The rise and rise of NMAHPs in UK clinical research

An evaluation of the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals 4Ps Programme for the development of nurses, midwives and allied healthcare professionals' research skills

BACKGROUND

Research forms an important part of clinical practice for nurses, midwives and allied healthcare professionals (NMAHPs). However, it is known there is a lack of confidence in this community in the development and use of research skills. The 4Ps Programme is a bespoke research-training programme that focuses on four areas: place, project, person and plan.

AIM

To report an evaluation of the 4Ps Programme that used a survey to record the confidence levels reported by NMAHPs.

DISCUSSION

An increase in participants' confidence was observed across all modules in the 4Ps Programme. This exceeded the standard deviation in the 'place' session, demonstrating genuine improvement. It was not possible to demonstrate a significant improvement in all cases. Low response rates affected the quality of the data obtained in the study, which would have benefitted from a more targeted approach to questions and better enabled the tracking of individuals' improvement over the course of the programme.

CONCLUSION

Participation in bespoke, targeted training related to research could lead to an increase in NMAHPs' confidence in research-related activities. Efforts need to be made to refine the evaluation approach and improve response rates.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The 4Ps Programme can improve research-related confidence. Improved and further longitudinal evaluation will assess its impact in developing future clinical academics.

Standards of proficiency for registered nurses-To what end? A critical analysis of contemporary mental health nursing within the United Kingdom context

Against the backdrop of cultural and political ideals, this article highlights both the significance of mental health nursing in meeting population needs and the regulatory barriers that may be impeding its ability to adequately do so. Specifically, we consider how ambiguous notions of 'proficiency' in nurse education-prescribed by the regulator-impact the development of future mental health nurses and their mental health nursing identity. A key tension in mental health practice is the ethical-legal challenges posed by sanctioned powers to restrict patients' freedom at the same time as the desire (and obligation) to promote patients' self-determined recovery. The genericism of the UK's Future Nurse Standards do little to prepare mental health nurses to navigate the tensions that ensue. This has consequences for nurses and patients alike, as both risk experiencing the distress and dissonance that attends giving or receiving poor care. We argue that more needs to be done to enable mental health nurses to define and articulate the nuances of the profession as part of becoming critical, thoughtful and confident practitioners. Educators can contribute to this mission by aligning curriculum, pedagogy and assessment to create meaningful opportunities for mental health nursing students to engage with the complexities of mental health nursing practice. Without this, the credibility of the profession will continue to be questioned; its future uncertain.

Understanding the value of a doctorate for allied health professionals in practice in the UK: a survey

BACKGROUND

The need to transform the United Kingdom's (UK) delivery of health and care services to better meet population needs and expectations is well-established, as is the critical importance of research and innovation to drive those transformations. Allied health professionals (AHPs) represent a significant proportion of the healthcare workforce. Developing and expanding their skills and capabilities is fundamental to delivering new ways of working. However, career opportunities combining research and practice remain limited. This study explored the perceived utility and value of a doctorate to post-doctoral AHPs and how they experience bringing their research-related capabilities into practice environments.

METHODS

With a broadly interpretivist design, a qualitatively oriented cross-sectional survey, with closed and open questions, was developed to enable frequency reporting while focusing on the significance and meaning participants attributed to the topic. Participants were recruited via professional networks and communities of practice. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse closed question responses, while combined framework and thematic analysis was applied to open question responses.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 71 post-doctoral AHPs located across all four UK nations. Findings are discussed under four primary themes of utilisation of the doctorate; value of the doctorate; impact on career, and impact on self and support. Reference is also made at appropriate points to descriptive statistics summarising closed question responses.

CONCLUSION

The findings clearly articulate variability of experiences amongst post-doctoral AHPs. Some were able to influence team and organisational research cultures, support the development of others and drive service improvement. The challenges, barriers and obstacles encountered by others reflect those that have been acknowledged for many years. Acknowledging them is important, but the conversation must move forward and generate positive action to ensure greater consistency in harnessing the benefits and value-added these practitioners bring. If system-wide transformation is the aim, it is inefficient to leave navigating challenges to individual creativity and tenacity or forward-thinking leaders and organisations. There is an urgent need for system-wide responses to more effectively, consistently and equitably enable career pathways combining research and practice for what is a substantial proportion of the UK healthcare workforce.

Establishing a research partnership to investigate functional loss and rehabilitation towards the end of life

Background

Functional loss, the inability to perform necessary or desired tasks, is a common consequence of life-limiting illnesses and associated symptoms (pain, fatigue, breathlessness, etc.) and causes suffering for patients and families. Rehabilitation, a set of interventions designed to address functional loss, is recognised as essential within palliative care, as it can improve quality of life and reduce care costs. However, not everyone has equal access to rehabilitation. Despite limited life expectancy or uncertain ability to benefit from interventions, palliative rehabilitation services are often absent. This is partly due to a lack of high-quality research around optimal models of rehabilitation. Research in this area is methodologically challenging and requires multidisciplinary and cross-speciality collaboration.

Aim and objectives

We aimed to establish and grow a United Kingdom research partnership across diverse areas, commencing with partners from Edinburgh, East Anglia, Lancashire, Leeds, London and Nottingham, around the topic area of functional loss and rehabilitation in palliative and end-of-life care. The objectives were to (1) develop a multidisciplinary, cross-speciality research partnership, (2) generate high-priority unanswered research questions with stakeholders, (3) co-design and submit high-quality competitive research proposals, including (4) sharing topic and methodological expertise, and (5) to build capacity and capability to deliver nationally generalisable studies.

Activities

The partnership was established with professionals from across England and Scotland with complementary areas of expertise including complex palliative and geriatric research, physiotherapy, nursing, palliative medicine and psychology. Research questions were generated through a modified version of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative, which allowed for the collation and refinement of research questions relating to functional loss and rehabilitation towards the end of life. Partnership members were supported through a series of workshops to transform research ideas into proposals for submission to stage one calls by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The partnership not only supported students, clinicians and public members with training opportunities but also supported clinicians in securing protected time from clinical duties to allow them to focus on developing local research initiatives.

Reflections

Through our partnership we established a network that offered researchers, clinicians, students and public members the chance to develop novel skills and explore opportunities for personal and professional development around the topic area of functional loss and rehabilitation in palliative and end-of-life care. The partnership was crucial to foster collaboration and facilitate exchange of ideas, knowledge and experiences to build joint research study proposals.

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) programme as award number NIHR135171. A plain language summary of this article is available on the NIHR Journals Library website https://doi.org/10.3310/PTHC7598.

The value of allied health professional research engagement on healthcare performance: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organisation engagement in research can improve healthcare performance. With the increase in allied health professional (AHP) research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organisations, clinicians, managers, and leaders to understand research engagement specifically within allied health fields. This systematic review aims to examine the value of research engagement by allied health professionals and organisations on healthcare performance.

METHODS

This systematic review had a two-stage search strategy. Firstly, the papers from a previous systematic review examining the effect of research engagement in healthcare were screened to identify papers published pre-2012. Secondly, a multi-database search was used to conduct a re-focused update of the previous review, focusing specifically on allied health to identify publications from 2012-2021. Studies which examined the value of allied health research engagement on healthcare performance were included. All stages of the review were conducted by two reviewers independently. Each study was assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. A narrative synthesis was completed to analyse the similarities and differences between and within the different study types.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included, comprising of mixed research designs, of which six were ranked as high importance. The findings indicated that AHP research engagement appears related to positive findings in improvements to processes of care. The review also identified the most common mechanisms which may link research engagement with these improvements.

DISCUSSION

This landmark systematic review and narrative synthesis suggests value in AHP research engagement in terms of both processes of care and more tentatively, of healthcare outcomes. While caution is required because of the lack of robust research studies, overall the findings support the agenda for growing AHP research. Recommendations are made to improve transparent reporting of AHP research engagement and to contribute essential evidence of the value of AHP research engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021253461 ).

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

BACKGROUND

There 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.

METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

Allied health professional research engagement and impact on healthcare performance: A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organization engagement in research can improve healthcare processes of care and outcomes. However, current evidence has considered the relationship across all healthcare professions collectively. With the increase in allied health clinical academic and research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organizations, leaders and managers to understand engagement in research within these specific clinical fields. This systematic review aims to identify the effect of engagement in research by allied health professionals (AHPs) and organizations on healthcare performance.

METHODS

This systematic review has a two-stage search strategy. The first stage will be to screen a previous systematic review examining the effectiveness of engagement in research in health and social care to identify relevant papers published pre-2012. The search strategy used in the previous review will then be rerun, but with a specific focus on allied health. This multi-database search will identify publications from 2012 to date. Only studies that assessed the effectiveness of allied health engagement in research will be included. All stages of the review will be conducted by two reviewers independently, plus documented discussions with the wider research team when discrepancies occur. This systematic review protocol follows the EQUATOR reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P).

DISCUSSION

The findings of this review will make a significant contribution to the evidence base around the effect of allied health engagement in research on healthcare performance. It will provide insights for clinicians and managers looking to understand the consequences of developing AHP research capability and capacity. The findings of this review will also aim to make recommendations for future evaluation approaches for engagement in research interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021253461.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject This study will provide valuable evidence for professionals and policymakers seeking to understand engagement in research in the allied health disciplines. Where supported by the data, there may be recommendations for future research regarding specific variables to be considered when planning and evaluating engagement in research in allied health practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge A previous systematic review identified a positive association between clinician and organization engagement in research and improved processes of care and health outcomes. The reviews' findings have been used as a justification for clinicians and organizations to increase research capacity. That review evaluated literature published before 2012 and the studies that were identified predominantly reported on engagement in research by medics and nurses. An updated review is now required to include research published since 2012. This review will specifically focus on the effect of engagement in research within allied health disciplines. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Research activity among AHPs is gaining momentum. Given this growth in AHP research activity and the rise in dedicated clinical academic roles, a contemporary review to identify the specific effect of AHP engagement in research on healthcare performance is prudent. The findings will inform clinicians, clinical managers and leaders of the potential impact of research activities by AHP clinicians and organizations. This will support the planning and development of initiatives focused on research capacity, capability and culture within allied health.

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

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Reflections on contributing to health research: A qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisors

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to explore individuals' experiences of contributing to health research and to identify the types of impact that are perceived as important by participants or patient and public advisors. Specifically, research led by NMAHPP clinicians (Nursing, Midwifery, Allied health professions, Healthcare science, Psychology and Pharmacy).

METHODS

Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with health research participants and patient or public advisors. Interviewees were recruited from five UK sites and via social media. Interview transcripts were analysed using Thematic Analysis to identify key themes and areas of disagreement.

RESULTS

Twenty-one interviews were completed, and four main themes were identified. The first, optimising research experiences, included personal reflections and broader recommendations to improve participant experiences. The second, connecting health research with healthcare, described research as key for the continued development of healthcare, but illustrated that communication between research teams, participants, and clinicians could be improved. The third theme explored the personal impacts of contributing to research, with interviewees recalling common positive experiences. The final theme discussed capturing research impacts. Interviewees highlighted potential priorities for different stakeholders, but emphasised that financial impacts should not be the sole factor.

CONCLUSION

Individuals who were involved in NMAHPP health research recalled positive experiences and reported good relationships with their research teams. They felt that their contributions were valued. Suggested strategies to optimise the research experience focused on simplifying documentation, clear signposting of the research activities involved, and feedback on the research findings. Routine sharing of relevant research data with clinicians was also recommended. Personal impacts included a deeper understanding of their health condition or health more broadly, and increased confidence interacting with healthcare and other professionals. These findings will be used to inform development of a framework to capture the impact of NMAHPP research.

Embedding research (ER) led by nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs): the NMAHP-ER model

BACKGROUND

Previous embedded researcher models have focused predominantly on an individual being a temporary team member and embedded for a project-limited short-term placement.

AIM

To develop an innovative research capacity building model to address the challenges of developing, embedding and sustaining, research led by Nurses, Midwives, and Allied Health Professionals (NMAHPs) in complex clinical environments. This healthcare and academic research partnership model offers an opportunity to support the 'how' of enabling NMAHP research capacity building from within the researchers' clinical area of expertise.

METHOD

Collaboration between three healthcare and academic organisations and the iterative process of cocreation, development and refinement took place over 6 months during 2021. The collaboration relied on virtual meetings, emails, telephone calls and document review.

RESULTS

A codesigned NMAHP embedded research (ER) model is ready for trialling with the individual being an existing clinician working collaboratively within the healthcare setting and with academia to develop the skills to become the ER.

CONCLUSION

This model supports NMAHP-led research activity in clinical organisations in a visible and manageable way. As a shared, long-term vision, the model will contribute to research capacity and capability of the wider healthcare workforce. It will lead, facilitate and support research in and across clinical organisations in collaboration with higher education institutions.

Ten years of NIHR research training: perceptions of the programmes: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) training programmes were created to build and sustain research capacity in healthcare. Following the training programme 10-year strategic review, this qualitative study aimed to deepen understanding of facilitators and barriers for those progressing through NIHR-supported research careers.

DESIGN

Semistructured qualitative study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Telephone interviews conducted between May and August 2017 were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using Framework Approach.

SETTING

UK National Health Service (NHS) Trusts, university medical schools, District General Hospitals, Integrated Academic Training Programme centres and Research Design Services across the North East, North West, South East and South West of England, London and the Midlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Fourteen women and eight men, of whom, 14 were previous or current NIHR personal awardees (seven doctors and seven allied health professionals (AHPs) or nurses) and eight were managers (staff within clinical or university training-related roles).

RESULTS

(1) NIHR awards were viewed as transformative for research careers; (2) however, there were perceptions of a biased 'playing field'. (3) Inequalities were perceived for AHPs and nurses, those outside of established research institutes and those in 'unfashionable' specialisms. (4) While support for NIHR awards contributed to a healthy research culture, (5) short-term awards were perceived as a barrier to continuing an independent research career.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants perceived many strengths of the NIHR training programmes in terms of developing individual careers and research capacity. Areas in which improvement could enhance the ability to attract, develop and retain researcher were identified. Our findings are of relevance to schemes in other countries, where healthcare researchers experience similar challenges. Further work is needed to overcome barriers and ensure equity of access to, and success within, clinical research training schemes to sustain the research workforce needed to address future global health challenges.