Abstract
It is now widely accepted that nurses need to be able to draw on the best available evidence when making decisions about clinical practice. It is also very clear that the generation of new evidence through research is beneficial to patients. There is a lot of variation in the amount of research conducted in clinical settings in England; the varying amounts of research capability funding awarded to NHS Trusts by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) reflect this.
Despite significant attention placed on educating nurses about evidence-based practice and research in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula, the majority of research projects in clinical settings are still led by medical colleagues. We are seeing more nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) leading studies but they remain the minority. This is disappointing given the numbers of such professionals in the UK’s healthcare system. Novel approaches are therefore needed to encourage, support and celebrate research that is led by NMAHPs. This paper presents one such approach.
The model that is reported here has been in place for a number of years and its sustainability is testament to the support from the top in the organisation. The recently developed clinical academic toolkit (AUKUH Clinical Academic Roles Development Group, 2016) clearly identifies that buy-in is needed from the executives, as well as from lower levels of management. There was a vision for a new research inspired environment, and a recognition that financial support would be needed to enable NMAHPs to develop the necessary research skills and expertise.
Given that there is now guidance published (HEE/NIHR, 2017), supported by the Department of Health, to develop and embed clinical academic roles for NMAHPs into healthcare organisations, models such as the one described in this paper need to be explored in a timely manner.
In terms of strengths, the paper emphasises the need for these roles to be developed in partnership, building on strong strategic relationships within the clinical organisations and the university. The growth in doctoral students arising from the approach is significant. However, there are weaknesses. One of these is the lack of formal evaluation data. This and other similar models in place across the UK should be formally evaluated so that economic and other data can be analysed independently from the sites to reveal the contributions made, and the costs incurred.
Clinical academic career pathways, such as the one supported by Health Education England/NIHR and others in existence across the UK, identify opportunities for NMAHPs but we now need to ensure that unrealistic expectations are not created. The roles are still few in number, particularly at sub-professorial levels, and challenges still remain to match salaries, contracts and other employment conditions to enable NMAHPs to progress along the pathway. Higher Education Institutions need to actively engage with healthcare partners, professional groups and other organisations to lobby for these barriers to be removed, so that patients can benefit from the work led by clinical academic practitioners.