Translating academic research into guidance to support healthcare improvement: how should guidance development be reported?

BACKGROUND: There is interest internationally in improving the uptake of research evidence to inform health care quality and safety. This article focusses on guidance development from research studies as one method for improving research uptake. While we recognise that implementation strategies on the ´demand´ side for encouraging the uptake of research are important, e.g. knowledge brokers and university-practice collaborations, this article focusses on the ´production´ aspect of how guidance development is reported and the consequent influence this may have on end-users´ receptivity to evidence, in addition to other demand-side processes. MAIN TEXT: The article considers the following question: how is guidance developed and what are the implications for reporting? We address this question by reviewing examples of guidance development reporting from applied health research studies, then describe how we produced guidance for a national study of evidence use in decision-making on adopting innovations. The starting point for reflecting on our experiences is a vignette of the guidance ´launch´ event at a national conference. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for reporting guidance development and supporting improvement are discussed. These include the need to (a) produce reporting standards for the production of guidance to match reporting standards for other research methods, (b) acknowledge the ´informal´ or emergent aspects of producing guidance and its role within a wider knowledge mobilization strategy, (c) consider guidance development from projects as part of a wider knowledge mobilization strategy, and (d) encourage a receptive environment for guidance development and use, including researcher training, durable funding to support impact, and closer relations between research and practice.

A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Community-Based Glaucoma Check Service in Hackney, London, UK.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the uptake, feasibility and acceptability of a general practice-based optometrist-led glaucoma check service. The service targeted people of black Caribbean and black African descent aged 40-65 years, resident in Hackney, London, United Kingdom. METHODS: The study used a mixed-method design, including analysis of service data, prospective audit of secondary care referrals patient survey, cost-consequence analysis, and interviews with staff involved in developing and implementing the service. RESULTS: A total of 3040 patients were invited to undergo the free check; 595 (19.6%) booked an appointment and 461 (15.2%) attended. Overall, 31 patients (6.8%) were referred to secondary care, of whom 22 attended and were assessed for glaucoma. Four were diagnosed with glaucoma and eight with suspected glaucoma, i.e. 2.6% of patients who underwent the check. The cost per patient identified with suspected or confirmed glaucoma was £9,013. Staff who were interviewed suggested that patients who attended might be those who routinely attended optometrist appointments, however only 62.4% of survey respondents reported having had an eye examination in the previous two years, and 11.4% of women and 16.0% of men reported never having had an eye examination. CONCLUSION: This study represents one possible configuration for a glaucoma case-finding service, and it contributes to a wider debate about whether screening, targeted or otherwise, should be offered in the UK. Our findings suggest that general practice is an acceptable setting and that such a service may reach some people not previously engaged with primary eye care services.

Certification for vision impairment: researching perceptions, processes and practicalities in health and social care professionals and patients.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the patient experience, and the role of ophthalmologists and other health and social care professionals in the certification and registration processes and examine the main barriers to the timely certification of patients. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Telephone interviews with health and social care professionals and patients in three areas in England. PARTICIPANTS: 43 health and social care professionals who are part of the certification or registration process. 46 patients certified as severely sight impaired (blind) or sight impaired (partially sighted) within the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Certification and registration are life changing for patients and the help they receive can substantially improve their lives. Despite this, ophthalmologists often found it difficult to ascertain when it is appropriate to certify patients, particularly for people with long-term conditions. Ophthalmologists varied in their comprehension of the certification process and many regarded certification as the 'final stage' in treatment. Administrative procedures meant the process of certification and registration could vary from a few weeks to many months. The avoidable delays in completing certification can be helped by Eye Clinic Liaison Officers (ECLO). CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the certification and registration processes can help improve standards of support and service provision for people who are severely sighted impaired or sight impaired. Better education and support are required for ophthalmologists in recognising the importance of timely referral for rehabilitative support through certification and registration. ECLOs can improve the process of certification and registration. Finally, better education is needed for patients on the benefits of certification and registration.