Abstract P-338: EVALUATION OF THE UTILITY AND BENEFIT OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SECONDMENTS FOR REGISTERED NURSES (RN) WITHIN PAEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE (PIC)

Evans, Kelly; Menzies, Julie C; Heward, Yvonne

doi:10.1097/01.pcc.0000537795.57121.98

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The papers reflected the secondment experiences of a range of health care professionals (HCP) ( n = 34), including nurses (16), physiotherapists (11), occupational therapists (OT) (4), speech and language therapists (SLT) (1), health care assistant (1), and unidentified (1). All secondees were released from NHS posts, with secondment placements ranging from research delivery teams within the same organisation ( n = 1) (Evans et al., 2018 ) to research assistant posts under the supervision of a university‐based supervisor/academic unit ( n = 6) (Daniels & Gospill, 2005 ; Donaldson, 2011 ; Loughlin, 2013 ; Pender, 2011 ; Pomeroy et al., 2003 ; Rose & Tuffrey‐Wijne, 2017 ). The duration of secondment was not specified by three papers (Evans et al., 2018 ; Loughlin, 2013 ; Pender, 2011 ), but within the other four papers there was wide variation, ranging from 0.25 to 2 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All secondees were released from NHS posts, with secondment placements ranging from research delivery teams within the same organisation ( n = 1) (Evans et al., 2018 ) to research assistant posts under the supervision of a university‐based supervisor/academic unit ( n = 6) (Daniels & Gospill, 2005 ; Donaldson, 2011 ; Loughlin, 2013 ; Pender, 2011 ; Pomeroy et al., 2003 ; Rose & Tuffrey‐Wijne, 2017 ). The duration of secondment was not specified by three papers (Evans et al., 2018 ; Loughlin, 2013 ; Pender, 2011 ), but within the other four papers there was wide variation, ranging from 0.25 to 2 years. The secondments ranged from a scheme that seconded the individual into research for 100% of their time to schemes that offered between 40% and 80%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For some personnel, this enhanced the way they managed others (Daniels & Gospill, 2005 ; Donaldson, 2011 ; Pomeroy et al., 2003 ). Other reported benefits included staff retention (Evans et al., 2018 ; Rose & Tuffrey‐Wijne, 2017 ) and enhanced patient care (Loughlin, 2013 ). Secondees referred to perceived benefits for managers/services, in the form of enhanced service development (Daniels & Gospill, 2005 ; Donaldson, 2011 ; Evans et al., 2018 ; Pomeroy et al., 2003 ; Rose & Tuffrey‐Wijne, 2017 ) and evidence‐based practice (Daniels & Gospill, 2005 ; Loughlin, 2013 ; Pender, 2011 ; Pomeroy et al., 2003 ; Rose & Tuffrey‐Wijne, 2017 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research secondments have the potential benefit of accelerating the research capability of the clinical workforce by providing practical experience and providing a first step into clinical academia or research delivery careers (Evans et al., 2018 ; Richardson et al., 2007 ). This is reflected in the recently published Chief Nursing Officer for England's strategic plan for research (NHSEI, 2021 ), which calls for the greater involvement of all nurses in research, with increased opportunities to develop research knowledge and skills applicable to all areas of practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further research is required to understand why there are few accounts of secondment to clinical research delivery teams and identify barriers and facilitators to joint working between the NHS and HEI/ academic units. Research secondments have the potential benefit of accelerating the research capability of the clinical workforce by providing practical experience and providing a first step into clinical academia or research delivery careers (Evans et al, 2018;Richardson et al, 2007).…”

Section: Research Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Research delivery secondments: A scoping review

Hare,

Grieve,

Valentine

et al. 2024

Nursing Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo explore and summarise published literature with regards to secondments to clinical research and to identify the gaps in research to inform further work.DesignSystematic scoping review.MethodA scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research framework. Databases searched included CINAHL, PubMed, Medline and Embase. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. Two reviewers independently retrieved full‐text studies for inclusion and applied the framework as a tool for synthesising Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research recommendations.ResultsSix papers and one abstract published between 2003 and 2018 were included. All secondees (n = 34) were released from NHS posts, with secondments (where specified) ranging in duration from 0.25 to 2 years and for 40%–100% of their working hours. All seven papers reported benefits for personal and professional development, predominantly in the form of personal reflections. Few described involvement with research delivery teams.ConclusionPublished initiatives vary in nature and lack standardised reporting and measurement of impact. Further research is required to identify benefits at a departmental or organisational level, the facilitators for setting up secondments and the application of knowledge gained from secondment opportunities.Implications for the ProfessionUndertaking a research secondment is reported to offer professional and personal benefit for clinical staff. Research secondments are one way in which a research culture can practically be embedded within clinical settings.ImpactThis scoping review identified a lack of published empirical research seeking to understand research secondments as a tool to enhance research and evidence engagement. Although there is a suggestion that secondments could positively impact staff retention, there is limited evidence about the benefit for the organisation or for patient care. These findings have implications for staff, managers and their organisations.Reporting MethodThe PRISMA‐ScR guidelines were used to guide reporting.No Patient or Public ContributionThis was not relevant to the research design.

show abstract