Blogs

I was delighted to be asked to work with the NIHR, NHSE, NHSi, and UKRD on behalf of the NHS R&D Forum to develop a guide to support organisations with embedding research into everyday clinical practice and help fulfil the research components of the CQC Well Led Framework; the result was Best Patent Care, Clinical Research and You.

The guide outlines how each group of staff within an organisation has a role to play in research wherever they work in an organisation; that maybe being able to signpost people to someone in the research team, to clinical staff identifying potential recruits to senior managers enabling and leading the organisation’s research endeavour.

The guide is now ready to download from the NHS R&D Forum website for adapting and localising and uploading onto your organisation’s sites.

A mock-up site is also available ‘Best Patient Care, Clinical Research and You (Mock-Up)’ that will help you see how the guide is structured and where you can localise it for your own organisational needs

As difficult and challenging as this past year or so has been, I have seen many staff realise just how important supporting research is and I hope that we can harness this enthusiasm and make research part of each patient, career, and staff’s journey in the NHS

I hope that you find the tool as useful as I have for providing insightful and valuable information to our staff who can choose to view as little or as much as they like.  I also hope it incentivises staff in your organisation to want to know more about how this activity we all know and love, improves patient care and outcomes.

COVID-19 has undoubtably changed the way we work.  We have all been impacted by new processes and requirements, have had to adapt and adjust our systems and grappled with the cycle of constant changes in what continues to be one of the most testing times.  Despite tremendous pressure the research and development community has continued to evolve, share and develop resources ultimately delivering research studies at an unprecedented pace and scale.

It is hard to believe that the NHS R&D Forum COVID Coffee initiative started 9 months ago. A weekly virtual meeting where R&D Forum working group members can review developments, share practice and support each other whilst gaining a national perspective of the practical issues affecting the development and delivery of research.

Insights gleaned from the Forums virtual voices at COVID Coffee remain as invaluable today as the day it started, helping the R&D community remain agile, at the forefront of COVID research and the go to place for considering immediate actions and exploring wider solutions going forward. The Forum senior leadership team continue to work alongside the R&D community to investigate, escalate and action issues as they arise simultaneously keeping DHSC and Industry aware of the challenges the R&D community face to deliver COVID-19 research at pace and scale.

COVID Coffee has and continues to facilitate detailed dialog with regulatory bodies such as the Health Research Authority and MHRA whilst enabling the NIHR national leadership team to understand the experiences, challenges and changes required to successfully undertake research during the COVID-19 pandemic.  It is this regular attendance from both the HRA and NIHR that enables the R&D Forum to be a catalyst for change, flattening silos as partners hear direct from a representative sample of the R&D community and work together to provide solutions.

Key to the success of the Forum COVID Coffee has been three key values – honesty, kindness and compassion all of which abundantly resonate throughout each meeting.  Members show a genuine desire to learn, support and help each other, sharing innovative initiatives to complex COVID challenges, new ways of working and openly feeding back on their experiences.  This tremendous collegiality is what makes the Forum COVID Coffee such a fantastic initiative.  Furthermore, following COVID Coffee, examples of best practices and associated COVID related research resources are uploaded to the Forums Resource Exchange (REX) a free online access platform where anyone can access the resources.

As 2020 draws to a close, it is important as a community we reflect and learn from what has been achieved during an extraordinary year.  Despite exceptionally challenging circumstances the R&D community has remained focused, embracing flexibility, levering technology and streamlining policies and procedures to deliver high quality research at pace and scale.  Whilst part of this has been down to the unique circumstances the Forums COVID Coffee has played a noteworthy part strengthening national research relationships, empowering and driving change and keeping the research community engaged and motivated. It continues to lead, shape and help the R&D community thrive and connect.

 

 

Advancing Rapid Evaluation: Challenges & Opportunties An event summary and ‘take-aways’

By Siân Jones

Head of Primary Care Engagement

West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN)

I work at an Academic Health Science Network where I have continued to develop my long-term interest in producing and using evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. AHSNs buy or provide evaluation services to inform scale up or stopping of initiatives. Clients/members want a result fast! So this high profile Rapid Evaluation event led by Nuffield Trust and three national evaluation centres in January was spot on in getting the conversations going and airing hopes and fears for a speedier approach to knowing what works.

My summary points from the day, from talks and workshops:

Rapid evaluation is called for more than ever as real world testing increases

1. Can be used to ‘course correct’, ie because findings come earlier there is opportunity to make changes to intervention/service/pathway
2. It is possible to be rapid and not lose rigour; review and shorten evaluation timeline
3. Be clear what is needed from the evaluation: determine what is ‘good enough’
4. Involve public/lay reps in defining if something works: who’s view informs success of an intervention/service?
5. For scaling up, rapid evaluation may not be right for all scenarios, as there will be less precision than is needed for some situations
6. Remember there is often data available already – seek out these opportunities early on in planning
7. Analysis and use of data is a skill – not the job of one person, but team rich with skills (qualitative, quantitative)
8. Rapid evaluation is not always appropriate – evaluability: when is it suitable

• Clarify what is needed from the evaluation; this will inform the process of creating evidence
• Embed rapid evaluation cycle into organisation
• Appreciate and balance wants (academics) vs needs (service side/practitioners)
• Specific skills are needed for rapid evaluation
• Support staff to get involved to increase ownership of the evaluation (requires skilling up)
• Remember the ‘people side’ – embedded anthropologist – culture, behaviours
• Be clear what the responsibility is of all, including evaluation partners
• Co-produce the evaluation, using this as a way to manage expectations of commissioners of evaluation, run through scenarios of evaluation outcomes (what if…)

This is the link to the slides:

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/event/advancing-rapid-evaluation-challenges-and-opportunities

Also to keep an eye out for blogs etc https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/project/rset-the-rapid-service-evaluation-team

Three ‘take-aways’ from Prof John Appleby (Chair of the event), Director of Research & Chief Economist, Nuffield Trust

1. Model alternative outcomes of the rapid evaluation (ie ‘if this happens…’) to manage expectation
2. Use logic models in planning – great tool for helping with complexity and uncertainty in rapid evaluation
3. Scope to increase speed of process without losing quality

Authors: Claire L. Whitehouse (@ClaireW_UK) & Hazel A. Smith (@smithhazelann)

The Whitehouse Report was launched in England on 7th June 2018, Ireland on 8th June 2018 and Scotland on 14thJune 2018. At the time of writing Welsh and Northern Irish launches are pending. The report is a culmination of a Florence Nightingale Foundation Travel Scholarship during 2017 which sought to review structures and strategies for clinical research nursing and midwifery across the UK and Ireland. This blog provides a brief overview of the project, and a summary of results. The full report can be downloaded here 

Networking and participation

34 sites participated across five countries and 88 staff were directly included in the project, from Government representatives to individual sites, and from Research Nurses and Midwives to Chief Executives. Initial identification of sites was through #WhyWeDoResearch social media twitter campaign (www.whywedoresearch.weebly.com) and the Florence Nightingale Foundation Chairs Network.

 

Executive Summary of the Report

Structures

• Structures of CRN/M delivery teams varied by site and by country; there is currently no model which fits every organisation. Information identified within this project shows pitfalls to avoid for those in early stages of research team development, following experiences shared by those in larger departments. For more established research teams this project highlights good working practices to continue to develop and maintain a core CRN/M team. Smaller organisations demonstrated many good working practices which larger organisation were, and are, able to adopt.

Judging success

• Sites judge ‘success’ on team development, growth, progress and staff and patient experiences, alongside awareness, and where possible achievement of national targets and policies. Organisations/funding bodies base success on targets and policies as a priority to demonstrate quantitative evidence of impact. Many representatives within these organisations however, are moving towards other qualitative routes, recognising that not all impact is demonstrable through figures.

Meaningful oversight

• A meaningful oversight post with nursing/midwifery AND research background, as well as a strong patient focus, is critical to forging progress for CRN/M teams. This role also impacts the likelihood of active nursing/ midwifery research within an organisation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engagement

• Engagement of Trust/Hospital Executive Teams and true commitment to research objectives and ambitions impacts team progress, structures and consequent availability of studies to patients.

Strategies for growth (click picture to download the full report)

• Strategies for growth are viewed as essential by all organisations, however success or lack of strategy correlates with the success or lack of a clear research infrastructure.
• Successful strategies are inclusive of those who they will impact at planning stages; full consultation exercises and opportunities to input ideas are Strategies are unsuccessful or have a lack of ‘buy in’ from teams where the above processes do not occur or are implemented by individuals/groups whose roles are not strategic (or they are unaware of the detail within the roles they are altering).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funding

 

• Funding is a major issue with both positive and negative impacts however the link to Executive Teams and their understanding of, and active commitment to, research is viewed as an over-riding factor. This also relates to external funders having clear understanding of issues and celebrations at each site when allocating funds at annual timepoints.

 

Demonstrating impact

• Demonstrating impact and raising research awareness is high on all agendas fro individuals to Government bodies. To enable demonstration of impact, support must be available from all organisations and sites, led from the top. Nurses and midwives need to be encouraged, supported and given dedicated time away from the clinical environment to publish and disseminate their work.

      Mis-matching priorities

• There appears to be a mis-match between national organisations and local sites around priorities, structures and level of progress. For example, nationally (all countries) there is a desire to implement nurse/midwife PI roles, however in many areas locally, this has been happening for some time. Increased collaboration and improved communication routes may assist in sharing these working practices more freely and easily, preventing duplication.

    National events and showcasing

• Excellent National Events are held in all five countries which showcase work being undertaken by CRN/M teams and nurse / midwife researchers. There are also some exceptional local symposiums demonstrating effective impacts in improving awareness of the roles and patient care.

Information gained through the scholarship assisted in the development of the first Model for Developing Clinical Research Nursing and Midwifery structures: The Whitehouse-Smith Model (2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflection

The scholarship itself was an incredible experience and the breadth of wonderful work being undertaken across the UK and Ireland is inspirational. As research nurses and midwives, we need to truly showcase just how fantastic this work in the UK and Ireland is by publishing our work, and accepting that it is worthy of global recognition. We are used to ‘getting on with it’, always looking to the next step, sometimes without stopping to realise just how profound an impact the work we do is having on our patients, who after all are at the heart of all we do.

Written by: Sally Humphreys, Chair of the Forum Research Management Working Group

May 12th, International Nurses Day, offers us all an opportunity to reflect on the valuable contribution that nurses bring to the research community and thank them for their continued dedication, commitment and hard work.  First declared in January 1974, and now celebrated annually around the world International Nurses Day commemorates the anniversary of the birth of Florence Nightingale.

Originally portrayed by the Times Newspaper as ‘the Lady of the Lamp1,  Florence Nightingale was a systemic thinker, a passionate statistician and social reformist who is widely considered the founder of modern nursing. As an innovative healthcare research methodologist, she believed that not only was it necessary to collect scientific data but that the data collection tools used should be valid and reliable and once analysed the data findings should be appropriately communicated, comprehensible to both lay and professional people.

Florence Nightingale was also a pioneer in the graphical representation of data.  At a time when research reports were only beginning to include tabular data, Florence Nightingale used polar-area diagrams where the statistic being represented is proportional to the area of the wedge in a circular diagram2.  The precise organisation of Nightingale’s chart allowed her to represent complex information layered in a single space.

Persuading people of the need for change, Florence Nightingale used her graphics as visual tools to convey the information that deaths were preventable if sanitation reforms were implemented in military and civilian hospitals.  Working across care settings and organisational boundaries, she revolutionised the idea that social phenomena could be objectively measured and conveyed a call to action.

Fast forward to 2018 and what has changed? Florence Nightingale’s statistical innovations and social reforms remain as important today as they were in the mid-nineteenth century.  Nurses no longer carry lamps or wear capes but they remain vital to the research community. Not only do nurses involved in research provide and deliver high quality patient care, they collect robust research data using valid and reliable tools, undertake quantitative and qualitative data analysis, collaborate extensively with international colleagues and are research leaders and change agents in their own right.

In 1860, Florence Nightingale established the first professional training school for nurses, the Nightingale Training School at St Thomas’ Hospital. Nurses today are highly trained, well-educated, critical thinkers enabling them to make complex decisions which in Nightingale’s era would almost certainly have been made by a physician.  Committed to evidence based practice, nursing has evolved into the most trusted profession in Britain with 94% of people believing that nurses tell the truth3.

Nurses working in research have important, diverse skills which enable them to clearly articulate the risks and benefits to those considering participating in research, supporting individuals, families and communities throughout their research journey.  It is a fantastic and privileged job that is not always understood. A clinical research nurse’s role extends beyond identifying and recruiting research participants to education, leadership and management.  Nurses develop, maintain and build multi-disciplinary teams to create a clinical research culture that is both patient and public focused.  They act as experts on Research Ethics Committees to protect the interests of research participants whilst at the same time facilitating ethical research and increasingly manage research and innovation departments and associated financial budgets.  Nurses work as trial managers, research facilitators, monitors, coordinators and nurse researchers, providing expertise and skills across the whole life cycle of the research process.  Many teach in academic settings, write competitive grant applications and research reports for professional journals and publications. They also disseminate research findings at conferences and meetings.

As the NHS marks its 70thbirthday, it is time to celebrate the vital diverse contribution that nurses have made to its success, and how the profession has evolved since Florence Nightingale’s era. Celebrating International Nurses Day is a wonderful way to honour the invaluable work that nurses past and present have and continue to contribute to the research community, to highlight their dynamic role and say two very simple words, ‘thank you’.

1. National Army Museum Florence Nightingale Lady of the Lamp https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/florence-nightingale-lady-lampAccessed 06/05/2018
2. Friendly M (2008) The Golden Age of Statistical Graphics Statistical Science23 (4) 502-535
3. Ipsos Mori (2017) Veracity Index 2017: Ipsos Mori

Members from across the Forum attended a multi-stakeholder meeting on the 6th March with representation from UK partners including the HRA, NIHR, Health & Care Research Wales, NHS England, The Association of Medical Research Charities and Northern Ireland. The snows sadly thwarted NHS Research Scotland and a few delegates, but we had good representation from across the community despite the weather.

The meeting was convened between the Forum and NIHR to discuss how we can add value to research through research management, support and leadership practice with thanks to NIHR colleagues for their support.

We first heard from Matt Westmore, Chief Operating Officer at NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre about the well-established NIHR framework for adding value in research (AViR) and the group spent some time providing feedback on how this presents from the perspective of an NHS organisation rather than a research project. We were delighted to influence and help shape an adding value framework for R&D, and the group had some strong views on how it might be developed further for presentation at the Forum annual conference in May.

Discussions were held on the purpose of the framework and how it might be used to help shape a quality research culture, where the “users” of research are at an organisational level (ranging from Patients to clinicians, to commissioners and the Board) and that communicating the value in research conducted was perhaps as important as ensuring that the value in research exists. Examples of what we do well now were shared and we took time to look at how we might move forward in creating really practical steps for the community in support of the value in research. Notes from the day are being compiled for sharing and work continues on the framework for presentation.

What was striking from the day was the passion the delegates had for communicating value and ensuring research impact, that regulation is seen as an enabling stream (not a standard in itself), and that research value is just as much about culture as it is about a good project.

We were very careful through out the day to focus on the value of research itself and not our value as research managers and research leaders, however in developing this framework we should, by extension, develop in our roles.

By Dr Leon Jonker and Dr Stacey Fisher, CRN-funded research staff at Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

For over a decade now, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has spent more than 1 billion GBP per year on the provision of research grants and a research workforce, the latter via the Clinical Research Networks (CRN). There is a rigorous performance management system in place for NIHR-funded studies, and studies aimed to benefit patients directly are favoured for grants. Yet, despite this very sizeable outlay, there has been a lack of published studies that have assessed whether this funding has been worth it in terms of the wider impact that research activity may have on NHS Trusts that host and deliver it. Furthermore, many publications and presentations have been claiming that clinical research is a good thing for both patients and for the NHS in general. Only in recent years has some evidence surfaced which suggests that this is indeed the case. Reduced mortality rates have been linked with increased NIHR-adopted clinical research activity and academic output within NHS Trusts respectively.1,2 Furthermore, it has been shown that even patients allocated to a placebo arm may have better outcomes than patients not enrolled in a clinical trial. However, other cohort studies investigating the potential associations between research activity and other patient and organisational outcome measures, including hospital length-of-stay and adherence to clinical guidelines, have produced more mixed results.4,5

Why would this kind of evidence be of use for staff working in a NHS R&D Department? Well, from personal experience we can say that any data that justifies the introduction of research studies into a NHS Trust will at least go some way to convincing less-inclined clinical teams and clinicians to embrace over time research taking place. Furthermore, on a more regional and national strategic level, it may contribute to research being seen as a ‘core business’. For a number of years now, we have sought to investigate the effect of NIHR clinical research activity on a NHS Trust performance. We were particularly keen to use readily available source data. Therefore, in our studies we tested the hypothesis that NIHR-adopted clinical research activity in NHS Trusts is associated with improved mortality rates, represented by the Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI), and better organisational performance, represented by Care Quality Commission (CQC) ratings. An initial effort – using very much a snapshot set of data covering just a single year – failed to unearth any sign that there may be a positive association between research activity and mortality / CQC rating.6 In our latest published paper7 on this subject, we addressed this by looking at multiple years for both NIHR research activity and mortality rates – CQC ratings do not necessarily change every year. Furthermore, we controlled Trust size with the size of each Trust’s workforce. Our main findings were:

• Increased NIHR–adopted clinical trial activity is significantly associated with reduced mortality.
• Increased NIHR–adopted clinical trial activity is significantly associated with better CQC ratings.
• Particularly, the number of clinical trial (ie interventional research) patients correlates with improved hospital performance.
• The link between clinical trials activity and quality is not Trust-size dependent.

These results may not come as a surprise, and the link between research activity and lower mortality confirms findings by others. The two novel findings from the datasets we used are that there is a significant association between the number of studies and participants with both a Trust’s CQC rating. Additionally, that the number of participants recruited into interventional studies in particular is correlated with lower mortality and better CQC ratings. On the back of these results should we therefore drop observational studies (genome-wide association studies, bulk of qualitative studies, survey studies, etc) and instantly incorporate research elements into CQC standards? No would be the answer to that question because, for example, observational studies often inform the design of an interventional study, and our retrospective cross-sectional study can only identify correlation and not causation. Due to the scale involved to prospectively test such an impact, we may never unearth the exact mechanisms behind this observation (is it more up-to-date clinical teams, more funding, actual efficacy of trial interventions, or a myriad of factors?). Nonetheless, our findings do add to the limited amount of evidence that clinical research activity will probably have a positive wider impact on a NHS Trust’s overall performance

1. Bennett WO, Bird JH, Burrows SA, Counter PR, & Reddy VM. Does academic output correlate with better mortality rates in NHS trusts in England? Public Health, 2012;126:S40-3.
2. Ozdemir BA, Karthikesalingam A, Sinha S, et al. Research activity and the association with mortality. PLoS One, 2015;10:
3. Downing A, Morris EJ, Corrigan N et al. High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut, 2017;66:89-96.
4. Clarke, M., & Loudon, K. (2011). Effects on patients of their healthcare practitioner’s or institution’s participation in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials, 12(1), 16.
5. Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, & Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ open, 2015;5:e009415.
6. Jonker L, Fisher SJ. NHS Trusts’ clinical research activity and overall CQC performance–Is there a correlation?. Public health, 2015;129:1491-5.
7. Jonker L, Fisher SJ. The correlation between National Health Service trusts’ clinical trial activity and both mortality rates and care quality commission ratings: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Public health. 2018 Apr 1;157:1-6.

 

he Annual R&D Forum is now open for oral presentation and poster abstracts.  It brings an exciting opportunity to share your best practice, knowledge, ideas and experience in R&D with the health and care research community. Have you been working on an innovative pioneering project that could be of benefit to the wider research community or are you working on one?  If the answer is yes then #RDF2019 could be the professional platform for you to showcase your work.

However before you can showcase your work, you need to have been successful in your abstract submission and to be successful you must apply and be selected.  Writing an abstract requires time and effort.  The submission deadlines may seem like a long way away but it is never too early to start especially if you are co-authoring as you need to find out your colleagues availability and expectations for editing drafts.

What is a Conference Abstract?

A conference abstract is a concise stand-alone summary of the work you want to present.

What is the Purpose?

Abstracts serve a dual purpose.  The first is to convince the content committee your work is significant, it adds value and that you deserve the time to present it.  The second is to attract delegates attending the Annual Forum that they should attend your presentation over others that will be simultaneously running.  Abstracts appear in the conference proceedings so both the content committee and delegates need to clearly identify innovation, rigor and potential impact.

The Abstract Title

This is the first thing that the committee and potential delegates will see when reviewing the programme so it’s worth spending some time to ensure that it is engaging, concise, accurate and informative.  First impressions matter, the title sets the tone for your abstract and should clearly reflect the work within your abstract.  Think back to when you have been selecting conference sessions to attend – which titles grabbed your attention? What stood out and what encouraged you to read the full abstract?

Abstract Theme/Key Areas/Topics

It is important to consider how your work relates to the key areas of the conference and make this clear. #RDF2019 is particularly interested in innovative solutions to challenges, promoting best practice or adding value in R&D studies, teams, departments or organisations. Delegates paying to attend a conference have a reasonable expectation about its value for money, so think about who will be attending the conference. Topics should be relevant to the wider R&D community. The Annual NHS R&D Forum is about sharing best practice in R&D within Health and Care settings. If your work is too niche or doesn’t fit the key areas it may be declined.

Abstract Inspiration

The abstracts from #RDF2018 are published online so you could review these to get a feel of what has previously been done. Remember no one size fits all and it is about finding a format that is right for your specific abstract and will showcase your work.

Abstract Length

Abstracts are limited to a specific number of characters or words and are designed to focus your efforts rather than stunt your creativity.  Abstracts that exceed word limits are truncated therefore it is important to succinctly describe your work and not waste valuable words.  If your abstract is successful, you will have plenty of opportunities within your actual presentation to provide in depth detail. If you intend to present a poster then the abstract is a conversation starter as you should be prepared to stand by it and discuss your poster with delegates.

Abstract Language

The importance of writing in plain English cannot be overstated. Delegates attending the conference come from a wide variety of research areas, different disciplines and educational backgrounds.  Your abstract needs to be understandable to those outside your field.  Abbreviations or acronyms are best avoided unless you have defined them first.  Include key words that are in line with the conference topics and attract delegates.

Proof Reading Your Abstract

Your abstract will be reproduced using the spelling, punctuation and grammar that you submit so proof reading is vitally important.  What you think you have written and what you have actually written may not be the same thing. Read and re-read before submitting.

Submitting

Don’t wait until the deadline to submit.  This puts added pressure on you that can be avoided. If you are happy with the content and have compared your abstract to the conference guidelines to ensure it meets the requirements, submit. The organising committee encourage early abstract submission.  It demonstrates your motivation and commitment to the Annual R&D Forum.

Writing a conference abstract requires a specific skill set. You may be experienced in submitting abstracts for conferences and this could be a chance to enhance your skill set or this could be your opportunity to step outside of your comfort zone, challenge yourself and gain new skills.  Whatever stage of your career the programme content committee s produced detailed guidance to help you in your journey. Following the abstract guidelines is a fundamental part of the submission process and will aid your chances of success.

Ultimately what makes the Annual R&D Forum worth attending is the content and this is provided by presenters.  Writing a successful abstract is hard work but a rewarding process.  It is an opportunity for you to showcase your work with the wider health and care research community, raise the profile of your organisation and increase your skill set.

By Sally Humphreys, ACET Lead Clinical Researcher, West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust and Chair of R&D Forum Research Management Working Group

ASHLEY SOLIERI Associate Director, Research and Development, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

MARIA THORNTON, Lead for Research Development & Innovation, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust,

We are excited!

As many of you are aware the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) has long emphasized the importance of research in improving quality of care. NIHR the Health Research Authority (HRA) and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have now taken this a step further and have been working with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to develop research indicators for use as part of CQC’s monitoring and inspection programme: NIHR Announcement.

Maria and I are delighted to represent the NHS R&D Forum on the CQC Operational Group and agree plans for the CQC to develop indicators for research can only be good news for the R&D community – many of us have worked long and hard to get research recognised on our Board agendas and this will put us right up there.

CQC’s focus on research will examine how well led and integrated research is within the organisation.  Work is now underway to identify how this will be evidenced by the organisation as the CQC will not be looking at academic credibility, publications and grant income as these impacts are captured elsewhere.  Obviously there will be work for R&D, but this will only serve to raise our profile and the value clinical research plays in improving the patient experience and outcomes in our organisations.

William van’t Hoff, NIHR Clinical Director for NHS Engagement, was keen to stress at the Champions for Research Support Meeting on 25th January 2018 that developing research indicators are a journey rather than a single step to embed research into core business. The intention is for research indicators to start a conversation – something many of us have been waiting for.  The NHS R&D Forum is keep to hear how we can support you and welcomes examples of what success looks like and what’s working to share best practice through Resources Exchange.

Members of the partnership will be presenting at the NHS R&D Forum annual conference in May so come along to find out more.

Adding Value Together #RDF2017

Kate Greenwood, NHS R&D Forum Manager

When we agreed the 2017 conference theme, the aim was to build on the take-home messages from 2016 and to address some of the feedback received in our Forum survey. The programme focused on how R&D teams can and do contribute to healthcare in their roles, but also how we work best as partners in a UK-wide community that shares a common goal.

My goodness the whole two-day event showcased quality, the value of NHS R&D teams and togetherness better than I could have imagined. You can view feedback on our twitter feed #RDF2017.

A huge thank you to all those involved; from the organising group and events team, to speakers, sponsors, exhibitors, chairs, facilitators, poster presenters and all the 480 delegates who came and contributed. The hotel and organisation were also superb this year with lots of space, the quiet Zone and gala dinner getting lots of positive feedback from delegates.

There were the inevitable challenges along the way. We started with the snap election forcing our speakers into a restricting pre-election period and began day 1 with the cyber crash affecting many NHS IT systems. However true to form the community rallied and there was an early contagious energy that continued onto the dinner including a ‘never-seen-before’ R&D performance of YMCA, right through to Helen Bevan’s final keynote talk on day 2.

Change is changing & we each have a part to play

In her talk Helen reminded us of our theme throughout, taking us expertly through the coming era of change and its implications for us. With emphasis on togetherness, collaborative sense making and relationships in an era where hierarchical structure may be diminishing, she warned against being experts of a past world and argued that each of us has a part to play in change that can be transformational for care.

Being central within diverse networks of people who are connected and investors who want to contribute (buy-in is too late), people who like each other and who are in an environment of psychological safety as the most effective teams, were all powerful ‘light bulb’ messages for me.

This is everything that the Forum is and aims to be and that we are a community of colleagues who are working to make a difference was clearly evident throughout our two days.

Highlights

You can view the programme slides here but highlights for me were as follows:

 A future focus and a shared mission – be proud

• Three full pre-conference training workshops for research management, support and leadership in health & care. We will be focusing on our training provision with partners this year.
• Dr Maria Palmer, launched our strategy, Wales 2018 and a review of activities and achievements. A reflection of our influence, where we are and where we are going.
• Louise Wood talked about the future of NIHR and some areas of current focus including a review of training, the RCF funding model, impact and a digital strategy.
• Louise re-iterated our shared mission as a community and that research success means living longer with conditions that research will equally need to address. We are well placed in the UK and as enablers we must all continue to help embed research in the NHS. ‘Banishing the research barnacles’ is the future focus including a commitment to address the issue of ETCs…a message gratefully received by many!

• Dr Jonathan Sheffield raced us through to the future and what we need to do next for a real step-change in research. To ensure data-enabled personalized health & care we should embrace partnership, digital technologies and e-consent, continuous improvement, take risks and involve patients. We are doing well on all fronts in the UK so far and we should all be proud.
• Dr Lyn Kerridge launched a shorter application form for NIHR funding with a call to action to ensure that research is used most of all.

Quality, partnership & influence:  

• Themed sessions on our horizon were really well received. The Research Integrity, Patients 1st, Brexit and Data Governance sessions were packed, with key messages of openness, quality, culture, honesty, involvement and personal agency throughout.
• Seeing so many of our key partner organisations coming together to share with the Forum showed the depth and breadth of our relationships. References were made to how we will continue to work together on areas of common interest; proportionate GCP and research integrity are two where the Forum will continue to support. 

Leadership:

• Most important for me were the discussions generated from abstracts submitted by R&D management teams. The feedback shows that delegates really valued hearing from each other. Those who stood up, banished their nerves and shared their work demonstrated real leadership from within our community with sessions ranging from transforming local delivery teams, exploring research beyond traditional boundaries and the changing role of R&D, to capturing the attention of a Trust board, securing University status and pitching a new alternative league table for quality. All presentations can be viewed online so please do take a look at them.

Poster Zone

Alongside a full exhibition and networking the Poster Zone was constantly busy sharing good ideas about how things are being done to meet the daily challenges of running R&D in a health and care organisation.

Congratulations to the prize winners

Showing what good looks like

And so onto Roy Lilley! I am not quite sure if I will quite recover from his talk, it was a very funny session that was perfect for shaking us up after lunch. But make no mistake there was a serious take home message amongst the laughs.

(1) Staff are the key to quality (2) Show what good looks like, support and train them a mile wide and an inch deep (3) Entwine around the patient, put them first and work backwards. Make the patient count at every moment. (4) X factor – real, real change is tough and disruptive and it doesn’t come from the top.  The NHS matters and it is up to all of us.

Next year we celebrate 70 years of the NHS at the Celtic Manor in Newport, Wales. I am excited to see what inspiration it will bring. 

Thank you for a fantastic 2017

 

What is … an easy way to evaluate EHR/EMR systems against clinical research regulations and guidances?
As you know, the MHRA GCP Inspectorate has developed a position statement on points for consideration during the design, build and implementation of an Electronic Health Record system. http://forums.mhra.gov.uk/showthread.php?1885-Electronic-Health-Records-MHRA-Position-StatementHow do you know if an EHR/EMR system that is providing source data for a clinical trial is meeting regulatory guidelines? The eClinical Forum (a non-profit, non-commercial think-tank) has developed an easy and free online tool to help clinical research sites and EHR vendors to evaluate their systems. It is called eSRA (eSource-Readiness Assessment) and can be accessed via www.eclinicalnetwork.org

This tool will help make the clinical research process more efficient, while furthering the use of EHR records for clinical research. It is offered free; there are no advertisements on the website and your information will not be used for other purposes. The eClinical Forum’s only intent is to make the process more efficient for everyone. Through the use of eSRA, EHR vendors can provide information to their customers who do clinical research, to help these clinical research sites determine if they are meeting regulations. Clinical research sites are already being asked these questions by their clinical research sponsors and it can be timely to complete a different form for each research sponsor. By using the eClinical Forum tool, the site can complete just one assessment and give it to each of their sponsors. The tool has already been reviewed by many sponsors, sites, and regulators with a very favorable response.

The assessment tool is offered free by eClinical Forum, a non-profit, non-commercial discussion/action group comprised of members of the Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research Services industry: www.eclinicalforum.org

We encourage all Clinical Research Sites, Healthcare System Vendors, Biopharmaceutical Sponsors, IRBs, and Regulators to take a look at this time-saving tool.

By Sean Scott,

Specialty group team lead

NIHR Clinical Research Network: North East and North Cumbria

Partnerships are essential to every aspect of our daily lives. Whether it be personal or corporate, we deal with differing levels and influences of partnership each hour of each day. It can be, therefore, difficult to truly define. It is no real surprise that one particular definition available is “The state of being a partner or partners” [1]. To me this is a classic example of a poor explanation. I’m sure many in the R&D field will sympathise with the fact that, the jargon used in legal documents, often defines a word by merely regurgitating the word at a different point in a sentence. All well and good, but it leaves me with no better grasp of what I am supposed to be reviewing. I shall therefore,  try to present a explanation of partnership, hopefully without making you feel like you are reviewing the latest non-model contract to hit your desk.

In simplistic terms a partnership is a relationship. It can be monogamous or polyamorous, each with advantages and disadvantages and that aspect I shall leave to your imagination. We can of course argue that no partnership is truly between only two parties as external influences play a part in further modelling and developing the relationship. Such interactions can enhance relationships but can also be detrimental; if it is the latter then the strength of the partnership and understanding of each other is crucial to success.  On some occasions in the research world, we would rather use the term collaborator. An excellent term to really bring people together and work collectively towards one aim and goal. Although to my amusement one definition explained that a collaborator can also be someone who acts traitorously with the enemy. So in this case let’s stick with relationship.

There are differences in opinion in any relationship. The age old; who does the washing up and who cooks is a regular discussion, to which people develop a rule and/or a compromise, which simply makes the partnership easier on a day-to-day basis. Once you have set a rule the real test is when that rule in broken. What we need to be mindful of are those external influential factors. Maybe Chef was working late and didn’t cook, so you did, but wait, you also washed the dishes, or for those who love the environment a little less, loaded the dish washer. As a one off, such a rule change (break) is acceptable, let’s not forget that we are still striving for the same goal, and I don’t just mean full bellies and tidy kitchens. However, if this becomes a regular occurrence, Pot-wash can feel used and unfairly treated. The symbiosis is disrupted.

So what can we do?

Take a look at the rules, relationships evolve. A stagnant partnership is an ineffective partnership. The answer is so very simple and yet we do this so badly – TALK. Communication is vital. Of course we must not forget the flip-side of that, which is listening. Talking and listening from all partners is key.  When a break point occurs, we basically need to reinvent the partnership, tweak the rules and make it work again, taking into account the parameters that each partner cannot change. Anyway, this is not a blog for couples and their domestic bliss (or lack of), however, in many respects the concepts apply to all partnerships that we are involved in.

Two very famous partnerships from history that worked for different reasons are: Ben and Jerry, the famous ice cream makers. With some great successes, ‘Chunky Monkey’ and some less successfully named flavours, the ‘Chubby Hubby’, the duo created a successful business based on their passion for the same thing. Additional Coco Chanel with her perfume No.5 became a success with the knowledge and capital of Pierre Wertheimer. A different dynamic to Ben and Jerry but one where by each played on their strengths for the common goal. Basically successful partnerships/relationships strive to achieve the same outcome by understanding and utilising each partner’s area of strength and expertise.

So what about our current professional world? One of the main partnerships that is still evolving and coming together is that of the Trusts (partner organisation) and the LCRNs. Difficult? To be blunt, yes. Communication is not always as it should be. There may be thoughts of ‘out with the old, in with the new’, power struggles and empire building. Controversial words? Yes. But let’s face the facts, it’s not going to be easy, when dramatic changes occur. What I believe to be imperative in this particular partnership is the flow of communication. It cannot be dictatorial from either party, but equally not overly sensitive (otherwise we don’t get anywhere), it just needs to be regular and simple. Sharing what we know works, listening to each other’s best practice, understanding each other strengths and acting on the best solution for the patient are our fundamentals. Remember all parties are striving for the same outcome: high quality research whilst ensuring the safety and dignity of the patient.

There will be differences of opinion, some upsets and of course some making up, as with any relationship, but as a group of people in this together, we must remember our primary goal. It was once said that LCRNs should not be seen as “The network” but “Our network”, which I advocate. However, we should be taking this one step further, it is the Patients’ Network. By this I don’t mean CRN staff, delivery staff and R&D staff working in silos, I mean the national collective of all research staff who contribute to an excellent NHS. Each person in research within the NHS is part of one very large, very effective, very efficient Network (partnership) with one very simple aim, equity of access and safety of those that matter the most, the patients. Keeping this at the forefront of our daily activates will only lead to a more successful and more refined partnership.

References:

OxfordDictionaries (2015) Partnership, Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/partnership (Accessed: 12 November 2015)

Written by Mark Terry, Research Delivery and Operations Manager, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust

October is the perfect time to consider engagement – what is it, how can we do it, and why bother at all? And why is October the perfect time? Well, we’ll all shortly be madly prioritising engagement in our home lives, as the invitations come pouring in to go for a drink before Christmas with the world and his dog, and so why not consider your engagement strategies with, and within, the world of clinical research at the same time!
Navigating all the different stakeholders that you need to engage with as an R&D Lead can be overwhelming, as local, regional, national and international priorities shift, new organisations and processes are established, and your professional network shifts. Having recently watched the film Eat, Pray, Love, whilst dreaming of escaping to Italy (for the pizza and gelato mainly), I was struck by the words of Julia Roberts… “one must always be prepared for riotous and endless waves of transformation”. Of course, Julia was referring to life itself, but these words seem particularly apt for R&D, as we welcome HRA Approval, new Local Portfolio Management Systems, news colleagues in our LCRNs and a demand from informed patients for consistent and quality information on opportunities for research participation.
As ever, some of our stakeholders groups, and some of your local challenges, will be national in scope, and shared by your R&D colleagues in other organisations, whilst others will be distinctly local. The R&D forum is a tool for engagement between members, and with our national stakeholders, and a real opportunity to share best practice, hints, tips, and the odd warning! At Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, we have acquired West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust this year, and the importance of engagement has never been clearer to us all. So, priority number one has to be to plot all of your stakeholders in a systematic manner – everyone, no matter how big or small! To engage properly and fully, all stakeholders must be engaged via a strategic plan of action. No doubt you’ll end up with a list as long as your arm, from your Clinical Nurse Specialists to your pharma sponsors, and from your Trust Board to your patients across all specialties.
I’ll not use an Oxford dictionary definition of engagement, as we all know what it feels like – it is about the wanting and the making of a commitment to being involved with a process or initiative. It is a two way street – it is about ensuring those feedback mechanisms work, to ensure a continued loop of engagement. As such, priority number two is to think about what you want to achieve – what is your vision? Some aspects of the vision will apply to all stakeholders, whereas some aspects will be much more limited in scope. Determine what is important and focus your engagement fire power on those areas. It is tempting to try to engage with everyone, all at once. Whilst this would be ideal, likely none of us have that kind of resource or capacity. So act smart – think about the best way to engage – the option with the highest hit rate and the strongest result.
In our combined organisation, we’ve found that good, old fashioned face-to-face meetings overs a cup of tea, over a period of time, remain the best way to engage those wary of change or lacking in information. Poster and oral presentations at conference should also be democratised – all research nurses, midwives and research professionals should have the opportunity to undertake their own research and engage with the wider world in this manner. We have championed this and recently sent nurses to present their own research at the RCN Conference, as well as international conferences in Singapore and Milan. Having said that, today, engagement is just as much about getting a share on Twitter or a like on Facebook. The power of social media cannot be ignored, and it is essential to have regular, consistent and quality engagement via these platforms, to better communicate with your patients and receive in response instant feedback. We need to do more, but the success of the #whywedoresearch is testament to the power of social media engagement for R&D.
In addition to actually engaging, we are now also expected to track our performance and understand how we can better engage based upon the numbers. Added on to the requirements for PID reporting, recruitment reporting , GCP compliance reporting etc, this can be off-putting. However, priority number three has to be extracting and evidencing the value of your engagement. Why? Because your Trust Board will be engaged themselves when you evidence improved patient experience, reduced labour turnover, increased funding allocations and more. Benchmark your success and achievements, and analyse these. This could be as simple as recording the wider impact of R&D department engagement through reporting numbers of staff trained in GCP or informed consent, marrying that with feedback from delegates, and plotting this against improved recruitment in a certain clinical area. Or it could be using Google Analytics to evidence the “hot spots” on your website, driving traffic and views to the wider Trust website.
Some will argue that some aspects of engagement are more important than others – some groups more worthy of engaging with, some simply too difficult to engage with. Whilst of course you need to engage with the likes of the MHRA and NIHR, a local engagement strategy based on your vision and priorities is essential. Whilst a like on Facebook can seem arbitrary, or a face-to-face meeting can seem like potentially wasted time, think about what has prompted that engagement. Then move to deepen it, and keep connecting in ever more meaningful ways. And if you’re ever not sure about how to engage with a particular group, sometimes it’s as easy as just asking them, or asking a colleague at the R&D Forum!
To go back to Julia, endless waves of transformation is inevitable, but so is the need to prioritise engagement to effectively manage these waves, gain the buy in you need, and ultimately, to drive forward today’s research into tomorrow’s care.

Blog by Jenny Preston (Patient and Public Involvement Priority Lead | NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) Coordinating Centre (CC)

Patient Research Ambassadors are patients, carers or lay people with a passion for research. They help to provide patients with the best research opportunities through their local NHS.

In order to help create a focus on improving how patients can get access to healthcare research we want to describe and widely promote a particular role in NHS care organisations that patients, carers and lay people who have been involved in research might choose to fulfil to help make this happen.

We have named this role Patient Research Ambassador. This is not meant to replace anything anybody is already doing in involvement in research. In some cases the local Patient Research Ambassador role might be an extension or natural development of what some people are already doing.

The Patient Research Ambassadors Initiative (PRAI) promotes the role of Patient Research Ambassadors and provides a resource for the research community to take action.

By “research community” we mean everyone involved with research: from nurses to patients, from carers to study coordinators and from family members to NHS Trust Boards.

We are holding a TweetChat on Tuesday 8 September 8-9pm exploring the role of Patient Research Ambassadors and we invite you and your colleagues to join us. If you have not been involved in a Tweetchat before, this is a way of having a live real time ‘conversation’ through Twitter with a number of people.

Panellists so far include:

• Roger Steel, Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Priority Lead, NIHR Clinical Research Network @SteelRoger
• Simon Denegri, Chair of INVOLVE and NIHR National Director for Patients and the Public in Research @SDenegri
• Dr Virginia Minogue, Research Lead, Commissioning Strategy Directorate, NHS England @VMinogue2
• Derek Stewart, OBE, Associate Director for Patient and Public Engagement, NIHR Clinical Research Network @DerekCStewart
• Simon Stones, Patient Research Ambassador @SimonRStones
• Wendy Mitchell, Patient Research Ambassador, @WendyPMitchell

If you have questions for our panel or have experience of the role and can share ideas then please join us using #PRAtalk

by Maria Thornton, Lead for Research, Development & Innovation, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust

Embedding innovation as everyone’s business

What is innovation?  Innovation is an idea, service or product which is either new to the NHS or which has been applied in a novel way and which significantly improves the quality of health and care provided. It isn’t research but it can be the start of a research project idea or the result of one.

The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust in collaboration with the North West Coast Academic Health Science Network held an innovation workshop attended by innovation leads, R&D managers and clinicians from across the North West who indicated they were keen to support innovation but felt they lacked the requisite knowledge and skills.

In response to these concerns The Walton Centre NHS FT secured Regional Innovation Funding from NHS England in collaboration with the North West Coast Academic Health Science Network and in partnership with a number of local trusts, a commercial partner and a social enterprise developed the Innovation ToolKit which is freely available at https://nhsinnovationtoolkit.wordpress.com/

The ToolKit aims to facilitate a ‘culture of curiosity’ to establish an environment where bright ideas flourish and innovative ideas are adopted to embed innovation as core trust business. The ToolKit provides managers and frontline staff with the skills to understand the relevance of innovation and how they can play a vital role in identifying or championing bright ideas developed internally or imported from elsewhere that result in tangible benefits for patients. The ToolKit helps organisations to:

• Understand the organisation’s appetite for innovation;
• Establish what innovation activity is already on-going;
• Identify what support mechanisms and resources are already in place;
• Identify the barriers that exist that delay or prevent development or adoption of innovation;
• Identify new strategies or focused support to overcome barriers and to develop/adopt innovations that have been conceived locally/externally

The ToolKit provides a menu of support across the innovation pathway for NHS organisations seeking to embed innovation which can be tailored to suit their needs and comprises the following sections:

• Staff engagement: Introduction to Innovation (a template presentation for delivering to staff), Staff Survey (to determine level of understanding of innovation and support available), Workshop Agenda and Exercises (designed to support groups in discussing and prioritising innovation projects) and a Description of the Role of the Innovation Champion (designed to help appoint local champions to enhance the innovation culture).
• Knowledge: Learning Resources (a menu of tried & tested, useful sources of background information) and Case Studies (of innovation projects).
• Innovation Management: Innovation Record Form (for capturing and documenting new ideas), Innovation Portfolio (a template for documenting and managing a portfolio of innovation projects), Innovation Support Guide (a guide to decision-making in supporting innovation projects), Innovation Management (a guide to using the ToolKit for Innovation Managers)
• Innovation Support: Innovation Funding (a menu of sources of innovation funding)
• Reporting: (a template KPI dashboard for reporting on progress with developing an innovation culture)
• Innovation Landscape: Sources of Innovation (a menu of resources where externally-developed ideas may be sourced).

We hope you find the tools useful and we’re keen to hear your  feedback so let us know what you think at maria.thornton@thewaltoncentre.nhs.uk

In Clinical Records Management there is frequent confusion about what constitutes an archive and many people working within clinical research find themselves designated as the ‘archivist’ without really knowing what this means or what their responsibilities are, writes Liz Hooper a Clinical Records Manager, with 24 years’ experience, specialising in the management of trial Master Files and their subsequent archiving.

The simple dictionary definition of an Archivist is ‘a keeper of archives or records’ – so not much detail there. Both Archivists and Librarians manage information – so what is the difference? In the simplest terms, the Librarian mostly manages published media, which has information about the media, such as title, author, publisher, date readily available. While the Archivist mostly deals with unpublished and unique items, often having to ensure the preservation of the physical record as well as the information it contains. And what is the difference between a Records Manager and an Archivist? The former is usually more concerned with managing records throughout their ‘life cycle’, which will probably include archiving some of the records; while the archivist is responsible for the long-term preservation of the records.

The Archivist is responsible for collecting, cataloguing, indexing records, making available the information, but still maintaining the security and confidentiality of the records. The Archivist is NOT responsible for the content of the records. Within Clinical research in Europe, almost uniquely, it is a legal requirement for sponsors of clinical research to have a nominated archivist to take responsibility for the long-term management and preservation of clinical trial records. So if you are nominated as your Trust’s Archivist you may be responsible for some or all of the following; selecting and managing an off-site storage provider, writing or reviewing SOPs, training and advising departments on archiving (that way you don’t have to do all the work yourself!), tracking all the archived studies and arranging for the retrieval of archived studies when required. The list may seem daunting, but the key is in a robust system, followed methodically and then you will be fine.

by Dr Janet Messer, Director of Systems & Development, Programme Director, HRA Approval

In simple terms, HRA Approval is a new type of research approval. The HRA will undertake a new review process for research studies taking place in England in the NHS and will issue an approval on behalf of the NHS. This will provide assurance to the NHS that:

• the study has a favourable ethical opinion AND
• the study protocol and arrangements are compliant with relevant legal and regulatory requirements AND
• the study documents are compliant with nationally agreed standards

This will be a major change to the approvals process, which will make the system similar to that in some other countries, without the perceived ‘extra’ NHS review process that researchers and companies have struggled with. So research in England will benefit from a streamlined approvals process as well as the unique opportunities provided by the NHS.

Many R&D staff will have been frustrated over the years, as I have, about studies that have had a favourable ethical opinion but just can’t work practically in the NHS or have even been illegal, because RECs are not constituted to consider these aspects. They waste time and money and have created an unwarranted sense amongst some researchers that the NHS is a barrier to research. Sometimes NHS organisations have raised the same queries about studies as the REC, because the reviews have been going on in parallel silos. On other occasions the REC has agreed a proportionate response to a study but NHS organisations have not been aware of the reasoning. Creating a single study-wide review for the NHS was a first step, but better integration is needed to streamline the approvals process and deal with all these problems. HRA Approval means that suitably trained and experienced staff can review the study from a legal and practical perspective, allowing the ethics committee to focus on the areas where it adds value: ethical consideration by a committee combining lay and expert members. An integrated process is simpler for researchers to navigate and avoids multiple queries from multiple sources.

Of course, making this sort of change is not easy. It’s important to spend time getting agreement on the standards, templates and processes that the NHS will have to accept. And rolling the process out will need to be done in a controlled way so that all the improvements to timelines, support and service that have taken place in so many areas are not lost.

The first six months of implementation since April 2014 have been incredibly busy – recruiting staff and beginning to write the SOPs, facilitate workshops, document processes, plan timelines and write specifications for IT developments. HRA has been working closely with the NIHR CRN, and has seconded research management staff to support the changes that NHS organisations and LCRNs will need to make.

We know that change can bring uncertainty, and that’s why one of our early pieces of work was to set out how the expertise and skills of R&D and RM&G staff will continue to be needed to support researchers across the whole life cycle of the research process. Of course change is not new to the R&D community – and the R&D Forum has championed many changes on behalf of the community over the years. We are delighted to have a close and collaborative relationship with the Forum to continue to support the invaluable work of research management professionals.

Email hra.comms@nhs.net to subscribe to the HRA bimonthly newsletter.

Email hra.approvalprogramme@nhs.net with any queries about HRA Approval.

Follow the HRA on @HRA_Latest for news releases and updates to the webpages on HRA Approval

by Kate Greenwood

It was on a very hot trip into Rome with my 2 not-so-impressed children this August that I was prompted to think about what a Forum really is, which in turn led to the development of our new R&D Forum “What is…?” Blog Spot.

The remains of the Roman Forum in the heart of the city are an impressive sight – this was the centre of ancient Roman life; the place where all the discussion and political issues and topics of the day were hotly debated! In essence the Forum Romanum was the place that brought people together, where knowledge was shared, and goods exchanged, and although my kids were not overly fascinated by the remains of the old buildings, they were pretty taken with the street art and acts that lined the pavements, each bringing back a pair of cheap Italian fluorescent sunglasses that may (or may not!) catch on as a trend over here! I felt that this was an impressive and poignant place to find myself this summer and I wanted to share my thoughts. Thus we have started the new Forum “What is…? Blog Spot” so that in the spirit of practicing what I preach I could be brave and share it!

As a research manager in an NHS organisation trying hard to facilitate and move research forward, I believe the Forum is a vital support for me and that it should indeed be the “communal hearth” (1) where we can join together to share experiences and take home the latest new things we have found.  Most importantly it should be alive with people who are exchanging ideas and products, and not an ancient relic that people visit once in a blue moon when they get the chance to have a break. We are working hard behind the scenes to support this and have lots more updates to make to the new website; more events, and more projects in progress, but we hope that you will join us on our continuing journey to build our Forum that is relevant and vibrant for us all …and one that remains standing tall in the centre of things, despite all the change around it!

The Forum “What is….?” Blog Spot aims to answer questions posed by Forum members and so please send your questions to us and we will try to find someone to answer them in one succinct paragraph!

LinkedIn and twitter feeds are live so please post your thoughts and share knowledge with your community.

Kate Greenwood, Research Manager & Forum Manager

(1)   http://www.rome.info/roman-forum/