Exploring the sustainable impacts of a clinical healthcare research scholarship programme.

BACKGROUND: The NHS is the first public body globally to commit to net zero. AIM: This study aimed to explore the environmental sustainability impact of a hospital scholarship programme. METHOD: A sustainable quality improvement value framework was used to measure the programme's environmental, social and financial effects. RESULTS: The social impact through face-to-face contact was most valued by scholars; there were also savings in carbon emissions and costs. DISCUSSION: Training in sustainability is essential for the workforce but little infrastructure and expertise are available within organisations to support staff to provide sustainable healthcare in day-to-day practice. CONCLUSION: Sustainable healthcare should be supported by education and national guidance and implementation plans should be drawn up to this end. The social impact of the framework used is often seen as less important than its environmental and financial components; however, as its value to scholars illustrates, the components are intertwined and should be considered of equal importance.

Developing critical enquiry, capacity, capability and confidence in the health and care workforce.

BACKGROUND: Health and care staff have limited opportunities to design, deliver and lead critical enquiry activities. AIMS: To explore barriers and enablers of building capacity, capability and confidence of these practitioners who wish to undertake critical enquiry activity. METHODS: A realist conceptual framework including the development of middle range theory allowed analysis of the scholarship process and outcomes. Data were collected through snap surveys, interviews (face to face and online) and project output (posters). RESULTS: Nine scholars completed the programme and all participated in the study. They all experienced an increase in capacity, capability and confidence in critical enquiry activity. Six overarching themes arose from analysis of the interviews and snap survey data: value; expertise; attitudes; meaningful, responsive support; brain space; and skill and knowledge acquisition. DISCUSSION: A combined focus on people and project while staff remained embedded in their work area was key for the growth of skills and knowledge and creating impact from projects. Guilt at having dedicated time to take part in the programme was a self-imposed barrier to building capacity and capability. Social capital (gained from bringing together individuals from different groups with shared values) facilitated bonding, which increased psychological safety and helped enable capability and confidence. CONCLUSION: The combination of theory and practice embedded in a real-world context led to positive outcomes for staff, patients, carers and the facilitation team as real-life changes were made in clinical environments.