Development of a framework and research impact capture tool for nursing, midwifery, allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs).

BACKGROUND: There is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts. METHODS: The framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations. RESULTS: The impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population. CONCLUSIONS: The impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

What is a clinical academic? Qualitative interviews with healthcare managers, research-active nurses and other research-active healthcare professionals outside medicine.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the concept of "clinical academic" from the perspectives of healthcare managers and research-active healthcare professionals outside medicine. BACKGROUND: Clinical academics are understood to be healthcare professionals who combine clinical and research responsibilities within their role. However, there is no agreed definition for this term either within or across nursing, midwifery and the other healthcare professions outside medicine. DESIGN: Qualitative service evaluation, reported using the COREQ checklist. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of eight healthcare managers and 12 research-active clinicians within a UK hospital group. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Clinical academics were described in four themes. Two themes explored the components of the role and the contribution of these individuals to their profession: combining clinical practice, research and education; and pushing boundaries. The third theme identified the clinical academic label as: a title that doesn't fit. The final theme examined a characteristic mindset of research-active clinicians. There were no clear differences in the perceptions of managers and research-active clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical academics were perceived as valuable members of their team and were able to push the boundaries to move their profession forward. Some research-active clinicians did not identify with the term "clinical academic" and for some managers and research-active clinicians, the term was viewed as jargonistic. A clear and accepted definition would aid development of clinical academic career pathways and identities. It would also assist in evaluating the impact of these roles. RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE: As clinical academic roles and opportunities are being developed across the professions outside medicine, it is important to have a shared common understanding of "clinical academic" to support the creation of career pathways and curricula, and to enable the evaluation of these roles.

Impacts of clinical academic activity: qualitative interviews with healthcare managers and research-active nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceived impacts of clinical academic activity among the professions outside medicine. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: There were two groups of interviewees: Research-active nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, healthcare scientists, psychologists and pharmacists (NMAHPPs) and managers of these professions. All participants were employed in a single, multisite healthcare organisation in the UK. ANALYSIS: Interview transcripts were analysed using the framework method to identify key themes, subthemes and areas of divergence. RESULTS: Four themes were identified. The first, cultural shifts, described the perceived improvements in the approach to patient care and research culture that were associated with clinical academic activity. The second theme explored visibility and included the positive reputation that clinical academics were identified as bringing to the organisation in contrast with perceived levels of invisibility and inaccessibility of these roles. The third theme identified the impacts of the clinical academic pathways, including the precarity of these roles. The final theme explored making impact tangible, and described interviewees' suggestions of possible methods to record and demonstrate impact. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived positive impacts of NMAHPP clinical academic activity focused on interlinked positive changes for patients and clinical teams. This included delivery of evidence-based healthcare, patient involvement in clinical decision making and improved staff recruitment and retention. However, the positive impacts of clinical academic activity often centred around individual clinicians and did not necessarily translate throughout the organisation. The current clinical academic pathway was identified as causing tension between the perceived value of clinical academic activity and the need to find sufficient staffing to cover clinical services.

What is the effect of taping along or across a muscle on motoneurone excitability? A study using triceps surae.

Taping along the skin overlying lower trapezius reduces motoneurone excitability in healthy subjects [Alexander, C.M., Stynes, S., Thomas, A., Lewis, J., Harison, P.J., 2003. Does tape facilitate or inhibit the lower fibres of trapezius? Manual Therapy 8, 37-41]. It remains unclear whether this effect is: (a) specific to trapezius and (b) specific to the direction of application of the tape. In light of this, the excitability of another muscle was measured in order to see if these results were repeatable and independent of the muscle taped. Thus, the excitability of the medial and lateral gastrocnemius (MG and LG) and soleus (Sol) motoneurone pool was assessed using the Hoffman reflex (H reflex). The amplitude of this reflex was measured with the tape aligned across and then along the direction of the MG muscle fibres. Tape aligned across the fibres failed to affect motoneurone excitability (MG P=0.61, LG P=0.69, Sol P=0.17). Under tape and sports tape applied together aligned along the MG muscle reduced the excitability of both MG and LG (19% (P=0.01) and 13% (P=0.01), respectively). These observations suggest that any change to movement patterns with tape application cannot be explained by facilitation of the motoneurone excitability.