The traditional separation of the producers of research evidence in academia from the users of that evidence in healthcare organisations has not succeeded in closing the gap between what is known about the organisation and delivery of health services and what is actually done in practice. As a consequence, there is growing interest in alternative models of knowledge creation and mobilisation, ones which emphasise collaboration, active participation of all stakeholders, and a commitment to shared learning. Such models have robust historical, philosophical and methodological foundations but have not yet been embraced by many of the people working in the health sector. This paper presents an emerging model of participation, the Researcher-in-Residence. The model positions the researcher as a core member of a delivery team, actively negotiating a body of expertise which is different from, but complementary to, the expertise of managers and clinicians. Three examples of in-residence models are presented: an anthropologist working as a member of an executive team, operational researchers working in a front-line delivery team, and a Health Services Researcher working across an integrated care organisation. Each of these examples illustrates the contribution that an embedded researcher can make to a service-based team. They also highlight a number of unanswered questions about the model, including the required level of experience of the researcher and their areas of expertise, the institutional facilitators and barriers to embedding the model, and the risk that the independence of an embedded researcher might be compromised. The Researcher-in-Residence model has the potential to engage both academics and practitioners in the promotion of evidence-informed service improvement, but further evaluation is required before the model should be routinely used in practice.

Though heterogeneous and limited in scope, there is sufficient research evidence to inform the presentation of quantitative data that compares the performance of healthcare providers. The impact of new formats, such as funnel plots, needs to be evaluated.

No abstract

BackgroundPatient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to compare the performance of health care providers. Our objectives were to determine the relative frequency of use of different metrics that can be derived from PROMs, explore clinicians’ and patients’ views of the options available, and make recommendations.MethodsFirst a rapid review of the literature on metrics derived from two generic (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) and three disease-specific (Oxford Hip Score; Oxford Knee Score; Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire) PROMs was conducted. Next, the findings of the literature review were mapped onto our typology of metrics to determine their relative frequency of use, Finally, seven group meetings with surgical clinicians (n = 107) and six focus groups with patients (n = 45) were held which were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed thematically.ResultsOnly nine studies (9.3% of included papers) used metrics for comparing providers. These were derived from using either the follow-up PROM score (n = 3) or the change in score as an outcome (n = 5), both adjusted for pre-intervention score. There were no recorded uses of the proportion reaching a specified (‘good’) threshold and only two studies used the proportion reaching a minimally important difference (MID).Surgical clinicians wanted multiple outcomes, with most support expressed for the mean change in score, perceiving it to be more interpretable; there was also some support for the MID. For patients it was apparent that rather than the science behind these measures, the most important aspects were the use of language that would make the metrics personally meaningful and linking the metric to a familiar scale.ConclusionsFor clinicians the recommended metrics are the mean change in score and the proportion achieving a MID, both adjusted for pre-intervention score. Both need to be clearly described and explained. For patients we recommend the proportion achieving a MID or proportion achieving a significant improvement in hip function, both adjusted for pre-intervention score.

ObjectivesOver the past 12 months, there has been increasing policy rhetoric regarding the role of the National Health Service (NHS) in preventing disease and improving population health. In particular, the NHS Long Term Plan sees integrated care systems (ICSs) and sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs) as routes to improving disease prevention. Here, we place current NHS England integrated care plans in their historical context and review evidence on the relationship between integrated care and prevention. We ask how the NHS Long Term Plan may help prevent disease and explore the role of the 2019 ICS and STP plans in delivering this change.MethodsWe reviewed the evidence underlying the relationship between integrated care and disease prevention, and analysed 2016 STP plans for content relating to disease prevention and population health.ResultsThe evidence of more integrated care leading to better disease prevention is weak. Although nearly all 2016 STP plans included a prevention or population health strategy, fewer than half specified how they will work with local government public health teams, and there was incomplete coverage across plans about how they would meet NHS England prevention priorities. Plans broadly focused on individual-level approaches to disease prevention, with few describing interventions addressing social determinants of health.ConclusionsFor ICSs and STPs to meaningfully prevent disease and improve population health, they need to look beyond their 2016 plans and fill the gaps in the Long Term Plan on social determinants.