The ‘dark side’ of knowledge brokering

Deploying knowledge brokers to bridge the ‘gap’ between researchers and practitioners continues to be seen as an unquestionable enabler of evidence-based practice and is often endorsed uncritically. We explore the ‘dark side’ of knowledge brokering, reflecting on its inherent challenges which we categorize as: (1) tensions between different aspects of brokering; (2) tensions between different types and sources of knowledge; and (3) tensions resulting from the ‘in-between’ position of brokers. As a result of these tensions, individual brokers may struggle to maintain their fragile and ambiguous intermediary position, and some of the knowledge may be lost in the ‘in-between world’, whereby research evidence is transferred to research users without being mobilized in their day-to-day practice. To be effective, brokering requires an amalgamation of several types of knowledge and a multidimensional skill set that needs to be sustained over time. If we want to maximize the impact of research on policy and practice, we should move from deploying individual ‘brokers’ to embracing the collective process of ‘brokering’ supported at the organizational and policy levels

Contributors are representative, as long as they agree: how confirmation logic overrides effort to achieve synthesis in applied health research

Introduction The paradox of representation in public involvement in research is well recognized, whereby public contributors are seen as either too naïve to meaningfully contribute or too knowledgeable to represent ‘the average patient’. Given the underlying assumption that expertise undermines contributions made, more expert contributors who have significant experience in research can be a primary target of criticism. We conducted a secondary analysis of a case of expert involvement and a case of lived experience, to examine how representation was discussed in each. Methods We analysed a case of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) chosen for direct personal experience of a topic and a case of an expert Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel. Secondary analysis was of multiple qualitative data sources, including interviews with the LEAP contributors and researchers, Panel evaluation data and documentary analysis of researcher reports of Panel impacts. Analysis was undertaken collaboratively by the author team of contributors and researchers. Results Data both from interviews with researchers and reported observations by the Panel indicated that representation was a concern for researchers in both cases. Consistent with previous research, this challenge was deployed in response to contributors requesting changes to researcher plans. However, we also observed that when contributor input could be used to support research activity, it was described unequivocally as representative of ‘the patient view’. We describe this as researchers holding a confirmation logic. By contrast, contributor accounts enacted a synthesis logic, which emphasized multiplicity of viewpoints and active dialogue. These logics are incompatible in practice, with the confirmation logic constraining the potential for the synthesis logic to be achieved. Conclusion Researchers tend to enact a confirmation logic that seeks a monophonic patient voice to legitimize decisions. Contributors are therefore limited in their ability to realize a synthesis logic that would actively blend different types of knowledge. These different logics hold different implications regarding representation, with the synthesis logic emphasizing diversity and negotiation, as opposed to the current system in which ‘being representative' is a quality attributed to contributors by researchers. Patient or Public Contribution Patient contributors are study coauthors, partners in analysis and reporting

“Attending to History” in Major System Change in Healthcare in England: Specialist Cancer Surgery Service Reconfiguration

BACKGROUND: The reconfiguration of specialist hospital services, with service provision concentrated in a reduced number of sites, is one example of major system change (MSC) for which there is evidence of improved patient outcomes. This paper explores the reconfiguration of specialist oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer surgery services in a large urban area of England (Greater Manchester, GM), with a focus on the role of history in this change process and how reconfiguration was achieved after previous failed attempts. METHODS: This study draws on qualitative research from a mixed-methods evaluation of the reconfiguration of specialist cancer surgery services in GM. Forty-six interviews with relevant stakeholders were carried out, along with ~160 hours of observations at meetings and the acquisition of ~300 pertinent documents. Thematic analysis using deductive and inductive approaches was undertaken, guided by a framework of 'simple rules' for MSC. RESULTS: Through an awareness of, and attention to, history, leaders developed a change process which took into account previous unsuccessful reconfiguration attempts, enabling them to reduce the impact of potentially challenging issues. Interviewees described attending to issues involving competition between provider sites, change leadership, engagement with stakeholders, and the need for a process of change resilient to challenge. CONCLUSION: Recognition of, and response to, history, using a range of perspectives, enabled this reconfiguration. Particularly important was the way in which history influenced and informed other aspects of the change process and the influence of stakeholder power. This study provides further learning about MSC and the need for a range of perspectives to enable understanding. It shows how learning from history can be used to enable successful change

Explaining outcomes in major system change: a qualitative study of implementing centralised acute stroke services in two large metropolitan regions in England.

Implementing major system change in healthcare is not well understood. This gap may be addressed by analysing change in terms of interrelated components identified in the implementation literature, including decision to change, intervention selection, implementation approaches, implementation outcomes, and intervention outcomes

Impact and sustainability of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas:Retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics and stroke national audit data

Objectives To investigate whether further centralisation of acute stroke services in Greater Manchester in 2015 was associated with changes in outcomes and whether the effects of centralisation of acute stroke services in London in 2010 were sustained. Design Retrospective analyses of patient level data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database linked to mortality data from the Office for National Statistics, and the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP). Setting Acute stroke services in Greater Manchester and London, England. Participants 509 182 stroke patients in HES living in urban areas admitted between January 2008 and March 2016; 218 120 stroke patients in SSNAP between April 2013 and March 2016. Interventions Hub and spoke models for acute stroke care. Main outcome measures Mortality at 90 days after hospital admission; length of acute hospital stay; treatment in a hyperacute stroke unit; 19 evidence based clinical interventions. Results In Greater Manchester, borderline evidence suggested that risk adjusted mortality at 90 days declined overall; a significant decline in mortality was seen among patients treated at a hyperacute stroke unit (difference-in-differences -1.8% (95% confidence interval -3.4 to -0.2)), indicating 69 fewer deaths per year. A significant decline was seen in risk adjusted length of acute hospital stay overall (-1.5 (-2.5 to -0.4) days; P&lt;0.01), indicating 6750 fewer bed days a year. The number of patients treated in a hyperacute stroke unit increased from 39% in 2010-12 to 86% in 2015/16. In London, the 90 day mortality rate was sustained (P&gt;0.05), length of hospital stay declined (P&lt;0.01), and more than 90% of patients were treated in a hyperacute stroke unit. Achievement of evidence based clinical interventions generally remained constant or improved in both areas. Conclusions Centralised models of acute stroke care, in which all stroke patients receive hyperacute care, can reduce mortality and length of acute hospital stay and improve provision of evidence based clinical interventions. Effects can be sustained over time.</p

Effects of centralizing acute stroke services on stroke care provision in two large metropolitan areas in England

Background and Purpose: In 2010, Greater Manchester and London centralized acute stroke care into hyperacute units (Greater Manchester=3, London=8), with additional units providing ongoing specialist stroke care nearer patients' homes. Greater Manchester patients presenting within 4 hours of symptom onset were eligible for hyperacute unit admission; all London patients were eligible. Research indicates that postcentralization, only London's stroke mortality fell significantly more than elsewhere in England. This article attempts to explain this difference by analyzing how centralization affects provision of evidence-based clinical interventions. Methods: Controlled before and after analysis was conducted, using national audit data covering Greater Manchester, London, and a noncentralized urban comparator (38 623 adult stroke patients, April 2008 to December 2012). Likelihood of receiving all interventions measured reliably in pre- and postcentralization audits (brain scan; stroke unit admission; receiving antiplatelet; physiotherapist, nutrition, and swallow assessments) was calculated, adjusting for age, sex, stroketype, consciousness, and whether stroke occurred in-hospital. Results: Postcentralization, likelihood of receiving interventions increased in all areas. London patients were overall significantly more likely to receive interventions, for example, brain scan within 3 hours: Greater Manchester=65.2% (95% confidence interval=64.3-66.2); London=72.1% (71.4-72.8); comparator=55.5% (54.8-56.3). Hyperacute units were significantly more likely to provide interventions, but fewer Greater Manchester patients were admitted to these (Greater Manchester=39%; London=93%). Differences resulted from contrasting hyperacute unit referral criteria and how reliably they were followed. Conclusions: Centralized systems admitting all stroke patients to hyperacute units, as in London, are significantly more likely to provide evidence-based clinical interventions. This may help explain previous research showing better outcomes associated with fully centralized models.</p

Impact of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas on mortality and length of hospital stay:difference-in-differences analysis

Objective: To investigate whether centralisation of acute stroke services in two metropolitan areas of England was associated with changes in mortality and length of hospital stay. Design: Analysis of difference-in-differences between regions with patient level data from the hospital episode statistics database linked to mortality data supplied by the Office for National Statistics. Setting: Acute stroke services in Greater Manchester and London, England. Participants 258 915 patients with stroke living in urban areas and admitted to hospital in January 2008 to March 2012. Interventions: "Hub and spoke" model for acute stroke care. In London hyperacute care was provided to all patients with stroke. In Greater Manchester hyperacute care was provided to patients presenting within four hours of developing symptoms of stroke. Main outcome measures: Mortality from any cause and at any place at 3, 30, and 90 days after hospital admission; length of hospital stay. Results: In London there was a significant decline in risk adjusted mortality at 3, 30, and 90 days after admission. At 90 days the absolute reduction was -1.1% (95% confidence interval -2.1 to -0.1; relative reduction 5%), indicating 168 fewer deaths (95% confidence interval 19 to 316) during the 21 month period after reconfiguration in London. In both areas there was a significant decline in risk adjusted length of hospital stay: -2.0 days in Greater Manchester (95% confidence interval -2.8 to -1.2; 9%) and -1.4 days in London (-2.3 to -0.5; 7%). Reductions in mortality and length of hospital stay were largely seen among patients with ischaemic stroke. Conclusions: A centralised model of acute stroke care, in which hyperacute care is provided to all patients with stroke across an entire metropolitan area, can reduce mortality and length of hospital stay.</p