Dataset Information

Recent research into healthcare professions regulation: a rapid evidence assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Over the last decade, regulators have taken significant steps towards tackling perceptions that regulatory systems are burdensome. There has been much international research activity in the regulation of health and care professionals. This article reports a review of studies on health professions regulation between January 2011 and March 2020. Its chief object was to provide robust and up-to-date evidence to assist regulators in policy development and implementation. The main objectives of this study were to: 1. Identify and retrieve research in the field of health and care professions regulation in English since 2011; 2. Evaluate the published research, exploring its utility to regulators and practitioners, and drawing out any key messages; 3. Draw conclusions concerning the scope and limitations of the research literature and identify areas for further research.

Methods

We undertook a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of the international literature on health and care professions regulation, including reviewing ten UK regulators' websites to identify issues of concern and strategic priorities. We retrieved 3833 references, using a four-stage screening process to select the 81 most relevant.

Results

Results are reported within six key themes: harm prevention and patient safety; fitness to practise; quality assurance of education and training; registration including maintenance of registers; guidelines and standards and relations with regulatory bodies.

Conclusions

Regulation of professionals in health and care is comparatively undeveloped as a field of academic study. Consequently, the published evidence is diffuse and small-scale. Most work presents relatively weak data of low relevance to regulators, mainly reporting or describing the current position. Few studies are able to show the impact of regulation or demonstrate a causal link between regulation and its effects. To inform their research and policy agendas health and social care regulators need to commission, interpret and apply the scholarly literature more effectively; academics need to engage with regulators to ensure that their research provides high-quality evidence with practical relevance to the regulators' agendas. Further study is needed to explore how effective academic collaborations between regulators and researchers may be created and sustained.

SUBMITTER: Browne J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425088 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension raised the need for evidence to support the use of single-pill combination (SPC) therapy in preference to free-dosed therapy for hypertension. This systematic rapid evidence assessment sought to determine if initiating SPC therapy improves adherence, blood pressure (BP) control and/or cardiovascular outcomes vs. initiation of free-dose combination therapy. METHODS:Rapid evidence assessment conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (1 January 2013-11 January 2019) to identify studies investigating SPC therapy for adults with hypertension. Information on adherence/persistence, BP lowering/goal attainment, and cardiovascular outcomes/events were extracted via two-phase screening process. Studies not focusing on adherence, persistence, or compliance with SPC therapy were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using appropriate scales. RESULTS:Of 863 citations, 752 failed to meet inclusion or were duplicates. Twenty-nine studies remained following full-text screening. Just four studies (14%) were randomized controlled studies; 25 (86%) were observational. A range of SPC therapies were studied, with calcium channel blocker/angiotensin receptor blocker combinations most common (11/29 studies). Adherence and persistence were generally higher with SPC vs. free-dose combination therapy; 15 studies (54%) directly compared adherence and four (14%) compared persistence. Patients achieving BP targets ranged from 25 to 89%. Despite all studies investigating patients with hypertension only 16 (55%) reported change in BP. Few studies reported on cardiovascular outcomes. Methodological reporting was often suboptimal. CONCLUSION:Adherence and/or persistence were generally higher in patients taking antihypertensives as SPC vs. free-dose combination; however, methodological reporting was suboptimal to facilitate comparison. Specifically designed, well reported studies are required to determine if the increased adherence/persistence seen in patients on SPC regimen leads to improved BP control and/or cardiovascular outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts.MethodsThe framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations.ResultsThe impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population.ConclusionsThe impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

Project description: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.