Research Activity and the Association with Mortality

Abstract

IntroductionThe aims of this study were to describe the key features of acute NHS Trusts with different levels of research activity and to investigate associations between research activity and clinical outcomes.MethodsNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Clinical Research Network (CCRN) funding and number of patients recruited to NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) portfolio studies for each NHS Trusts were used as markers of research activity. Patient-level data for adult non-elective admissions were extracted from the English Hospital Episode Statistics (2005-10). Risk-adjusted mortality associations between Trust structures, research activity and, clinical outcomes were investigated.ResultsLow mortality Trusts received greater levels of funding and recruited more patients adjusted for size of Trust (n = 35, 2,349 £/bed [95% CI 1,855–2,843], 5.9 patients/bed [2.7–9.0]) than Trusts with expected (n = 63, 1,110 £/bed, [864–1,357] p<0.0001, 2.6 patients/bed [1.7–3.5] p<0.0169) or, high (n = 42, 930 £/bed [683–1,177] p = 0.0001, 1.8 patients/bed [1.4–2.1] p<0.0005) mortality rates. The most research active Trusts were those with more doctors, nurses, critical care beds, operating theatres and, made greater use of radiology. Multifactorial analysis demonstrated better survival in the top funding and patient recruitment tertiles (lowest vs. highest (odds ratio & 95% CI: funding 1.050 [1.033–1.068] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.069 [1.052–1.086] p<0.0001), middle vs. highest (funding 1.040 [1.024–1.055] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.085 [1.070–1.100] p<0.0001).ConclusionsResearch active Trusts appear to have key differences in composition than less research active Trusts. Research active Trusts had lower risk-adjusted mortality for acute admissions, which persisted after adjustment for staffing and other structural factors.

A qualitative study of factors impacting upon the recruitment of participants to research studies in wound care – The community nurses' perspective

“…It may also impact upon quality of care with evidence to suggest that there is a positive relationship between individuals and healthcare organisations that actively take part in research and an increased 'likelihood of a positive impact on healthcare performance'. [13] Importantly, the findings indicate that the nurse participants not only considered study eligibility criteria but also appear to introduce additional factors to both include and exclude patients. These additional factors may be in relation to the patient's health (e.g.…”

Improved survival in resected oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas over a decade: the Royal Marsden experience 2001–2010

“…Participation of patients in these studies contributed to promotion of an adjunctive perioperative chemotherapy strategy; this is supported by the fact that both in 70 % of patients the cancer was staged as greater than T2 and the same proportion received at least a preoperative treatment. We acknowledge that patients may experience superior outcomes in a researchactive environment [21]. Therefore, it is possible that the high levels of research activity at RMH may result in longer survival for patients, not just those who are participants in clinical trials; however, this would apply equally across both time periods.…”

Clinical development of new drug–radiotherapy combinations

“…101). The involvement of patients in trial design is associated with recognized benefits; patients have better outcomes in research-active centres than in other centres, and patients involved in research know more about their condition than patients without that involvement 102 . The experience and expertise of patients and carers is unique, and can inform on trial design.…”