Development, spread and impact of primary care and musculoskeletal communities of practice to assist rapid translation of evidence into practice.

BACKGROUND: Embedding research into practice is challenging. Barriers include: a shortage of time, lack of understanding of the evidence and a poor support in the clinical setting. A community of practice (CoP) model has been used to address these issues. Three 'Evidence into Practice' groups use a CoP model to assist the rapid translation of evidence into practice in primary and secondary care settings. We describe how a CoP model supports the functions, operations and outputs of three 'Evidence into Practice Groups'. METHOD: A CoP model is used to engage a broad range of clinicians, researchers, managers, patients and librarians in the complex process of acquiring research knowledge and then translating knowledge into practice. The CoP principles of Domain, Community and Practice are used to describe three 'Evidence into Practice Groups' who cater for different elements of the care and academic sector and engage a range of professional groups. This includes primary and secondary care engaging professionals such as general practitioners (GP), practice nurses, allied health professionals, researchers and librarians. All groups are clinically led, academically supported and follow similar processes to identify the best evidence and translate it into practice. As the groups reflect the context in which they work they have different operational arrangements for example frequency and time of meetings. RESULTS: The CoP model enabled three 'Evidence into Practice Groups' over time to: engage over 180 clinical and academic staff; answer 130 clinical questions; improve clinical care, gain funding for two randomised controlled trials (enrolled over n = 7000 participants) and identify areas for further research, quality improvement audit and training. CONCLUSION: The CoP model encourages the rapid translation of evidence into practice by engaging staff to identify areas of clinical concern in their own context, thereby stimulating their interest and involvement. This creates a meaningful link between research and practice. Clinical leadership and the CoP model ensure that practice change is quick and efficient. This model can be replicated at scale. Consideration needs to be given to the key ingredients to achieve impact.

Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. METHODS: This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. RESULTS: A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was "How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?" The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie . CONCLUSION: The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

Research priorities by professional background - A detailed analysis of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

The Intensive Care Foundation, in partnership with the James Lind Alliance, has supported a national project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. We conducted a secondary analysis to explore differences in priorities determined by different respondent groups in order to identify different groups' perceptions of gaps in knowledge. There were two surveys conducted as part of the original project. Survey 1 comprised a single open question to identify important research topics; survey 2 aimed to prioritise these topics using a 10-point Likert scale. In survey 1, despite clear differences in suggestions amongst the respondent groups, themes of comfort/communication and post-ICU rehabilitation were the within the top 2 suggestions across all groups. Patients and relatives suggested research topics to which they could easily relate, whereas there was a greater breadth of suggestions from clinicians. In survey 2, the number of research priorities that received a mode score of 10 varied from 1 to 36. Patients scored 36 out of the 37 topics with a mode score of 10. All other groups scored topics with more discrimination, with the number of topics with a mode score of 10 ranging from 1 to 20. Differences in the proportions of the representative groups are therefore unlikely to have translated to an impartial conclusion. Clinicians, patients, and family members have jointly identified the research priorities for UK ICM practice.

The development of a standard training toolkit for research studies that recruit pregnant women in labour.

Recruitment of pregnant women in labour to clinical trials poses particular challenges. Interpretation of regulation lacks consistency or clarity and variation occurs as to the training required by clinicians to safely contribute to the conduct of intrapartum studies. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Intrapartum Clinical Study Group initiated the development of a pragmatic, proportionate and standardised toolkit for training clinical staff that complies with both regulatory and clinician requirements and has been peer-reviewed. This approach may be useful to researchers in acute care settings that necessitate the integration of research, routine clinical practice and compliance with regulation.

A collaborative model for training clinical research staff.

The challenges of meeting the learning needs of clinical research staff are shared by managers of many groups of specialist practitioners. Such specialists tend, for example, to be few in number, come from a variety of disciplines, have a diversity of roles and work across several organisations or locations in relative isolation. This article gives an overview of a regional training initiative, the Birmingham region Research Training Collaborative, for clinical research staff, and describes how it provides reciprocal access to research-related training across organisational boundaries as well as being a forum where learning resources and events can be shared. It describes the benefits and challenges of this initiative and highlights the main elements of success.

Acute stroke research: challenges and opportunities for nurses.

Clinical research in the early acute phase of stroke is inherently complex, but is crucial to improve diagnosis, treatment and care of patients. This article explores the challenges faced by nurses in determining the eligibility of patients who have experienced stroke and obtaining informed consent from patients for inclusion in a clinical research study. It highlights the role of clinical nurses in ensuring patients and their representatives are offered opportunities to participate in research and are supported.In addition, the article illustrates how clinical and research staff jointly assure the safety of patients and the integrity of the research data. Examples of how acute stroke studies provide an opportunity to embed research into everyday nursing practice, thereby enabling nurses to advocate for quality evidence-based patient care, are illustrated.