Developing an educational curriculum in primary care with practitioner and manager involvement: the governance shackle.

This article describes what happened when we attempted to set up an educational development project to design a syllabus and implementation strategy for GP education in England. Grounded in good practice our approach involved consultations with a range of relevant professionals. Because we adopted a rigorous approach to the definition of our plans and to the recording of data collected we attracted research ethics and research governance attention. The governance processes involved were cumbersome. Requirements were inconsistent and there was also much replication. Considerable resources were consumed. We question some of the implications of our experience for educational development projects in terms of quality assurance, resources and professional inclusivity.

The place of 360 degree appraisal within a team approach to professional development.

The role of appraisal within professional development has assumed a higher profile in response to national policies including those relating to clinical governance and workforce development. Under the guidance of a service development manager trained in human resource management, a new interprofessional Primary Care Practice Team near Cambridge defined and implemented a new appraisal system drawing on the principles of 360 degree appraisal. The appraisal system was designed to support the service function and the team culture, and took into account good management practice and the requirements of partner organizations and professional affiliations. This paper describes how the system was introduced, tailored to the particular needs of the interprofessional practice team, and evaluated. Early experience suggests that the approach enhances understanding of roles and responsibilities and is supportive to interprofessional team development. It is well received by team members involved and by some of the external partner organizations. However, it is demanding on resources and concerns were raised about the completeness of this approach to appraisal.

What happens next? Evaluation of a scheme to support primary care practitioners with a fledgling interest in research.

INTRODUCTION: Various initiatives have been implemented in recent years to support primary care practitioners new to research. We describe the evaluation of one particular scheme, the NHS Eastern Region Primary Care R&D Enterprise Award Scheme, and discuss the implications of the results for future policy. METHODS: Representatives from both the funders (NHS R&D) and the award holders were involved in the design of an evaluation questionnaire and in the interpretation of the results. RESULTS: and Discussion. The evaluation demonstrated value in relation to traditional research outcomes and also, notably, in relation to professional contribution. Future policies may need to address: the indicators used in measuring the success of such schemes; the relationship between what individuals choose to do and its context within national policy on research and development; and the sustainability of involvement in research.

Of rocks and safe channels: learning to navigate as an interprofessional team.

A new interprofessional primary care team was established in a greenfield site. Using anethnographic approach, significant experiences in the formation of the team were documented and specific problem areas were defined and addressed using action research principles. The nature of the problems experienced and the processes used in their resolution are described and related to current policy recommendations and to existing literature on the theory and practice of team development. Problems include: the potentially varied expectations and managerial requirements of collaborating partners, the lack of clarity over professional roles and associated essential competencies, and the appropriate management and development of specialist professional roles. Conclusions drawn concern the complexity of the issues raised by interprofessional team working, and the value of existing techniques and models in this setting, such as the viable systems model, 360 degree appraisal and action research.

A Research Information Sheet for Practices (RISP): a tool to facilitate research participation.

BACKGROUND: Practice teams may receive many requests to become involved in research studies. The information they receive may not necessarily provide the information they need to make a quick and informed decision about participation. Facilitating good decisions about research involvement has potential value for researchers, practitioners and research/development managers. OBJECTIVE: To develop and pilot a template (RISP) for communicating information about research studies to practice teams. METHODS: A participatory approach was used to develop the template involving primary care practitioners, researchers and research/development managers. The process of developing and piloting the template was recorded using an action research approach. Data were derived from documentation about policy, notes from participant observation and evaluation questionnaires. RESULTS: The RISP template was used as a source of reference about practical implications of research and as a means to communicate information about research studies to practice teams. Practice respondents valued its use in enabling members of the practice team to quickly assimilate information about the proposed research study and in providing the basis for a well-informed decision about participation. Its value to record keeping (and to research governance) was anticipated at the planning stage but was not as yet strongly evident in responses from practice. CONCLUSION: The RISP template has been designed to reflect the concerns of researchers, primary care practitioners and research/development managers. It can contribute to the documentation required in support of research governance.