The Social Licence for Research:Why care.data Ran Into Trouble

In this article we draw on the concept of a social licence to explain public concern at the introduction of care.data, a recent English initiative designed to extract data from primary care medical records for commissioning and other purposes, including research. The concept of a social licence describes how the expectations of society regarding some activities may go beyond compliance with the requirements of formal regulation; those who do not fulfil the conditions for the social licence (even if formally compliant) may experience ongoing challenge and contestation. Previous work suggests that people's cooperation with specific research studies depends on their perceptions that their participation is voluntary and is governed by values of reciprocity, non-exploitation and service of the public good. When these conditions are not seen to obtain, threats to the social licence for research may emerge. We propose that care.data failed to adequately secure a social licence because of: (i) defects in the warrants of trust provided for care.data, (ii) the implied rupture in the traditional role, expectations and duties of general practitioners, and (iii) uncertainty about the status of care.data as a public good. The concept of a social licence may be useful in explaining the specifics of care.data, and also in reinforcing the more general lesson for policy-makers that legal authority does not necessarily command social legitimacy

Bureaucracy stifles medical research in Britain: a tale of three trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent developments aiming to standardise and streamline processes of gaining the necessary approvals to carry out research in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK), have resulted in lengthy and costly delays. The national UK governmental Department of Health’s Research Governance Framework (RGF) for Health and Social Care requires that appropriate checks be conducted before research involving human participants, their organs, tissues or data can commence in the NHS. As a result, medical research has been subjected to increased regulation and governance, with the requirement for approvals from numerous regulatory and monitoring bodies. In addition, the processes and outcomes of the attribution of costs in NHS research have caused additional difficulties for researchers. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through three trial case studies, the difficulties encountered during the set-up and recruitment phases of these trials, related to gaining the necessary ethical and governance approvals and applying for NHS costs to undertake and deliver the research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Empirical evidence about delays and difficulties related to regulation and governance of medical research was gathered during the period 2009–2010 from three UK randomised controlled trials with sites in England, Wales and Scotland (1. SAFER 2- an emergency care based trial of a protocol for paramedics to refer patients directly to community based falls services; 2. COnStRUCT- a trial of two drugs for acute ulcerative colitis; and 3. Family Links - a trial of a public health intervention, a 10 week community based parenting programme). Findings and recommendations were reported in response to a call for evidence from The Academy of Medical Sciences regarding difficulties encountered in conducting medical research arising from R&D governance and regulation, to inform national policy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Difficulties and delays in navigating and gaining the appropriate approvals and NHS costs required to undertake the research were encountered in all three trials, at various points in the bureaucratic processes of ethical and research and information governance approvals. Conduct of each of the three trials was delayed by at least 12 months, with costs increasing by 30 – 40%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Whilst the three trials encountered a variety of challenges, there were common issues. The processes for gaining approvals were overly complex and differed between sites and UK countries; guidance about processes was unclear; and information regarding how to define and claim NHS costs for undertaking the research was inconsistent. The competitive advantage of a publicly funded, open access health system for undertaking health services research and clinical trials within the UK has been outweighed in recent years by stifling bureaucratic structures and processes for governance of research. The recommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences are welcomed, and the effects of their implementation are awaited with interest.</p> <p>Trial Registration numbers</p> <p>SAFER 2: ISRCTN 60481756; COnStRUCT: ISRCTN22663589; Family Links: ISRCTN 13929732</p

Reducing the environmental impact of trials: a comparison of the carbon footprint of the CRASH-1 and CRASH-2 clinical trials

BACKGROUND: All sectors of the economy, including the health research sector, must reduce their carbon emissions. The UK National Institute for Health Research has recently prepared guidelines on how to minimize the carbon footprint of research. We compare the carbon emissions from two international clinical trials in order to identify where emissions reductions can be made. METHODS: We conducted a carbon audit of two clinical trials (the CRASH-1 and CRASH-2 trials), quantifying the carbon dioxide emissions produced over a one-year audit period. Carbon emissions arising from the coordination centre, freight delivery, trial-related travel and commuting were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The total emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents during the one-year audit period were 181.3 tonnes for CRASH-1 and 108.2 tonnes for CRASH-2. In total, CRASH-1 emitted 924.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents compared with 508.5 tonnes for CRASH-2. The CRASH-1 trial recruited 10,008 patients over 5.1 years, corresponding to 92 kg of carbon dioxide per randomized patient. The CRASH-2 trial recruited 20,211 patients over 4.7 years, corresponding to 25 kg of carbon dioxide per randomized patient. The largest contributor to emissions in CRASH-1 was freight delivery of trial materials (86.0 tonnes, 48% of total emissions), whereas the largest contributor in CRASH-2 was energy use by the trial coordination centre (54.6 tonnes, 30% of total emissions). CONCLUSIONS: Faster patient recruitment in the CRASH-2 trial largely accounted for its greatly increased carbon efficiency in terms of emissions per randomized patient. Lighter trial materials and web-based data entry also contributed to the overall lower carbon emissions in CRASH-2 as compared to CRASH-1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: CRASH-1: ISRCTN74459797CRASH-2: ISRCTN86750102

Clinical leadership in service redesign using Clinical Commissioning Groups: a mixed-methods study

Background: A core component of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Great Britain. Health and Social Care Act 2012. London: HMSO; 2012) was the idea of devolving to general practitioners (GPs) a health service leadership role for service redesign. For this purpose, new Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) were formed in the English NHS.Objectives: This research examined the extent to which, and the methods by which, clinicians stepped forward to take up a leadership role in service redesign using CCGs as a platform.Design: The project proceeded in five phases: (1) a scoping study across 15 CCGs, (2) the design and administration of a national survey of all members of CCG governing bodies in 2014, (3) six main in-depth case studies, (4) a second national survey of governing body members in 2016, which allowed longitudinal comparisons, and (5) international comparisons.Participants: In addition to GPs serving in clinical lead roles for CCGs, the research included insights from accountable officers and other managers and perspectives from secondary care and other provider organisations (local authority councillors and staff, patients and the public, and other relevant bodies).Results: Instances of the exercise of clinical leadership utilising the mechanism of the CCGs were strikingly varied. Some CCG teams had made little of the opportunity. However, we found other examples of clinicians stepping forward to bring about meaningful improvements in services. The most notable cases involved the design of integrated care for frail elderly patients and others with long-term conditions. The leadership of these service redesigns required cross-boundary working with primary care, secondary care, community care and social work. The processes enabling such breakthroughs required interlocking processes of leadership across three arenas: (1) strategy-level work at CCG board level, (2) mid-range operational planning and negotiation at programme board level and (3) the arena of practical implementation leadership at the point of delivery. The arena of the CCG board provided the legitimacy for strategic change; the programme boards worked through the competing logics of markets, hierarchy and networks; and the practice arena allowed the exercise of clinical leadership in practical problemsolving, detailed learning and routinisation of new ways of working at a common-sense everyday level.Limitations: Although the research was conducted over a 3-year period, it could be argued that a much longer period is required for CCGs to mature and realise their potential.Conclusions: Despite the variation in practice, we found significant examples of clinical leaders forging new modes of service design and delivery. A great deal of the service redesign effort was directed at compensating for the fragmented nature of the NHS – part of which had been created by the 2012 reforms. This is the first study to reveal details of such work in a systematic way

Clinicians' attitude towards a placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of neuraminidase inhibitors in adults hospitalised with influenza

Background: The value of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing severe clinical outcomes from influenza is debated. A clinical trial to generate better evidence is desirable. However, it is unknown whether UK clinicians would support a placebo controlled trial. A survey was conducted to determine the attitude of clinicians towards a clinical trial and their current practice in managing adults admitted to hospital with suspected influenza. Methods: Senior clinicians (n=50) across the UK actively involved in the care of patients hospitalised with severe respiratory infections and/or respiratory infection research were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Participants were asked their opinion on the evidence for benefit of NAIs in influenza, their current practice in relation to: a) testing for influenza; b) treating empirically with NAIs; and c) when influenza infection is virolologically confirmed, prescribing NAIs. Results: Thirty-five (70%) of 50 clinicians completed the survey. Respondents were drawn mainly from infectious diseases, intensive care and respiratory medicine. Only 11 (31%) of 35 respondents agreed that NAIs are effective at reducing influenza mortality;14(40%)disagreed, 10 (28.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed. When managing adults admitted to non-ICU wards with a respiratory infection during an influenza season, 15 (51.7%) clinicians indicated they would usually perform a test for influenza in greater than 60% of patients but only 9 (31%) would treat empirically with NAIs in greater than 60% of patients. Few clinicians would either test or empirically treat patients presenting with other (non-respiratory infection related) diagnoses. If influenza infection is confirmed, 17 (64.5%) clinicians would prescribe NAIs in greater than 80% of patients with a respiratory infection treated on non-ICU wards Thirty-one (89%) clinicians agreed that a placebo-controlled clinical trial should be conducted and 29 (85%) would participate in such a trial. Conclusions: There is strong support from UK clinicians for a placebo-controlled trial of NAI treatment in adults hospitalised with suspected influenza. Current variation in medical opinion and clinical practice demonstrates collective equipoise, supporting ethical justification for a trial. Low use of NAIs in the UK suggests randomisation of treatment would not substantially divert patients towards placebo

Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups

The last decade has seen the evaluation of health research pay more and more attention to societal use and benefits of research in addition to scientific quality, both in qualitative and quantitative ways. This paper elaborates primarily on a quantitative approach to assess societal output and use of research performed by health research groups (societal quality of research). For this reason, one of the Dutch university medical centres (i.e. the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)) was chosen as the subject of a pilot study, because of its mission to integrate top patient care with medical, biomedical and healthcare research and education. All research departments were used as units of evaluation within this university medical centre

Reporting of health estimates prior to GATHER: a scoping review

Background: Generating estimates of health indicators at the global, regional, and country levels is increasingly in demand in order to meet reporting requirements for global and country targets, such as the sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, such estimates are sensitive to availability of input data, underlying analytic assumptions, variability in statistical techniques, and often have important limitations. From a user perspective, there is often a lack of transparency and replicability. In order to define best practices in reporting data and methods used to calculate health estimates, the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) working group developed a minimum checklist of 18 items that must be reported within each study publishing health estimates, so that users may make an assessment of the quality of the estimate. Objective: We conducted a scoping review to assess the state of reporting amongst a cross-sectional sample of studies published prior to the publication of GATHER. Methods: We generated a sample of UN reports and journal articles through a combination of a Medline search and hand-searching published health estimates. From these studies we extracted the percentage of studies correctly reporting each item on the checklist, the proportion of items reported per study (the GATHER performance score), and how this score varied depending on study type. Results: The average proportion of items reported per study was 0.47, and the poorest-performing items related to documentation and availability of input data, availability of the statistical code used and the subsequent output data, and a complete detailed description of all the steps of the data analysis. Conclusions: Methods for health estimates are not currently fully reported, and the implementation of the GATHER guidelines will improve the availability of information required to make an assessment of study quality

Freedom and need: The evolution of public strategy for biomedical and health research in England

The optimal support of health-related research and development with public money is a complex challenge. Over the last century, policy makers in England have conceived and implemented a variety of models, ranging from independent, curiosity driven research to needs-based state commissions, and promoting different bodies to oversee scientific work. This paper traces these approaches, identifies the principles that drove them, and discusses their role in shaping policy for publicly funded health research, up to the recent launch of a new research strategy by the Department of Health