Search

Background Over the past decade, Research Translation Centres (RTCs) have been established in many countries. These centres (sometimes referred to as Academic Health Science Centres) are designed to bring universities and healthcare providers together in order to accelerate the generation and translation of new evidence that is responsive to health service and community priorities. This has the potential to effectively ‘flip’ the traditional research and education paradigms because it requires active participation and continuous engagement with stakeholders (especially service users, the community and frontline clinicians). Although investment and expectations of RTCs are high, the literature confirms a need to better understand the processes that RTCs use to mobilise knowledge, build workforce capacity, and co-produce research with patients and the public to ensure population impact and drive healthcare improvement. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected leaders and members from select RTCs in England and Australia. Convenience sampling was utilised to identify RTCs, based on their geography, accessibility and availability. Purposive sampling and a snowballing approach were employed to recruit individual participants for interviews, which were conducted face to face or via videoconferencing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflexive and inductive approach. This involved two researchers comparing codes and interrogating themes that were analysed inductively against the study aims and through meetings with the research team. Results A total of 41 participants, 22 from England and 19 from Australia were interviewed. Five major themes emerged, including (1) dissonant metrics, (2) different models of leadership, (3) public and patient involvement and research co-production, (4) workforce development and (5) barriers to collaboration. Conclusions Participants identified the need for performance measures that capture community impact. Better aligned success metrics, enhanced leadership, strategies to partner with patients and the public, enhanced workforce development and strategies to enhance collaboration were all identified as crucial for RTCs to succeed.

Background Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are an integral component in the delivery of health care. This is particularly evident in the delivery of cancer care, where multidisciplinary teams are internationally recognized as the preferred method for service delivery. The use of health information systems and technology are key enabling factors for building the capacity of MDTs to engage in improvement and implementation projects but there is scant research on how MDTs make use of technology and information systems or the kinds of systems needed for them to undertake improvement and implementation research. This paper reports findings on how seven MDTs in cancer care utilized technological and information systems and the barriers and enabling factors that impacted on their uptake. Methods Seven multidisciplinary teams from two large metropolitan hospitals participated in the study. Qualitative methods including structured observations and semi structured interviews that explored how teams engaged in research and improvement activities were utilized. Participants were also observed and interviewed in relation to their use of data and health information systems. Findings were subject to content analysis and key themes were identified. Interviews were transcribed and de-identified and key themes were subsequently discussed with participants to allow for member checking and further clarification of findings. Results A total of 43 MDT meetings across seven tumor streams were observed. Of these, observation notes from 13 meetings contained direct references to emerging technologies and health information systems. Findings from 15 semi-structured interviews were also analyzed in relation to how MDTs used technology in weekly meetings, and the perceived impact of technology. Three broad themes emerged: (1) methods for data collection and use by MDTs, (2) the impact of technology on the MDT meeting environment, and (3) the impact of technology and information systems on clinical decision making. Conclusion The study demonstrates that real time data collection and imaging may improve patient centered care coordination. However, ICTs can be used sub-optimally by teams. We therefore urge additional research to identify the enabling factors that support better collection and use of outcome data from ICT. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3242-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Collaborative research networks are often touted as a solution for enhancing the translation of knowledge, but questions remain about how to evaluate their impact on health service delivery. This pragmatic scoping study explored the enabling factors for developing and supporting a collaborative imaging network in a metropolitan university in Australia. Methods An advisory group was established to provide governance and to identify key informants and participants. Focus group discussions (n = 2) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22) were facilitated with representatives from a broad range of disciplines. In addition, a survey, a review of relevant websites (n = 15) and a broad review of the literature were undertaken to elicit information on collaborative research networks and perceived needs and factors that would support their involvement in a multi-disciplinary collaborative research network. Findings were de-identified and broad themes were identified. Results Participants identified human factors as having priority for developing and sustaining a collaborative research network. In particular, leadership, a shared vision and a communication plan that includes social media were identified as crucial for sustaining an imaging network in health research. It is important to develop metrics that map relationships between network members and the role that communication tools can contribute to this process. Conclusions This study confirms that human factors remain significant across a range of collaborative endeavours. The use of focus group discussions, interviews, and literature and website reviews means we can now strongly recommend the primacy of human factors. More work is needed to identify how the network operates and what specific indicators or metrics help build the capacity of clinicians and scientists to participate in translational research.

Background: Transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care is a high risk period during which there is an increased rate of disengagement from care. Suboptimal transition has been associated with higher risks for acute and chronic diabetes-related complications. The period of emerging adulthood challenges current systems of healthcare delivery as many young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) default from diabetes care and are at risk for diabetes complications which are undetected and therefore untreated. Despite the importance of minimizing loss to follow-up there are no randomized control trials evaluating models of transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care.Methods/Design: This is a multicentre randomized controlled trial. A minimum of 188 subjects with T1D aged between 17 and 20 years will be evaluated. Eligible subjects will be recruited from three pediatric care centres and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a structured transition program that will span 18 months or to receive standard diabetes care. The structured transition program is a multidisciplinary, complex intervention aiming to provide additional support in the transition period. A Transition Coordinator will provide transition support and will provide the link between pediatric and adult diabetes care. The Transition Coordinator is central to the intervention to facilitate ongoing contact with the medical system as well as education and clinical support where appropriate. Subjects will be seen in the pediatric care setting for 6 months and will then be transferred to the adult care setting where they will be seen for one year. There will then be a one-year follow-up period for outcome assessment. The primary outcome is the proportion of subjects who fail to attend at least one outpatient adult diabetes specialist visit during the second year after transition to adult diabetes care. Secondary outcome measures include A1C frequency measurement and levels, diabetes related emergency room visits and hospital admissions, frequency of complication screening, and subject perception and satisfaction with care.Discussion: This trial will determine if the support of a Transition Coordinator improves health outcomes for this at-risk population of young adults.Trial registration: Trial Registration Number: NCT01351857. © 2013 Spaic et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.