Developing the embedded researcher role: Learning from the first year of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Health Determinants Research Collaboration (HDRC), Doncaster, UK.

Background: Strategies to embed research knowledge into decision making contexts include the Embedded Research (ER) model, which involves the collocation of academic researchers in non-academic organisations such as hospitals and local authorities. A local authority in Doncaster, United Kingdom (UK) has adopted an embedded researcher model within the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Health Determinants Research Collaboration (HDRC). This five-year collaboration enables universities and local authorities to work together to reduce health inequalities and target the social determinants of health. Building on previous embedded research models, this approach is unique due to its significant scale and long-term investment. In this opinion paper Embedded Researchers (ERs) reflect on their experiences of the first year of the collaboration. Study design: A reflective consultation exercise. Methods: Observation of HDRC delivery meetings, as well as informal discussions and a short proforma with ERs (N = 8). Results: ERs valued the five-year timeframe which provided a unique opportunity for strengthened relationships and to apply formative learning as the programme progressed. However, differences in knowledge of undertaking research across the HDRC team and between practitioners and academics require each to respect different professional experiences and to avoid potential power imbalances. Diverse projects required researchers to be generalists, applying their expertise to multiple topics. This requires careful priority setting alongside workload and expectation management. Conclusions: The significant scale and investment of the HDRC provides a unique opportunity for developing the ER role by applying formative learning as the programme progresses. However, success will require careful management of workload allocation and relationships between ERs and practitioners. Further learning on how to embed ERs within local authority contexts will emerge as the programme matures.

What are hospitals doing about clinical guidelines?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the attitudes of senior hospital staff towards clinical guidelines, and to ascertain the perceived extent and benefits of their local use; to identify those hospitals with current or planned future written strategies for the systematic development of clinical guidelines, and the staff responsible for leading them; and to establish the essential elements of existing strategies, and the methods used to ensure the proper development, dissemination, implementation, and evaluation of local guidelines. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Senior staff of 270 acute hospitals in the United Kingdom (response rate 202/270 (75%)) in 1995. RESULTS: 197/199 (99%) of respondents thought that clinical guidelines were a good idea, and 176/196 (90%) were aware of some guideline activity occurring within their hospitals. The most important benefits of local guideline activity were increased healthcare efficiency and effectiveness, greater consistency of treatment, and team building. 174/194 (90%) of respondents were in favour of the development of a readily accessible national repository of evidence-based clinical guidelines. 38/201 (19%) of respondents had a clinical guidelines strategy and a further 91/201 (45%) said that they had plans to develop one in the near future. The need to improve clinical outcomes was most often reported as the reason for developing a strategy. Medical directors most commonly had formal responsibility to lead the strategy, but someone without formal responsibility ran the operation in half the hospitals. Only 18/36 (50%) of strategies gave advice on the development of guidelines; and only a few strategies made explicit statements on which clinical services to target for guideline development, or the methods to be used for their validation and promotion. Some strategies lacked explicit statements on methods to monitor adherence, routine review, and update of guidelines. Internal literature searches (29/31 (94%)), the use of national guidelines (29/32 (91%)), local consensus conferences (28/32 (88%)), and peer group review (21/24 (88%)) were the most popular methods of validation used in hospitals with a strategy. Methods used to promote the dissemination, implementation, and evaluation of clinical guidelines included clinical audit (31/32 (97%)), peer review (25/30 (83%)), continuing education (23/29 (79%)), targeting of opinion leaders (17/26 (65%)), use of structured case notes (14/31 (45%)), patient mediated interventions (9/26 (35%)), and patient specific reminders (8/26 (31%)). CONCLUSIONS: Most senior hospital staff have a favourable attitude towards clinical guidelines. Most hospitals are undertaking some guideline activity, but few seem to be doing so within a locally agreed hospital wide strategy in which guideline development, dissemination, implementation, and evaluation are systematically considered. Many of the current methods used to validate guidelines locally are inadequate. Evidence-based clinical guidelines should be developed nationally, leaving hospitals to focus their energies on the local adaptation, dissemination, implementation, and evaluation of such guidelines. Only in this way will local guidelines achieve their full potential to improve clinical care and patient outcomes.

What do accident and emergency medical staff think of practice guidelines?

The objective of this paper was to determine the views of accident and emergency consultants and trainees towards practice guidelines and their experiences using guidelines. A postal questionnaire survey of consultants, senior registrars and registrars in accident and emergency medicine was carried out in Yorkshire. The results of this survey show that the potential benefits of practice guidelines are appreciated, and that evidence-based and 'user-friendly' guidelines are wanted. It is concluded that unless rigorously developed and clear and easy to use, guidelines are unlikely to be implemented in accident and emergency departments in the UK.