Performing collaborative research: a dramaturgical reflection on an institutional knowledge brokering service in the North East of England.

BACKGROUND: To increase the uptake of research evidence in practice, responsive research services have been developed within universities that broker access to academic expertise for practitioners and decision-makers. However, there has been little examination of the process of knowledge brokering within these services. This paper reflects on this process within the AskFuse service, which was launched in June 2013 by Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, in North East England. The paper outlines the challenges and opportunities faced by both academics and health practitioners collaborating through the service. METHODS: The authors reflected on conversations between the AskFuse Research Manager and policy and practice partners accessing the service between June 2013 and March 2017. Summary notes of these conversations, including emails and documents relating to over 240 enquiries, have been analysed using an auto-ethnographic approach. FINDINGS: We identified five challenges to knowledge brokering in an institutional service, namely length of brokerage time required, limits to collaboration, lack of resources, brokering research in a changing system, and multiple types of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: To understand and overcome some of the identified challenges, we employ Goffman's dramaturgical perspective and argue for making better use of the distinction between front and back stages in the knowledge brokering process. We emphasise the importance of back stages for defusing destructive information that could discredit collaborative performances.

Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making.

BACKGROUND: Published research evidence is typically not readily applicable to practice but needs to be actively mobilised. OBJECTIVES: This paper explores the mechanisms used by information professionals with a specific knowledge mobilisation role to make evidence useful for local decision making and planning of public health interventions. METHODS: Data are drawn from a NIHR project that studied how, when, where and by whom published research evidence is used in commissioning and planning across two sites (one in England and one in Scotland). Data included 11 in-depth interviews with information professionals, observations at meetings and documentary analysis. RESULTS: Published research evidence is made fit for local commissioning and planning purposes by information professionals through two mechanisms. They localise evidence (relate evidence to local context and needs) and tailor it (present actionable messages). DISCUSSION: Knowledge mobilisation roles of information professionals are not recognised and researched. Information professionals contribute to the 'inform' and 'relational' functions of knowledge mobilisation; however, they are less involved in improving the institutional environment for sustainable knowledge sharing. CONCLUSION: Information professionals are instrumental in shaping what evidence enters local decision making processes. Identifying and supporting knowledge mobilisation roles within health libraries should be the focus of future research and training.

Clinical audit and quality improvement - time for a rethink?

RATIONALE AND AIM: Evidence of the benefits of clinical audit to patient care is limited, despite its longevity. Additionally, numerous attitudinal, professional and organizational barriers impede its effectiveness. Yet, audit remains a favoured quality improvement (QI) policy lever. Growing interest in QI techniques suggest it is timely to re-examine audit. Clinical audit advisors assist health care teams, so hold unique cross-cutting perspectives on the strategic and practical application of audit in NHS organizations. We aimed to explore their views and experiences of their role in supporting health care teams in the audit process. METHOD: Qualitative study using semi-structured and focus group interviews. Participants were purposively sampled (n = 21) across health sectors in two large Scottish NHS Boards. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed. RESULTS: Work pressure and lack of protected time were cited as audit barriers, but these hide other reasons for non-engagement. Different professions experience varying opportunities to participate. Doctors have more opportunities and may dominate or frustrate the process. Audit is perceived as a time-consuming, additional chore and a managerially driven exercise with no associated professional rewards. Management failure to support and resource changes fuels low motivation and disillusionment. Audit is regarded as a 'political' tool stifled by inter-professional differences and contextual constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The findings echo previous studies. We found limited evidence that audit as presently defined and used is meeting policy makers' aspirations. The quality and safety improvement focus is shifting towards 'alternative' systems-based QI methods, but research to suggest that these will be any more impactful is also lacking. Additionally, identified professional, educational and organizational barriers still need to be overcome. A debate on how best to overcome the limitations of audit and its place alongside other approaches to QI is necessary.

Is the routine recording of primary care consultations possible and desirable? Lessons for researchers from a consultation with multiple stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To explore stakeholders' attitudes towards routine, longitudinal recording of primary care consultations for research purposes, and to identify legal, ethical, and practical barriers and facilitators. METHODS: 183 stakeholders (including patients, researchers and practice staff) were identified using a purposeful sampling strategy. Stakeholders participated in focus groups and interviews. The data was analysed thematically in an iterative manner with themes and questions from earlier discussions being raised with later participants. RESULTS: Most participants supported the creation of a database and believed it would benefit patient care. They suggested it could be used to train doctors, aid understanding of conditions, and feed information back to practices to improve performance. However, enthusiasm was tempered by concerns about the ownership security and access of the data; quality and limitations of the dataset; impact on behaviour; and workload. Safeguards were suggested that protected vulnerable individuals, enabled participation, gave control to participants, and clarified data use. CONCLUSION: The findings show that collecting such longitudinal data is possible, valuable and acceptable providing certain safeguards are in place. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future studies employing routine recordings of consultations should: Attend to confidentiality, access and governance of the archive. Collect quality data, and store it securely.

Developing a longitudinal database of routinely recorded primary care consultations linked to service use and outcome data.

The primary care consultation provides access to the majority of health care services and is central to obtaining diagnoses, treatment and ongoing management of long-term conditions. This paper reports the findings of an interdisciplinary feasibility study to explore the benefits and practical, technical and ethical challenges (and solutions) of creating a longitudinal database of recorded GP consultations in Tayside, Scotland which could be linked to existing routine data on intermediate and long-term health outcomes. After consultation we attempted to recruit and audio-record the consultations of all patients attending three general practices over a two week period. Background patient data, and patient and staff experiences of participation were also collected. Eventually, two practices participated with 77% of patients approached agreeing to participate. The findings suggest that the perceived integrity of the consultation was preserved. The overwhelming majority of patients believed that recording was worthwhile and did not feel it impacted on communication or the treatment they received; 93% indicated they would be willing to have subsequent consultations recorded and 81% would recommend participation to a friend. Staff had similar beliefs but raised concerns about potential increases in workload, confidentiality issues and ease of software use. We conclude that practice participation could be increased by providing safeguards on data use, financial reward, integrated recording software, and procedures to lessen the impact on workload. The resulting Scottish Clinical Interactions Project (SCIP) would provide the largest and most detailed longitudinal insight into real world medical consultations in the world, permitting the linking of consultation events and practices to subsequent outcomes and behaviours.

Audio-visual recording of patient-GP consultations for research purposes: a literature review on recruiting rates and strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To identify ethical processes and recruitment strategies, participation rates of studies using audio or video recording of primary health care consultations for research purposes, and the effect of recording on the behaviour, attitudes and feelings of participants. METHODS: A structured literature review using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Psychinfo. This was followed by extensive hand search. RESULTS: Recording consultations were regarded as ethically acceptable with some additional safeguards recommended. A range of sampling and recruitment strategies were identified although specific detail was often lacking. Non-participation rates in audio-recording studies ranged from 3 to 83% for patients and 7 to 84% for GPs; in video-recording studies they ranged from 0 to 83% for patients and 0 to 93% for GPs. There was little evidence to suggest that recording significantly affects patient or practitioner behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Research involving audio or video recording of consultations is both feasible and acceptable. More detailed reporting of the methodical characteristics of recruitment in the published literature is needed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Researchers should consider the impact of diverse sampling and recruitment strategies on participation levels. Participants should be informed that there is little evidence that recording consultations negatively affects their content or the decisions made. Researchers should increase reporting of ethical and recruitment processes in order to facilitate future reviews and meta-analyses.

Delivering feedback on learning organization characteristics--using a Learning Practice Inventory.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Learning is recognized to be at the heart of the quality improvement process in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the challenge will be how to ensure that learning becomes embedded within the NHS culture. The aim of this study is to identify a robust feedback process and format in which practices could receive data on their responses to a Learning Practice Inventory (a diagnostic instrument designed to identify a practice's capacity for collective learning and change). METHOD: Five practices volunteered to test the instrument, and it was distributed to all members of the primary care team. A process was worked through to identify different formats for presenting scores within and between practices. The preferred method of data presentation was sought, and an evaluation gathered information on the preferred form of feedback, the usefulness of the data, the clarity of the questions and the level of interest in receiving further information. RESULTS: Eighty-five staff from five practices completed the questionnaire, and 61 individuals completed the evaluation forms. In most cases, there was a spread of scores by staff within practices and across the scale of 1-10. Medians were clustered at the learning practice end for all five practices. However, despite this skew, there were sometimes quite large differences between practices in their median scores. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that a robust feedback process on collective capacity for learning and change can be identified that is useful and feasible. A key implication is that some form of educational support is required, and this work will take place as part of an ongoing programme of research by the authors.

The Learning Practice Inventory: diagnosing and developing Learning Practices in the UK.

BACKGROUND AND SETTING: This paper outlines the development of a diagnostic tool to help Primary Care general practitioner (GP) Practices diagnose the extent to which they are developing effective techniques for collective learning and if their Practice culture supports innovation. This project is undertaken by the University of St Andrews and NHS Education for Scotland. METHODS: Based on Learning Organization and Organizational Learning theory, and using a modified Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale, the Learning Practice Inventory (LPI) identifies attitudes, behaviours, processes, systems and organizational arrangements associated with being a Learning Practice. The LPI is a self-assessment, fixed-choice, survey-feedback tool that surveys all Practice members. RESULTS: The survey-feedback tool empowers Practice members to view, assess and prioritize the developments they wish to make collectively to Practice life. The LPI assumes complexity and non-linearity in change processes, used longitudinally it tracks the impact of change on Practice life through time. Practitioners and Practices involved in its development give favourable feedback on the tool, and its potential usefulness. DISCUSSION: This contributes to our wider understanding in three main ways: first, it applies the ideas of Learning Organizations and Organizational Learning to health care settings. Second, as a practical advance, the tool assumes complexity, non-linearity and systemic knock-on effects during change in Primary Care. Third, it offers practitioners who work together the opportunity to share knowledge and learning in practical ways helping them to change by themselves and for themselves and their patients.

Blurred boundaries damage inter-professional working.

Everybody pays lip-service to the idea that healthcare professionals should collaborate in delivering care to patients. In this article, Rosemary Rushmer explores how a new methodology, connate theory could lead to improvements in our understanding of what makes healthcare teams tick.

Introducing the Learning Practice--I. The characteristics of Learning Organizations in Primary Care.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the first of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. Here we introduce the notion of the Learning Practice (LP) and outline the characteristics and nature of an LP, exploring cultural and structural factors in detail. METHODS: Drawing upon both theoretical concepts and empirical research into LOs in health care settings, the format, focus and feasibility of an LP is explored. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of LPs include flatter team-based structures that prioritize learning and empowered change, involve staff and are open to suggestions and innovation. Potential benefits include: timely changes in service provision that are realistic, acceptable, sustainable, and owned at practitioner level; smoother interprofessional working; and fast flowing informal communication backed up by records of key decisions to facilitate permanent learning. Critical comment on potential pitfalls and practical difficulties highlights features of the present system that hinder development: tightly defined roles; political behaviours and individual-oriented support systems; plus the ongoing difficulties involved in tolerating errors (whilst people learn). This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in the area in three main ways. First, by locating Government's desires to create health systems capable of learning within the theoretical and empirical evidence on LOs. Second, it suggests what an LP could be like and how its culture and structures might benefit both staff and patients in addition to meeting externally driven reforms and health priorities. Third, it extends the application of LO concepts to the health care sector locating the principles in bottom-up change.

Introducing the Learning Practice--II. Becoming a Learning Practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the second of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. METHODS: Based on a theoretical and empirical review of available evidence, here we introduce the process by which a Practice can start to become a Learning Practice (LP). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Steps taken to enhance both individual and organizational learning begin the process of moving towards a learning culture. Attention is given to the routines that can be established within the practice to make learning systematically an integral part of what the practice does. This involves focusing on all three of single-, double- and triple-loop learning. Within the paper, a distinction is made between individual, collective and organizational learning. We argue that individual and collective learning may be easier to achieve than organizational learning as processes and systems already exist within the Health Service to facilitate personal learning and development with some opportunities for collective and integrated learning and working. However, although organizational learning needs to spread beyond the LP to the wider Health Service to inform future training courses, policy and decision-making, there currently seem to be few processes by which this might be achieved. This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in three main ways. First, by reviewing existing theoretical and empirical material on LOs in health care settings it provides both an informed vision and a set of practical guidelines on the ways in which a Practice could start to effect its own regime of learning, innovation and change. Second, it highlights the paucity of opportunities individual general practitioner practices have to share their learning more widely. Thirdly, it adds to the evidence base on how to apply LO theory and activate learning cultures in health care settings.

Introducing the Learning Practice--III. Leadership, empowerment, protected time and reflective practice as core contextual conditions.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the third of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. METHODS: Here we provide a systematic literature review of contextual factors that either play a key role in providing a facilitative context for a Learning Practice or manifest themselves as barriers to any Practice's attempts to develop a learning culture. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Core contextual conditions are identified as, first, the requirement for strong and visionary leadership. Leaders who support and develop others, ask challenging questions, are willing to be learners themselves, see possibilities and make things happen, facilitate learning environments. The second core condition is the involvement and empowerment of staff where changes grow from the willing participation of all concerned. The third prerequisite is the setting-aside of times and places for learning and reflection. This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in three main ways. First, by highlighting the local contextual issues that are most likely to impact on the success or failure of a Practice's attempts to work towards a learning culture. Second, by demonstrating that the very same factors can either help or hinder depending on how they are manifest and played out in context. Third, it adds to the evidence available to support the case for LOs in health care settings.

Clinical governance and the learning organization.

AIM: This paper compares and contrasts clinical governance and organizational learning. BACKGROUND: Clinical governance represents one of the most significant policy developments in recent years. It places on all health care delivery organizations a statutory duty to develop the systems, standards and processes necessary to improve health care quality and manage risk. At the same time, many health care organizations are seeking new ways in which learning can be retained and deployed more widely within the organization (organizational learning). KEY ISSUES: Both approaches emphasize cultural changes as essential underpinnings to quality improvement. However, the two approaches also differ fundamentally in their logic of action. Clinical governance is essentially 'top down', being built around formal standards, established procedures, and regular monitoring and reporting. In contrast, organizational learning emphasizes 'bottom up' changes in values, beliefs and motivations in such a way that learning and change are prioritized. The challenge for managers and practitioners lies in seeking a creative tension between these two contrasting styles of organizational change.

Pain assessment with interactive computer animation.

A method of assessing pain using interactive computer animation is described. This method provides quantitative measurements of different qualitative aspects of pain experience without reliance on fine verbal distinctions. A clinical comparison of this procedure and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is reported. Correlations between paper and animated visual analogue scales (VAS) showed that animated measurements can be reliably compared to traditional paper-based reporting. Measurements using animations designed to assess different qualities of pain experience correlated significantly with SF-MPQ measures, providing good concurrent validity. A difference was found between patients who chose only one quality-of-pain animation and those who chose more than one, possibly indicating a difference in patients' verbal fluency. Patients overwhelmingly preferred the interactive animations to the paper-based method.