Background There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards. Methods Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework. Results Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic. Conclusions Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.

Background: The 21st century has witnessed a rise in the use of endovenous thermal ablation. Being highly clinically and cost-effective and improving the quality of life of patients, they are now considered to be the ''gold-standard'' treatment for varicose veins. Postintervention management, especially in terms of postoperative compression; however, remains unclear. As a result, a randomized study was undertaken to investigate the effects of wearing compression stockings after varicose vein treatment. Method: Patients with saphenous vein reflux undergoing treatment with endothermal ablation (with or without concurrent phlebectomies) were randomized to receive either 7 days of compression stockings or no stockings. The primary outcome measure for this study was the pain score over the first 10 postoperative days. The pain scores, clinical score, time to return to normal activities, and ecchymosis were assessed. Patients were followed-up at 2 weeks and 6 months post-ablation. Results: In total, 206 patients were randomized, 49% of them to the compression group. The mean age was 49.7 (AE16) years and approximately 51% of the population was male. The median pain score in the compression group using a visual analog scale was significantly lower on days 2-5, compared to the no compression group. Those having concurrent phlebectomies and compression stockings also had significantly better pain scores on days 1-3, day 5, and day 7. Improvement in the median venous clinical severity score was noted at 6-month follow-up, but this was not significant. No difference in the generic-or disease-specific quality of life was observed and the time to return to activities was similar. There were no differences in the degree of ecchymosis between the 2 groups and both groups had similar occlusion rates. Conclusions: These results indicate that wearing compression stockings after endothermal ablation is advantageous in the first few days after treatment and is especially beneficial for those having concurrent phlebectomies.