Demonstrating the learning and impact of embedding participant involvement in a pandemic research study: the experience of the SARS-CoV-2 immunity & reinfection evaluation (SIREN) study UK, 2020-2023.

BACKGROUND: Participant involvement in research studies is not a new concept, yet barriers to implementation remain and application varies. This is particularly true for pandemic response research studies, where timeframes are condensed, pressure is high and the value and inclusion of participant involvement can be overlooked. The SIREN Participant Involvement Panel (PIP) provides a case study for participant involvement in pandemic research, working in partnership with people who the research is for and about. METHODS: SIREN and the British Society for Immunology (BSI) recruited and ran two phases of the PIP, involving 15 members in total over a 16-month period. Phase 1 ran between January and August 2022 and Phase 2 between October 2022 and March 2023. Activity figures including recruitment interest and PIP meeting attendance were recorded. To evaluate how the PIP has influenced SIREN, feedback was collected from (a) researchers presenting at the PIP and (b) PIP members themselves. Evaluation at the end of Phase 1 informed our approach to Phase 2. Thematic grouping was planned to identify key lessons learned. RESULTS: Applications increased from n = 30 to n = 485 between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the PIP, a more than 15-fold increase. The SIREN PIP positively impacted the design, implementation and evaluation phases of the study and sub-studies. Feedback from PIP members themselves was positive, with members highlighting that they found the role rewarding and felt valued. Learnings from the PIP have been condensed into five key themes for applying to future pandemic response research studies: the importance of dedicated resources; recruiting the right panel; understanding motivations for participant involvement; providing flexible options for involvement and enabling the early involvement of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The SIREN PIP has demonstrated the value of actively involving people who research is for and about. The PIP has provided an active feedback mechanism for research and demonstrated a positive influence on both SIREN study researchers and PIP members themselves. This paper makes the case for participant involvement in future pandemic research studies. Future work should include improved training for researchers and we would support the development of a national PIP forum as part of future pandemic research preparedness.

The SARS-Cov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study was set-up at speed during the early stages of the pandemic to help answer key questions about COVID-19 and inform the national pandemic response. It has provided valuable insight into COVID-19 infections, reinfections, and how well the vaccines work. SIREN helped to find these answers by regularly testing over 44,000 healthcare staff working at 135 NHS organisations. To support participant retention, SIREN established a Participant Involvement Panel (PIP) involving 15 SIREN participants to date. PIP members provide guidance and feedback to SIREN researchers on key research priorities, changes to the study and strategies for maximising participant engagement. This paper provides insight into how the PIP was set-up, run and the resources required from the perspective of the PIP and SIREN researchers. Lessons learned from establishing the PIP are summarised to help inform future pandemic response research studies. The paper adds to the evidence base, and makes the case for, the valuable role participant involvement can play in pandemic response research studies.

The snapshot pre-registration assessment tool. Part 1: background, literature and research.

This is the first of a two-part article that presents a new assessment tool - the snapshot - for pre-registration nurses in clinical practice, that is being used at Kingston University/St George's University of London during year 3 of the Diploma and BSc programmes. A pilot study of the use of the snapshot in a simulation environment had previously been undertaken and as a result of this, the snapshot was piloted as part of continuous clinical assessment in practice on two cohorts of third-year pre-registration student nurses. An evaluative study was undertaken. This article describes the background to the project, the literature and the research methods used to undertake the evaluative research study. Part 2 will focus on the findings and a discussion of these findings mapped against the literature.

The snapshot pre-registration assessment tool. Part 2: data, discussion and future directions.

This paper is the second of a two-part article presenting a new assessment tool (the snapshot) for pre-registration nurses in clinical practice that is being used at Kingston University/St George's University of London during year 3 of the Diploma and BSc programme. Part 1 of this article presented background to the snapshot tool and the research approach used in the evaluative research study. Part 2 will present the data collection, findings and discussion which show that the snapshot is perceived positively by students in terms of the criteria, documentation and process. However, mentor understanding of these factors varied with some mentors having an inadequate understanding and additional questions of assessment validity also arose and need to be addressed. Both parts of this article make a contribution to the practice assessment agenda and to the continuous clinical assessment methods currently in use that tests students' competence against agreed criteria. The snapshot reflects the reality of practice and assesses skills in a realistic environment.

The Snapshot tool: a new form of practice assessment.

This article presents a pilot study that was undertaken to test the Snapshot tool-an innovative tool for making judgements about clinical practice performance. An evaluative research design was used. The Snapshot tool was designed and was piloted on two groups of students (n=180; n=152) in a university-based simulation setting. Data were collected through questionnaires containing a mixture of Likert-style and open-ended questions. First-year students found the Snapshot process and criteria to be realistic and relevant/applicable to practice, useful for receiving feedback and for structuring feedback to others, and the Snapshot was largely perceived as more preferable for university-based assessment than Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). Third-year students evaluated the Snapshoot tool in terms of both the Snapshot process (40% of statements made) and the Snapshot criteria used (60% of statements), finding the criteria realistic, appropriate, clear and comprehensive, and the process helpful to their learning, helping them to identify their strengths and weaknesses and helping them to identify specific skills that they need to improve. This article makes a contribution to the clinical assessment agenda for two reasons. Firstly, with the introduction of the use of simulation as part of legitimate clinical practice experience it offers a tool for assessment of students in simulation activities. Secondly, it explores the potential for this tool to be used as a part of the assessment of students during their clinical placements.

An evaluation of the west Surrey telemedicine monitoring project.

We conducted a three-month pilot study of a home monitoring service for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Fifty-five patients were recruited. They transmitted physiological data to a monitoring centre once a day. During the period of the study, 36 escalations were reported to have occurred. Of these, 29 (81%) were managed at home; the other 7 (19%) resulted in acute admission after emergency telephone calls. Although only a small number of patients were involved for a relatively short period of time, there was evidence of a substantial (approximately 50%) decrease in rates of hospital admission. The service was highly acceptable to the patients.