Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey

Background: It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. Methods: Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. Results: Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. Conclusions: Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred

Patient and clinician factors associated with prehospital pain treatment and outcomes: cross sectional study

Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Objective: We aimed to identify how patient (age, sex, condition) and paramedic factors (sex, role) affected prehospital analgesic administration and pain alleviation. Methods: We used a cross-sectional design with a 7-day retrospective sample of adults aged 18 years or over requiring primary emergency transport to hospital, excluding patients with Glasgow Coma Scale below 13, in two UK ambulance services. Multivariate multilevel regression using Stata 14 analysed factors independently associated with analgesic administration and a clinically meaningful reduction in pain (≥2 points on 0–10 numerical verbal pain score [NVPS]). Results: We included data on 9574 patients. At least two pain scores were recorded in 4773 (49.9%) patients. For all models fitted there was no significant relationship between analgesic administration or pain reduction and sex of the patient or ambulance staff. Reduction in pain (NVPS ≥2) was associated with ambulance crews including at least one paramedic (odds ratio [OR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 2.04, p < 0.01), with any recorded pain score and suspected cardiac pain (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.75). Intravenous morphine administration was also more likely where crews included a paramedic (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.93 to 4.13, P < 0.01), attending patients aged 51 to 64 years (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.45, p = 0.01), in moderate to severe (NVPS 4–10) compared with lower levels of pain for any clinical condition group compared with the reference condition. Conclusion: There was no association between patient sex or ambulance staff sex or grade and analgesic administration or pain reduction.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

Qualitative research within trials: developing a standard operating procedure for a clinical trials unit

BackgroundQualitative research methods are increasingly used within clinical trials to address broader research questions than can be addressed by quantitative methods alone. These methods enable health professionals, service users, and other stakeholders to contribute their views and experiences to evaluation of healthcare treatments, interventions, or policies, and influence the design of trials. Qualitative data often contribute information that is better able to reform policy or influence design.MethodsHealth services researchers, including trialists, clinicians, and qualitative researchers, worked collaboratively to develop a comprehensive portfolio of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the West Wales Organisation for Rigorous Trials in Health (WWORTH), a clinical trials unit (CTU) at Swansea University, which has recently achieved registration with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC). Although the UKCRC requires a total of 25 SOPs from registered CTUs, WWORTH chose to add an additional qualitative-methods SOP (QM-SOP).ResultsThe qualitative methods SOP (QM-SOP) defines good practice in designing and implementing qualitative components of trials, while allowing flexibility of approach and method. Its basic principles are that: qualitative researchers should be contributors from the start of trials with qualitative potential; the qualitative component should have clear aims; and the main study publication should report on the qualitative component.ConclusionsWe recommend that CTUs consider developing a QM-SOP to enhance the conduct of quantitative trials by adding qualitative data and analysis. We judge that this improves the value of quantitative trials, and contributes to the future development of multi-method trial

Primary Care Service Utilization Among People at High Risk of Fatal Opioid Overdose: A Short Communication on an Autopsy Study

Objectives: We sought to explore the sociodemographics and primary care service utilization among people who died from opioid overdose and to assess the possibility of using this information to identify those at high risk of opioid overdose using routine linked data. Methods: Data related to decedents of opioid overdose between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015 were linked with general practitioner (GP) records over a period of 36 months prior to death. Results: Of n = 312 decedents of opioid overdose, 73% were male (n = 228). Average age at death was 40.72 (SD 11.92) years. A total of 63.8% of the decedents were living in the 2 most deprived quintiles according to the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation. Over 80% (n = 258) of the decedents were recorded as having at least 1 GP episode during the 36-month observation period prior to death. The median number of episodes per decedent was 75 [38-118]. Overall, 31.8% (n = 82) of decedents with at least 1 GP episode received a prescription for a proton pump inhibitor and 31% (n = 80) were prescribed a broad-spectrum antibiotic. According to their GP records, less than 10% were referred to or receiving specialist drug treatment (n = 24, 9.3%); or were known to be drug dependent (n = 21, 8.14%), or a drug user (n = 5, 1.94%). In all, 81% were recorded as smokers (n = 209) and 10.5% as ex-smokers (n = 27). Conclusions: The majority of decedents of opioid overdose were in contact with GP services prior to death. GPs are either often unaware of high-risk opioid use, or rarely record details of opioid use in patient notes. It is possible that GP awareness of high-risk opioid use could be increased. For example, awareness of the risks associated with opioid use, and the relationship between the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of opioid overdose decedents could be raised using educational materials prominently displayed in waiting areas. Clinicians in primary care may be in an excellent position to intervene in problematic opioid use

Thematic Research network for emergency and UnScheduled Treatment (TRUST): scoping the potential

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify the benefits of a network in emergency and unscheduled care research, a six week scoping study was undertaken. Objectives were to: draw together stakeholders; identify and prioritise research topics; identify sites for recruitment to studies; and agree a research strategy for a network.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A workshop was held to discuss and agree a research strategy based on results from four activities: visits to established research centres in emergency and unscheduled care; a literature overview; interviews with stakeholders in a GP out-of-hours service; and an exploration of the potential for routine data to support research in emergency care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Participants attended the workshop from user groups, primary care, the ambulance service, social care, the national telephone based health helpline, the Welsh Assembly Government and the academic sector. Site visits identified opportunities for collaboration. Gaps in knowledge were identified concerning the effectiveness of alternative models of emergency care delivery. Interview data highlighted a lack of evidence related to the quality of out-of-hours provision of primary care. The All Wales Injury Surveillance System (AWISS) was found to offer the potential to use routine data to support quantitative studies in emergency care. Three key issues emerged across all activities: working across boundaries; patient involvement; and triage.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study included views from patient, provider, policy and academic perspectives and built the case for a research network in emergency care. Now funded, TRUST (Thematic Research network for emergency and UnScheduled Treatment) will allow the development of research proposals, building of research teams and recruitment of sites and patients both in Wales and across the UK. It aims to address the imbalance between investment and research in this area and help support provision of 'the right care to the right people at the right time'.</p