Collaboration between health services managers and researchers: making a difference?

Objective Our aim was to evaluate whether the involvement of health care managers in research projects improves the quality and relevance of research, and whether collaboration builds capacity in the managerial community. Methods The NIHR Service Delivery and Organization Management Fellowship programme supports the direct involvement of health care managers in research projects. Data were collected from face-to-face interviews with management fellows and chief investigators of research projects at 10 case study sites. Data were analysed thematically using an adapted Kirkpatrick framework for programme evaluation. Results Management fellows improved the relevance and quality of research through enhancing its validity, efficiency and credibility. This was achieved by: using their contextual understanding to enable and support access and recruitment participants, data collection tools, processes and analysis; supporting dissemination activities; and undertaking additional work which was complementary to the main project. Capacity was developed through formal courses and exposure to new knowledge, ideas and practices. Factors found to enable or impede improvements in research included management fellows' knowledge and experience of the NHS, their background and personal characteristics, mutual respect, timing and flexibility. Consequences were not always predictable. Costs for management fellows included foregone opportunities, specifically for promoted posts. Researchers reported time-costs associated with administering the fellowship. Conclusions Collaborations between managers and researchers can improve research relevance and quality and research capacity development. Factors critical to success relate to the fit between the project and the management fellow and how clearly the purpose is understood

Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice

BACKGROUND: A consulting method known as 'shared decision making' (SDM) has been described and operationalized in terms of several 'competences'. One of these competences concerns the discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment or care options-'risk communication'. Few data exist on clinicians' ability to acquire skills and implement the competences of SDM or risk communication in consultations with patients. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of skill development workshops for SDM and the use of risk communication aids on the process of consultations. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. Half the consultations were randomly selected for audio-taping, of which 352 patients attended and were audio-taped successfully. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were allocated randomly to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations were audio-taped from each phase. Raters (independent, trained and blinded to study phase) assessed the audio-tapes using a validated scale to assess levels of patient involvement (OPTION: observing patient involvement), and to analyse the nature of risk information discussed. Clinicians completed questionnaires after each consultation, assessing perceived clinician-patient agreement and level of patient involvement in decisions. Multilevel modelling was carried out with the OPTION score as the dependent variable, and rater, consultation and clinician levels of data, standardized by rater within clinician. RESULTS: Following each of the interventions, the clinicians significantly increased their involvement of patients in decision making (OPTION score increased by 10.6 following risk communication training [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9 -13.3; P < 0.001] and by 12.9 after SDM skill development (95% CI 10 -15.8, P < 0.001), a moderate effect size. The level of involvement achieved by the risk communication aids was significantly increased by the subsequent introduction of the skill development workshops (7.7 increase in OPTION score, 95% CI 3.4-12; P < 0.001). The alternative sequence (skills followed by risk communication aids) did not achieve this effect. The use of most risk information formats increased after the provision of specific risk communication aids (P < 0.001). Clinicians using the risk communication tools perceived significantly higher patient and clinician agreement on treatment (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction with information (P < 0.01), clinician satisfaction with decision (P < 0.01) and general overall satisfaction with the consultation (P < 0.001) than those who were exposed to SDM skill development workshops. CONCLUSIONS: These clinicians were able to acquire the skills to implement SDM competences and to use risk communication aids. Each intervention provided independent effects. Further progress towards greater patient involvement in health care decision making is possible, and skill development in this area should be incorporated into postgraduate professional development programmes

DAMASK Trial Team. Influence of MRI of the knee on general practitioners' decisions: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the knee for meniscus and ligament injuries is an accurate diagnostic test. Early and accurate diagnosis of patients with knee problems may prevent the onset of chronic problems such as osteoarthritis, a common cause of disability in older people consulting their GP. AIM: To assess the effect of early access to MRI, compared with referral to an orthopaedic specialist, on GPs' diagnoses and treatment plans for patients with knee problems. DESIGN OF STUDY: A multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five hundred and fifty-three patients with knee problems were recruited from 163 general practices across the UK from November 2002 to October 2004. METHOD: Eligible patients were randomised to MRI or consultation with an orthopaedic specialist. GPs made a concomitant provisional referral to orthopaedics for patients who were allocated to imaging. GPs recorded patients' diagnoses, treatment plans, and their confidence in these decisions at trial entry and follow-up. Data were analysed as intention to treat. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between MRI and orthopaedic groups for changes in diagnosis (P = 0.79) or treatment plans (P = 0.059). Significant changes in diagnostic and therapeutic confidence were observed for both groups with a greater increase in diagnostic confidence (P<0.001) and therapeutic confidence (P = 0.002) in the MRI group. There was a significant increase in within-group changes in diagnostic and therapeutic confidence. CONCLUSION: Access to MRI did not significantly alter GPs' diagnoses or treatment plans compared with direct referral to an orthopaedic specialist, but access to MRI significantly increased their confidence in these decisions