Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA): development and evaluation.

Authors:
Yvonne H Carter
Yvonne H Carter
Warwick Medical School
Coventry | United Kingdom
Sara Shaw
Sara Shaw
University College London
United Kingdom
Fraser Macfarlane
Fraser Macfarlane
School of Management
United Kingdom

Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract 2002 Feb(81):iii-vi, 1-72

Department of General Practice and Primary Care Barts and London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS.

Background: Since the early 1990s the United Kingdom (UK) Department of Health has explicitly promoted a research and development (R&D) strategy for the National Health Service (NHS). General practitioners (GPs) and other members of the primary care team are in a unique position to undertake research activity that will complement and inform the research undertaken by basic scientists and hospital-based colleagues and lead directly to a better evidence base for decision making by primary care professionals. Opportunities to engage in R&D in primary care are growing and the scope for those wishing to become involved is finally widening. Infrastructure funding for research-active practices and the establishment of a range of support networks have helped to improve the research capacity and blur some of the boundaries between academic departments and clinical practice. This is leading to a supportive environment for primary care research. There is thus a need to develop and validate nationally accepted quality standards and accreditation of performance to ensure that funders, collaborators and primary care professionals can deliver high quality primary care research. Several strategies have been described in national policy documents in order to achieve an improvement in teaching and clinical care, as well as enhancing research capacity in primary care. The development of both research practices and primary care research networks has been recognised as having an important contribution to make in enabling health professionals to devote more protected time to undertake research methods training and to undertake research in a service setting. The recognition and development of primary care research has also brought with it an emphasis on quality and standards, including an approach to the new research governance framework.

Primary Care Research Team Assessment: In 1998, the NHS Executive South and West, and later the London Research and Development Directorate, provided funding for a pilot project based at the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) to develop a scheme to accredit UK general practices undertaking primary care R&D. The pilot began with initial consultation on the development of the process, as well as the standards and criteria for assessment. The resulting assessment schedule allowed for assessment at one of two levels: Collaborative Research Practice (Level I), with little direct experience of gaining project or infrastructure funding Established Research Practice (Level II), with more experience of research funding and activity and a sound infrastructure to allow for growth in capacity. The process for assessment of practices involved the assessment of written documentation, followed by a half-day assessment visit by a multidisciplinary team of three assessors. IMPLEMENTATION--THE PILOT PROJECT: Pilot practices were sampled in two regions. Firstly, in the NHS Executive South West Region, where over 150 practices expressed an interest in participating. From these a purposive sample of 21 practices was selected, providing a range of research and service activity. A further seven practices were identified and included within the project through the East London and Essex Network of Researchers (ELENoR). Many in this latter group received funding and administrative support and advice from ELENoR in order to prepare written submissions for assessment. Some sample loss was encountered within the pilot project, which was attributable largely to conflicting demands on participants' time. Indeed, the preparation of written submissions within the South West coincided with the introduction of primary care groups (PCGs) in April 1999, which several practices cited as having a major impact on their participation in the pilot project. A final sample of 15 practices (nine in the South West and six through ELENoR) underwent assessment through the pilot project.

Evaluation: A formal evaluation of the Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA) pilot was undertaken by an independent researcher (FM). This was supplemented with feedback from the assessment team members. The qualitative aspect of the evaluation, which included face-to-face and telephone interviews with assessors, lead researchers and other practice staff within the pilot research practices, as well as members of the project management group, demonstrated a positive view of the pilot scheme. Several key areas were identified in relation to particular strengths of research practices and areas for development including: Strengths Level II practices were found to have a strong primary care team ethos in research. Level II practices tended to have a greater degree of strategic thinking in relation to research. Development areas Level I practices were found to lack a clear and explicit research strategy. Practices at both levels had scope to develop their communication processes for dissemination of research and also for patient involvement. Practices at both levels needed mechanisms for supporting professional development in research methodology. The evaluation demonstrated that practices felt that they had gained from their participation and assessors felt that the scheme had worked well. Some specific issues were raised by different respondents within the qualitative evaluation relating to consistency of interpretation of standards and also the possible overlap of the assessment scheme with other RCGP quality initiatives.

National Implementation Of The Primary Care Research Team Assessment: The pilot project has been very successful and recommendations have been made to progress to a UK scheme. Management and review of the scheme will remain largely the same, with a few changes focusing on the assessment process and support for practices entering the scheme. Specific changes include: development of the support and mentoring role of the primary care research networks increased peer and external support and mentoring for research practices undergoing assessment development of assessor training in line with other schemes within the RCGP Assessment Network work to ensure consistency across RCGP accreditation schemes in relation to key criteria, thereby facilitating comparable assessment processes refinement of the definition of the two groups, with Level I practices referred to as Collaborators and Level II practices as Investigator-Led. The project has continued to generate much enthusiasm and support and continues to reflect current policy. Indeed, recent developments include the proposed new funding arrangements for primary care R&D, which refer to the RCGP assessment scheme and recognise it as a key component in the future R&D agenda. The assessment scheme will help primary care trusts (PCTs) and individual practices to prepare and demonstrate their approach to research governance in a systematic way. It will also provide a more explicit avenue for primary care trusts to explore local service and development priorities identified within health improvement programmes and the research priorities set nationally for the NHS.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560501PMC
February 2002
17 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

primary care
76
care team
24
practices
23
pilot project
20
care
20
level practices
20
assessment
20
primary
19
team assessment
16
south west
16
assessment scheme
12
development
12
pilot
11
scheme
9
project
9
care trusts
8
nhs executive
8
rcgp assessment
8
scheme will
8
executive south
8

Similar Publications

How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?

Int J Evid Based Healthc 2008 Mar;6(1):78-110

Wales Centre for Evidence Based Care: A Collaborating Centre of the Joanna Briggs Institute, Nursing, Health and Social Care Research Centre, Cardiff School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Unlabelled: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Background: Across the developed world, we are witnessing an increasing emphasis on the need for more closely coordinated forms of health and social care provision. Integrated care pathways (ICPs) have emerged as a response to this aspiration and are believed by many to address the factors which contribute to service integration. ICPs map out a patient's journey, providing coordination of services for users. Read More

View Article
March 2008

Developing research management and governance capacity in primary care organizations: transferable learning from a qualitative evaluation of UK pilot sites.

Fam Pract 2004 Feb;21(1):92-8

Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Medical Sciences Building, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK.

Background: The capacity and capabilities for undertaking primary care research have increased both within and outside of the UK in recent years. The UK Department of Health aims to facilitate this further by establishing a national network of primary care organizations (PCOs) ready to act as hosts for shared research governance systems. However, it is unclear which models offer the most effective option. Read More

View Article
February 2004

The Experience and Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners in Orthopaedic Settings: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

JBI Libr Syst Rev 2012;10(42 Suppl):1-22

1. Orthopaedic Nurse Practitioner and MClinSc candidate, The Joanna Briggs Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005 Email: 2 Stomal Therapist and fellow MClinSc candidate, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005 Email: 3 Grad Cert Stomal Therapy Nursing, Grad Cert Health (Advanced Continence Nursing Practice), MN (Continence).

Review Question/objective: This review asks "What is the experience and effectiveness of nurse practitioners in orthopaedic settings"?The objective of the quantitative component of this review is to synthesise the best available evidence on effectiveness of orthopaedic nurse practitioner specific care on patient outcomes and process indicators.The objective of the qualitative component of this review is to synthesise the best available evidence on the experience of becoming or being an orthopaedic nurse practitioner in relation to role development, role implementation and (ongoing) role evaluation.The objective of the text and opinion component of this review is to synthesise the best available evidence of the contemporary discourse on the effectiveness and experience of nurse practitioners in orthopaedic settings. Read More

View Article
January 2012