Leadership in research

Interprofessional research teams in radiography - where the magic happens

Based on publications and professional experiences, this article, intended for academic and clinical therapy/diagnostic radiographers, considers conducting research in interprofessional teams, including its values and how to go about achieving it. Whilst there is a growing number of journal papers published by interprofessional teams, almost nothing is published about how best to build interprofessional research relationships or harness the potential of the different professional experience to deliver novel research within the radiography literature. Thus, this article draws heavily on our experiences of creating, working within and leading interprofessional teams which have a specific focus on conducting radiography-related research. Suggestions are proposed about how to create an interprofessional research team and how to get the best out of it. Values of working within an interprofessional research team, to self, to research quality and to the end users of the research are considered.

Promoting radiation therapy research: understanding perspectives, transforming culture

Purpose: To identify the challenges and opportunities that prevent Radiation Therapist (RT) led research at our clinic. Insight gained from this process may lead to strategies which can encourage and support RT research. In this way we can ensure evidence-based practises are promoted by RTs as well as enhancing the professional profile of RTs in the research domain.

Methods: A qualitative approach was chosen for this study. Five focus group sessions were conducted to discuss issues related to research participation within our department. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis occurred whereby overarching themes were identified, content categories were developed, and summaries were written from these categories. Pre-dominant themes were later presented to the entire radiation therapy department for member checking. Answers to a series of questions were obtained anonymously through the use of iClickersTM (MacMillan MPS, Gordonsville, VA). Further, an open group discussion followed focusing on three key areas (departmental, personal and professional). Initiatives or opportunities that could be implemented to increase research activities were discussed and recorded by a designated note-taker.

Results: Nineteen RTs participated in five focus group sessions. The over-arching themes identified were definition of research, involvement in research and the barriers to conducting research. Member checking confirmed these major themes.

Conclusion: We identified the challenges faced by RTs in the areas of research and development at our centre. This information has given us a greater understanding of the culture of our department and the attitudes to research activities from all groups within it. We aim to use these insights to set-up a framework of support to facilitate increased initiatives. Alongside this support RTs will have a clear understanding of their responsibilities to the organisation that facilitates their research. We anticipate these developments will lead to greater job satisfaction for RTs, increased staff morale and most importantly, the improvement of the overall quality of services we deliver to our patients.

10 Years Of Exposure to a Radiation Therapist Research Culture: Where Are We Now?

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 10 years, various programmatic changes have been implemented in our radiotherapy department to increase radiation therapist (RT) research activities. The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate the attitudes of RTs who have been working in a research-rich environment concerning current research activities and the presence of enablers and inhibiters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After obtaining research ethics approval, 5 focus groups and 6 interviews were conducted with a group of 30 RTs with varying levels of clinical experience, who were currently employed in our department. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, then analyzed independently by two investigators using a thematic approach. Emerging themes and categories were captured and evaluated.

RESULTS

RTs most frequently engaged in research activities from a desire for patient service improvement and professional development. The main enablers identified were a system of process support and mentorship, and access to useful research tools and databases (e.g., patient imaging databases). The most commonly noted inhibitor to research activities was securing protected research time.

CONCLUSIONS

After 10 years of developing a research-rich environment, this study found that the majority of RTs were directly involved in some form of research, although the definition of research varied significantly. Enablers were identified as factors that support the practical aspects of RT research, rather than the gaining of theoretical knowledge. Although some of the inhibitors noted are similar to those working in research-naive departments, they also add the practical considerations of balancing research and clinical practice. The practical nature of both the enablers and inhibitors found in this study support the hypothesis that generating a research-rich environment for RTs has shifted their priorities from "thinking about research" to "doing research."

The research agenda and the role of the therapeutic radiographer: The College of Radiographers perspective

This article reflects on the influences on current radiotherapy practice and the key role that Therapeutic Radiographers have in the management of cancer care and the delivery of treatments. In particular the Cancer Reform Strategy is discussed which clearly highlights the many challenges related to cancer. Changes in societal and scientific understanding will demand that the most appropriate and evidence-based care is provided for patients, underscoring the need for evidence through research, to underpin every aspect of daily work if patient outcomes are to continue to improve. In October 2005, the Society and College of Radiographers published: ‘Research and the Radiography Profession—A Strategy and Five Year Plan’. This is an ambitious document, which sets out expectations for the appreciation and use of substantiated research involvement at all levels of practice. Sections of this document and the relevance to radiotherapy practice are discussed. Alongside this, the career progression model for radiography continued to be driven forward with support from the Department of Health. This model describing higher levels of practice for radiographers, at advanced and consultant levels, clearly identified research as a key requirement for the profession. The guidance document in 2006, from the Society and College of Radiographers ‘Positioning Therapeutic Radiographers within Cancer Services: Delivering Patient Centred Care’, further articulated these expert roles, in response to the changing drivers within cancer and across the radiotherapy pathway. In conclusion, research must become a fundamental component of everyday radiotherapy practice as it will verify professional standards of care and sustain the future of the profession. To contribute to the wider cancer agenda it is imperative that all therapeutic radiographers, from practitioner to consultant level, participate in and lead research.