The clinically led worforcE and activity redesign (CLEAR) programme: a novel data-driven healthcare improvement methodology.

BACKGROUND: The NHS is facing substantial pressures to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Optimising workforce modelling is a fundamental component of the recovery plan. The Clinically Lead workforcE and Activity Redesign (CLEAR) programme is a unique methodology that trains clinicians to redesign services, building intrinsic capacity and capability, optimising patient care and minimising the need for costly external consultancy. This paper describes the CLEAR methodology and the evaluation of previous CLEAR projects, including the return on investment. METHODS: CLEAR is a work-based learning programme that combines qualitative techniques with data analytics to build innovations and new models of care. It has four unique stages: (1) Clinical engagement- used to gather rich insights from stakeholders and clinicians. (2) Data interrogation- utilising clinical and workforce data for cohort analysis. (3) Innovation- using structured innovation methods to develop new models of care. (4) Recommendations- report writing, impact assessment and presentation of key findings to executive boards. A mixed-methods formative evaluation was carried out on completed projects, which included semi-structured interviews and surveys with CLEAR associates and stakeholders, and a health economic logic model that was developed to link the inputs, processes, outputs and the outcome of CLEAR as well as the potential impacts of the changes identified from the projects. RESULTS: CLEAR provides a more cost-effective delivery of complex change programmes than the alternatives - resulting in a cost saving of £1.90 for every £1 spent independent of implementation success. Results suggest that CLEAR recommendations are more likely to be implemented compared to other complex healthcare interventions because of the levels of clinical engagement and have a potential return on investment of up to £14 over 5 years for every £1 invested. CLEAR appears to have a positive impact on staff retention and wellbeing, the cost of a CLEAR project is covered if one medical consultant remains in post for a year. CONCLUSIONS: The unique CLEAR methodology is a clinically effective and cost-effective complex healthcare innovation that optimises workforce and activity design, as well as improving staff retention. Embedding CLEAR methodology in the NHS could have substantial impact on patient care, staff well-being and service provision.

Covid-19 ICU remote-learning course (CIRLC): Rapid ICU remote training for frontline health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Background: The unprecedented increase in critically ill patients due to the COVID-19 pandemic mandated rapid training in critical care for redeployed staff to work safely in intensive care units (ICU). Methods: The COVID-19 ICU Remote-Learning Course (CIRLC) is a remote delivery course developed in response to the pandemic. This was a one-day course focused on the fundamentals of Intensive Care. The course used blended learning with recorded lectures and interactive tutorials delivered by shielding and frontline ICU trained professionals. The course was developed within one week and piloted at three NHS Trusts. It was then made publicly available free of charge to redeployed healthcare professionals across the UK and Ireland. An iterative cycle of improvement was used to update the course content weekly. A course confidence questionnaire with quantitative and qualitative questions was used to evaluate effectiveness. Data is reported as n (%), means (SD) and thematic analysis was used for the open questions. Results: 1,269 candidates from 171 organisations completed the course, with 99 volunteer trainers. 96% of respondents rated the course as very or extremely useful. 86% rated the online platform as excellent. Overall confidence improved from 2.7/5 to 3.9/5. Qualitative data showed that the course was pitched at the appropriate level, accessible and built clinicians confidence to work in intensive care. Conclusion: This model of educational delivery with a rapid iteration cycle was a pragmatic, effective solution to knowledge-based training under social distancing measures. Whilst full course evaluation was not possible, we believe that this work demonstrates practical guidance on educational response in a pandemic as well as highlighting the altruistic nature of the critical care community.

Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 ICU remote-learning rehabilitation course for frontline health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Background: Optimising outcomes for critically ill patients with COVID-19 patients requires early interdisciplinary rehabilitation. As admission numbers soared through the pandemic, the redeployed workforce needed rapid, effective training to deliver these rehabilitation interventions. Methods: The COVID-19 ICU Remote-Learning Rehab Course (CIRLC-rehab) is a one-day interdisciplinary course developed after the success of CIRLC-acute. The aim of CIRLC-rehab was to rapidly train healthcare professionals to deliver physical, nutritional and psychological rehabilitation strategies in the ICU/acute setting. The course used blended learning with interactive tutorials delivered by shielding critical care professionals. CIRLC-rehab was evaluated through a mixed-methods approach, including questionnaires, and follow-up semi-structured interviews to evaluate perceived impact on clinical practice. Quantitative data are reported as n (%) and means (SD). Inductive descriptive thematic analysis with methodological triangulation was used to analyse the qualitative data from the questionnaires and interviews. Results: 805 candidates completed CIRLC-rehab. 627 (78.8%) completed the post-course questionnaire. 95% (n = 596) found CIRLC-rehab extremely or very useful and 96.0% (n = 602) said they were very likely to recommend the course to colleagues. Overall confidence rose from 2.78/5 to 4.14/5. The course promoted holistic and humanised care, facilitated informal networks, promoted interdisciplinary working and equipped the candidates with practical rehabilitation strategies that they implemented into clinical practice. Conclusion: This pragmatic solution to educating redeployed staff during a pandemic increased candidates' confidence in the rehabilitation of critically ill patients. There was also evidence of modifications to clinical care utilising learning from the course that subjectively facilitated holistic and humanised rehabilitation, combined with the importance of recognising the humanity, of those working in ICU settings themselves. Whilst these data are self-reported, we believe that this work demonstrates the real-term benefits of remote, scalable and rapid educational delivery.