Evaluating the role and contribution of innovation to health and wealth in the UK: A review of Innovation, Health and Wealth: Phase 1 Final Report

Bienkowska-Gibbs, Teresa; Exley, Josephine; Saunders, Catherine L.; Marjanovic, Sonja; Chataway, Joanna; MacLure, Calum; McDonald, Ruth; Ling, Tom

doi:10.7249/rr1143

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the United Kingdom (UK) – the setting for the study reported in this paper - the Department of Health published a policy to promote innovation in the National Health Service (NHS) in 2011 [ 2 ]. The policy set out a strategy for realising the potential of innovation to improve both quality and productivity; however, a subsequent evaluation indicated that progress towards achieving the strategic objectives has been somewhat patchy and slow [ 3 ]. This echoes the experience of implementing other changes in clinical practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating the implementation of clinical technology in healthcare: what role does a national agency play?

Harvey

Llewellyn

Maniatopoulos

et al. 2018

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAccelerating the implementation of new technology in healthcare is typically complex and multi-faceted. One strategy is to charge a national agency with the responsibility for facilitating implementation. This study examines the role of such an agency in the English National Health Service. In particular, it compares two different facilitation strategies employed by the agency to support the implementation of insulin pump therapy.MethodsThe research involved an empirical case study of four healthcare organisations receiving different levels of facilitation from the national agency: two received active hands-on facilitation; one was the intended recipient of a more passive, web-based facilitation strategy; the other implemented the technology without any external facilitation. The primary method of data collection was semi-structured qualitative interviews with key individuals involved in implementation. The integrated-PARIHS framework was applied as a conceptual lens to analyse the data.ResultsThe two sites that received active facilitation from an Implementation Manager in the national agency made positive progress in implementing the technology. In both sites there was a high level of initial receptiveness to implementation. This was similar to a site that had successfully introduced insulin pump therapy without facilitation support from the national agency. By contrast, a site that did not have direct contact with the national agency made little progress with implementation, despite the availability of a web-based implementation resource. Clinicians expressed differences of opinion around the value and effectiveness of the technology and contextual barriers related to funding for implementation persisted. The national agency’s intended roll out strategy using passive web-based facilitation appeared to have little impact.ConclusionsWhen favourable conditions exist, in terms of agreement around the value of the technology, clinician receptiveness and motivation to change, active facilitation via an external agency can help to structure the implementation process and address contextual barriers. Passive facilitation using web-based implementation resources appears less effective. Moving from initial implementation to wider scale-up presents challenges and is an issue that warrants further attention.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3176-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating the implementation of clinical technology in healthcare: what role does a national agency play?

Harvey

Llewellyn

Maniatopoulos

et al. 2018

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Simultaneously, AHSNs were established with clear structures of accountability and budget and a focus on promoting and adopting innovation in healthcare. Commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS), concerns that the future of these networks may be constrained by budgetary pressures have been expressed [ 11 ], even though improving the uptake of innovation is valued in improving the quality and sustainability of healthcare in England. CLAHRCs were tasked with strengthening collaborations with the AHSNs [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the research–practice gap in healthcare: a rapid review of research translation centres in England and Australia

Robinson

Bailey

Morris

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Large-scale partnerships between universities and health services are widely seen as vehicles for bridging the evidence–practice gap and for accelerating the adoption of new evidence in healthcare. Recently, different versions of these partnerships – often called academic health science centres – have been established across the globe. Although they differ in structure and processes, all aim to improve the integration of research and education with health services. Collectively, these entities are often referred to as Research Translation Centres (RTCs) and both England and Australia have developed relatively new and funded examples of these collaborative centres. Methods This paper presents findings from a rapid review of RTCs in Australia and England that aimed to identify their structures, leadership, workforce development and strategies for involving communities and service users. The review included published academic and grey literature with a customised search of the Google search engine and RTC websites. Results RTCs are complex system-level interventions that will need to disrupt the current paradigms and silos inherent in healthcare, education and research in order to meet their aims. This will require vision, leadership, collaborations and shared learnings, alongside structures, processes and strategies to deliver impact in the face of complexity. The impact of RTCs in overcoming the deeply entrenched silos across organisations, disciplines and sectors needs to be captured at the systems, organisation and individual levels. This includes workforce capacity and public and patient involvement that are vital to understanding the evolution of RTCs. In addition, new models of leadership are needed to support the brokering and mobilisation of knowledge in complex organisations. Conclusions The development and funding of RTCs represents one of the most significant shifts in the health research landscape and it is imperative that we continue to explore how we can progress the integration of research and healthcare and ensure research meets stakeholder needs and is translated via the collaborations supported by these organisations. Because RTCs are a recent addition to the healthcare landscape in Australia, it is instructive to review the processes and infrastructure needed to support their implementation and applied health research in England.

show abstract

“…16 - 19 We were, arguably, misled when governments wove together the terms “innovation,” “health” and “wealth” and implied that pursuit of the first would generate, inevitably and in parallel, the second two 20 - 22 ; empirical evidence suggests it rarely does. 23 - 27 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bright Elusive Butterfly of Value in Health Technology Development Comment on "Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies"

Greenhalgh

Fahy

Shaw

2017

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current system of health technology development is characterised by multiple misalignments. The "supply" side (innovation policy-makers, entrepreneurs, investors) and the "demand" side (health policy-makers, regulators, health technology assessment, purchasers) operate under different – and conflicting – logics. The system is less a "pathway" than an unstable ecosystem of multiple interacting sub-systems. "Value" means different things to each of the numerous actors involved. Supply-side dynamics are built on fictions; regulatory checks and balances are designed to assure quality, safety and efficacy, not to ensure that technologies entering the market are either desirable or cost-effective. Assessment of comparative and cost-effectiveness usually comes too late in the process to shape an innovation’s development. We offer no simple solutions to these problems, but in the spirit of commencing a much-needed public debate, we suggest some tentative ways forward. First, universities and public research funders should play a more proactive role in shaping the system. Second, the role of industry in forging long-term strategic partnerships for public benefit should be acknowledged (though not uncritically). Third, models of "responsible innovation" and public input to research priority-setting should be explored. Finally, the evidence base on how best to govern inter-sectoral health research partnerships should be developed and applied.

show abstract

Evaluating the role and contribution of innovation to health and wealth in the UK: A review of Innovation, Health and Wealth: Phase 1 Final Report

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

Facilitating the implementation of clinical technology in healthcare: what role does a national agency play?

Facilitating the implementation of clinical technology in healthcare: what role does a national agency play?

Bridging the research–practice gap in healthcare: a rapid review of research translation centres in England and Australia

The Bright Elusive Butterfly of Value in Health Technology Development Comment on "Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About