in and opt-out approaches across the United Kingdom.

Objective:Recruitment to clinical research in the National Health Service remains challenging. One barrier is accessing patients to discuss research participation. Two general approaches are used in the United Kingdom to facilitate this: an ‘opt-in’ approach (when clinicians communicate research opportunities to patients) and an ‘opt-out’ approach (all patients have the right to be informed of relevant research opportunities). No evidence-based data are available, however, to inform the decision about which approach is preferable. This study aimed to collect information from ‘opt-in’ and ‘opt-out’ Trusts and identify which of the two approaches is optimal for ensuring National Health Service patients are given opportunities to discuss research participation.Method:This sequential mixed methods study comprised three phases: (1) an Appreciative Inquiry across UK Trusts, (2) online surveys and (3) focus groups with National Health Service staff and patients at a representative mental health Trust.Results:The study was conducted between June and October 2019. Out of seven National Health Service Mental Health Trusts contacted (three ‘opt-out’ and four ‘opt-in’), only four took part in phase 1 of the study and three of them were ‘opt-out’ Trusts. Benefits of an ‘opt-out’ approach included greater inclusivity of patients and the removal of research gatekeepers, while the involvement of research-active clinicians and established patient–clinician relationships were cited as important to ‘opt-in’ success. Phases 2 and 3 were conducted at a different Trust (Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust) which was using an ‘opt-in’ approach. Of 333 staff and member survey responders, 267 (80.2%) favoured moving to an ‘opt-out’ approach (phase 2). Nineteen staff and 16 patients and carers participated in focus groups (phase 3). Concern was raised by staff regarding the lack of time for clinical research, with clinical work taking precedence over research; patients were concerned about a lack of research activity; all considered research to be beneficial and were supportive of a move to ‘opt-out’.Conclusion:Findings suggest that ‘opt-out’ is more beneficial than ‘opt-in’, with the potential to vastly increase patient access to research opportunities and to enable greater equality of information provision for currently marginalised groups. This should ensure that healthcare research is more representative of the entire population, including those with a mental health diagnosis.

Physician-scientist or basic scientist? Exploring the nature of clinicians' research engagement.

Theoretical understanding of what motivates clinician researchers has met with some success in launching research careers, but it does not account for professional identification as a factor determining sustained research engagement over the long-term. Deeper understanding of clinicians' research-related motivation may better foster their sustained research engagement post-training and, by extension, the advancement of medicine and health outcomes. This study used an integrated theoretical framework (Social Cognitive Career Theory and Professional Identity Formation) and appreciative inquiry to explore the interplay of professional identification and research context in shaping post-training research success narratives. To foreground professional identification, 19 research-active clinicians and 17 basic scientists served as interviewees. A multi-institutional, multi-national design was used to explore how contextual factors shape external valuation of research success. The findings suggest that research-active clinicians do not identify as the career scientists implied by the modern physician-scientist construct and the goal of many clinician research-training programs. Their primary identification as care providers shapes their definition of research success around extending their clinical impact; institutional expectations and prevailing healthcare concerns that value this aim facilitate their sustained research engagement. Integrated developmental and organizational interventions adaptive to research context and conducive to a wider range of medical inquiry may better leverage clinicians' direct involvement in patient care and advance progress toward human health and well-being.

Increasing research capacity in a clinical neuropsychology service

A service development initiative to increase research activity was implemented in a large clinical neuropsychology department. The number of research-active clinicians increased from 3 clinicians to 22. Reflections on facilitators and barriers to increasing research practice are presented.

Growing research in geriatric medicine

Academic geriatric medicine activity lags behind the scale of clinical activity in the specialty. A meeting of UK academic geriatricians was convened in March 2018 to consider causes and solutions to this problem. The meeting highlighted a lack of research-active clinicians, a perception that research is not central to the practice of geriatric medicine and a failure to translate discovery science to clinical studies. Solutions proposed included better support for early-career clinical researchers, schemes to encourage non-University clinicians to be research-active, wider collaboration with organ specialists to broaden the funding envelope, and the need to co-produce research programmes with end-users. Solutions to grow academic geriatric medicine are essential if we are to provide the best care for the growing older population.

A Queensland research support network in emergency healthcare.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the structure and impact of a Queensland Research Support Network (RSN) in emergency medicine (EM). This paper presents a descriptive summary of EM networks, network evaluations and the structure and development of the Emergency Medicine Foundation's (EMF) RSN in Queensland, including an observational pre- and post-study of research metrics. In two years, the RSN supported 33 Queensland emergency departments (EDs), of which 14 developed research strategies. There was an increase in research active clinicians, from 23 in 2015 to 181 in 2017. Collaborator engagement increased from 9 in 2015 to 276 in 2017 as did the number of research presentations, from 6 in 2015 to 61 in 2017. EMF experienced a growth in new researchers, with new investigators submitting approximately 60 per cent of grant applications in 2016 and 2017. EMF also received new applications from a further three HHS (taking EMF-funded research activity from 8 to 11 HHS). This paper describes changes in KPIs and research metrics, which the authors attribute to the establishment of the RSN. However, it is possible that attribution bias plays a role in the KPI improvements. This network has actively boosted and expanded EM research capacity and capability in Queensland. It provides services, in the form of on-the-ground managers, to develop novice clinician-researchers, new projects and engage entire EDs. This model may be replicated nationwide but requires funding commitment. The RSN improves front-line clinician research capacity and capability and increases research activity and collaborations with clear community outcomes. Collaborations were extended to community, primary health networks, non-government organisations, national and international researchers and academic institutions. Evaluating and measuring a network's benefits are difficult, but it is likely that evaluations will help networks obtain funding.

Clinician researcher career pathway for registered nurses and midwives: A proposal.

To consider clinician researcher career frameworks and propose a new pathway, integrating university and health service components to support research career progression within nursing and midwifery practice. Hospitals with research-active clinicians report fewer adverse events and better patient outcomes. Nursing clinician researcher career development is therefore an international priority, yet positions and expectations associated with this are not always well articulated, with nurses and midwives challenged to accommodate research and clinical careers. This discussion paper describes nurse/midwife clinician researcher career frameworks and a new pathway that aligns academic and nursing role descriptions. The new framework was informed by a brief literature search for international framework documents, three Australian state-based Nurses and Midwives Awards: the Australian Qualifications Framework, publically available University Academic (Research) Award schedules and academic staff descriptions, and state health department and health services publications. The implementation of research-based practice is a key element of nursing and midwifery roles and "advanced practice" position descriptions have well-defined research expectations. This paper considers structures to support their achievement. This paper provides a blueprint for clinician researcher career development. It elevates the research domain as an equal alongside clinical, managerial and educational clinical career development.

Encouraging student-driven clinical research in Germany: the CHIR-Net SIGMA network.

Evidence should define and guide modern clinical care, yet many relevant questions in surgical practice remain unconfirmed by substantial data. Evidence-based medicine requires both the implementation of its principles in day-to-day work and the acquisition of new evidence preferably by randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. Meaningful clinical research, however, is challenging to conduct, and its overall infrastructure in Germany was, until recently, considered poor compared to other leading countries. Although this has been significantly improved after the establishment of the Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC) and the surgical clinical trial network CHIR-Net, limited focus has been put on the training, teaching, and recruitment of medical students to become competent clinical researchers and clinician scientists. To ensure continuing comprehensive clinical research in surgery, CHIR-Net aims to establish a student-driven multicenter research network in Germany, which is embedded in both the national CHIR-Net and the pan-European and international frameworks. Student-Initiated German Medical Audits (SIGMA) is a product of the strong collaboration between clinical scientists and medical trainees, enabling students to contribute to high-quality clinical trials. Additionally, participants are offered extensive training to support the next generation of research-active clinicians. Starting on 2018, SIGMA will perform its first multicenter observational study in Germany.

Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation

Clinical trials in critical care are often resource-intense, with many unique challenges. Barriers to effective recruitment and implementation of study intervention have not been explored in a UK context. To identify facilitating factors and barriers to enrolling patients into critical care clinical trials within the UK from clinician's perspectives. A qualitative interview study was undertaken on behalf of the National Institute of Health Research critical care specialty group, in which research active clinicians across different Clinical Research Networks were interviewed. A loosely structured interview schedule was used, based on themes generated from the literature associated with accessing critical care trials. Research teams (critical care doctors, research nurses, and trial coordinators) from hospitals from each Clinical Research Network were contacted to try to achieve representation across the UK. Interviews were carried out across nine UK Clinical Research Networks with a range of doctors and research nurses. All hospitals were teaching hospitals with varying research nurse numbers and allocated consultant research sessions. There were a range of six to nine ongoing clinical trials in critical care for each centre representative interviewed. Data were analysed using framework analysis, and six final themes were identified related to factors associated with: centre, unit, resources, study, clinician, and patient/family. The most commonly cited barrier to conducting clinical trials was related to resources, namely insufficient human and financial resources, leading to staff and study recruitment difficulties. Clinical uncertainty and equipoise regarding comparative merits of trials were challenging in terms of engaging critical care teams. A number of patient and family factors added complexities in terms of recruitment; however, refusal rates were generally reported as low. Flexibility in funding and employment by research teams enables continuity of studies and staff. Innovative measures to incentivise research nurses and clinical teams can help recruit more patients into trials. Research teams are highly committed to providing cover to recruit critical care trials, and a significant effort to anticipate barriers is undertaken; these endeavours are summarised to provide guidance for other teams wishing to address any potential difficulties.

How policy can help develop and sustain workforce capacity in UK dementia research: insights from a career tracking analysis and stakeholder interviews

ObjectivesTo identify research support strategies likely to be effective for strengthening the UK's dementia research landscape and ensuring a sustainable and competitive workforce.DesignInterviews and qualitative analysis; systematic internet search to...

Clinical research potential in Victorian hospitals: the Victorian clinician researcher needs analysis survey

The 2012 McKeon Review highlighted the role of clinician researchers in patient based research and the need to foster this capacity. While anecdotal evidence suggests that clinician researchers are under threat and underfunded, Australian data on barriers and enablers of clinician-led research are scant. To describe (i) characteristics of clinician researchers; (ii) for research-active clinicians: areas of research, barriers/enablers of research and factors associated with funding success; and (iii) for research-inactive clinicians: enablers of future research. An online survey distributed through the Bio21 Cluster to clinicians (doctors, nurses, allied health professionals) in 15 Victorian hospitals between November 2011 and January 2012. Seven hundred and seventy of 1027 (75%) of respondents were research-active and were more likely to be male, medical doctors, aged 45-54 years, to work full-time and have a higher degree (all P < 0.01). Of clinicians with a higher degree, 28% were research-inactive. Clinicians identified protected research time (50%), designated research space (42%), clinical trial coordinators (35%), institutional funding (34%) and mentoring (33%) as critical enablers of research. Research-inactive clinicians identified protected research time as the key enabler of future research. To realise recommendations in the McKeon Review, hospitals and research bodies will need to protect research time and provide space and funding. Engaging research-inactive clinicians will build research capacity.

Editor’s Choice

Journal of Advanced Nursing still publishes discussion papers as well as empirical research reports and review papers. A scholarly discussion paper on an important issue for nursing can make a real contribution to professional debate. What has gone wrong with clinical chairs in nursing? This is the question that Philip Darbyshire raises in his discussion paper (pp. 2592–2599) in this issue of JAN. Does Darbyshire provide convincing evidence and cogent argument to support his contention that things have gone wrong? The original idea of clinical (or joint) chairs in nursing was to provide positions, usually jointly supported by a university and a hospital or health service, that would ‘straddle the worlds of academia and clinical practice, developing research and scholarship, building research cultures in clinical areas and bridging the notorious theory-practice gap’ (p. 2593). Darbyshire tells us how, 15 years ago, he left Scotland—where I knew him as a PhD student – to take up a clinical chair in Australia, where there already were 20 or so such posts. Clinical chairs have been introduced in other countries, including the UK, and perhaps it is unsurprising that there have been problems in making these positions work satisfactorily in practice. Whether the situation is universally as dire as the picture Darbyshire paints is difficult to assess objectively. He is, however, absolutely right to draw attention to the impossibility of a clinical chair holder being expected to carry a full workload as a university professor and, in addition, to fulfil the demanding and varied expectations attached to a clinical professor’s role in practice. Likewise, that it is untenable to operate these senior posts on the basis of short term, untenured arrangements. No wonder, for these reasons, it might well be proving difficult to fill vacant or new clinical chair posts with suitably qualified candidates. Those with responsibility for these positions, on both sides – academe and service – really must resolve these issues. Darbyshire makes helpful suggestions at the end of his paper (p. 2598) with regard to selection, joint goal-setting, support, review and communication. His proposal that clinical professors should be left in peace to develop their role without the interference of ‘micromanagement’ is rather more controversial, however appealing is the notion of ‘intelligent accountability’ (p. 2598). But where I most disagree with Darbyshire’s analysis is his contention that the shared understandings and consensus between academe and service may be fragmenting (p. 2596). This relationship always will have inherent tension and divergence because the modus operandi, ethos, priorities and timelines are fundamentally different in universities and health services. There are, however, common goals that transcend these tensions, and what most powerfully binds academe and service together is the shared desire that nursing be a research-based profession. While this always has been a key driving force in academic nursing, it is now, I think, an equally well-understood goal in nursing service. At least in the UK, an unprecedented partnership between academe and service is now developing in order to introduce, at last, opportunities for nurses and midwives to pursue a clinical-academic career pathway, with appropriate training at each stage, and with proper employment contracts in and across the two sectors. The goal of this exciting development is to produce a new generation of research-active clinicians and research leaders for our profession. There is a unique opportunity, therefore, in this context, to create a new blueprint for the role of ‘clinical chair’. It needs to be a realistic role, realistically framed in the context of 21st century universities and health services, but with high aspirations as well. Poisoned chalice? Sad if it has come to that. But it need not be so. What do you think? Let’s continue this discussion in JAN Forum.

A post-take ward round

A post-take ward round