Enabling visibility of the clinician-scientists' knowledge broker role: a participatory design research in the Dutch nursing-home sector.

BACKGROUND: A group of clinician-scientists and managers working within a Dutch academic network, experienced difficulties in clearly defining the knowledge broker role of the clinician-scientists. They found no role clarity in literature, nor did they find tools or methods suitable for clinician-scientists. Clarifying role expectations and providing accountability for funding these knowledge broker positions was difficult. The aim of this research was to design a theory-informed tool that allowed clinician-scientists to make their knowledge broker role visible. METHODS: A participatory design research was conducted in three phases, over a 21-month period, with a design group consisting of an external independent researcher, clinician-scientists and their managers from within the academic network. Phase 1 constituted a literature review, a context analysis and a needs analysis. Phase 2 constituted the design and development of a suitable tool and phase 3 was an evaluation of the tool's perceived usefulness. Throughout the research process, the researcher logged the theoretic basis for all design decisions. RESULTS: The clinician-scientist's knowledge broker role is a knowledge-intensive role and work-tasks associated with this role are not automatically visible (phase 1). A tool (the SP-tool) was developed in Microsoft Excel. This allowed clinician-scientists to log their knowledge broker activities as distinct from their clinical work and research related activities (phase 2). The SP-tool contributed to the clinician-scientists' ability to make their knowledge broker role visible to themselves and their stakeholders (phase 3). The theoretic contribution of the design research is a conceptual model of professionalisation of the clinician-scientist's knowledge broker role. This model presents the relationship between work visibility and the clarification of functions of the knowledge broker role. In the professionalisation of knowledge-intensive work, visibility contributes to the definition of clinician-scientists broker functions, which is an element necessary for the professionalisation of an occupation. CONCLUSIONS: The SP-tool that was developed in this research, contributes to creating work visibility of the clinician-scientists' knowledge broker role. Further research using the SP-tool could establish a clearer description of the knowledge broker role at the day-to-day professional level and improved ability to support this role within organisations.

Professional development arising from multiple-site workplace learning: boundary crossing between the education and clinical contexts.

BACKGROUND: This research explores the value of an inter-organisational jurisdiction, on the professional development of faculty members in their roles of researcher and educator. Faculty members from a Dutch university of applied sciences, who work in both the education and clinical practice contexts, participated in this research. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interview were conducted with nine faculty members, from various academic health professions, on their experiences of professional development arising from working in both the clinical and education contexts. In this exploratory, post-positive interview study, interview transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants reported that working in two organisational contexts, whilst performing two faculty roles that span both contexts, enhances their ability to broker connections between research, teaching and practice. The boundary crossing activities which participants performed, contributed to professional development in all faculty roles. The broker role was not seen as being a unique role which is distinct from research and practice roles. Broker activities were seen as generic and supportive of the roles that bestow academic status and expertise. CONCLUSIONS: To the participants in this research, the relevance of the broker role in professional development is not as evident as the relevance of roles that enhance specialisation and subject specific expertise. They consider broker activities as supportive to the roles of researcher and teacher. The broker role is time consuming, but not yet visible as a distinct professionalisable work-package in its own right. It is also not well defined in literature. A better understanding of the broker role could lead to its development in order to harness its professional development potential tenably across academic roles.

Understanding the Broker Role of Clinician-Scientists: A Realist Review on How They Link Research and Practice.

PURPOSE: Clinician-scientists are said to be well placed to connect research and practice, but their broker role has been underexplored. This review sought to gain an understanding of the broker role of clinician-scientists. METHOD: The authors conducted a realist review to describe context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations associated with the broker role of clinician-scientists. CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Embase were searched between May and August 2017. Data were analyzed qualitatively; data synthesis focused on assembling CMO configurations. RESULTS: Of an initial 2,241 articles, 9 were included in the final review. Included papers show that clinician-scientists, in their broker role, achieve 2 organizational-level outcomes: an increased volume of clinically relevant, research, and increased evidence application to improve care. They also achieve the individual-level outcome of professional development as a researcher, clinician, and broker. Multidimensional skills and management support are necessary context factors. Mechanisms that contribute to outcomes include balancing economic and scientific interests and performing boundary-crossing activities. Four CMO configurations by which clinician-scientists achieve outcomes in brokering a connection between research and practice were identified. Useful program theories for explaining these are boundary crossing, social network, communities of practice, and diffusion of innovation theory. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanisms found may provide insight for interventions aiming to support clinician-scientists in their broker role. The authors expect that if more attention is paid to learning multidimensional skills and management support for the broker role is strengthened, stronger links between research and practice could be forged.

Communities of practice: A means to support occupational therapists' continuing professional development. A literature review.

BACKGROUND: This literature review investigates what research reports about the contribution that communities of practice (CoPs) can make in the continuing professional development (CPD) of qualified occupational therapists. METHODS: Academic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE and ERIC) were searched and articles were included based on pre-determined criteria. Five articles were included in the review. RESULTS: The CoPs in the reviewed articles provided opportunities for knowledge sharing, knowledge translation, reflection on action and learning through boundary crossing. The presence of professionals with diverse perspectives was an important ingredient that facilitated CPD. CONCLUSION: Research into the use of CoPs in occupational therapy is sparse. CoPs could provide a CPD forum for occupational therapists whether online or face to face. Practitioners are encouraged to participate in CoPs. Further research into the use of CoPs is recommended.