Search

The Incubator for Clinical Education Research (ClinEdR) is a UK‐wide network, established with support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), to lead initiatives to build capacity in the field. Our lived experiences as members of the NIHR ClinEdR Incubator and wider literature are woven into this 'How to ...' paper, which outlines what to consider as you seek to grow and develop a ClinEdR team. This paper sets out pragmatic steps to grow an effective ClinEdR team that has a wider impact and mutual benefits for its members and their institution(s). Growing a ClinEdR team requires more than a dynamic character to bring people together. In our view, you can grow a ClinEdR team with other people through a structured, well‐thought‐out approach, in which its members develop through collaborative work to achieve a shared objective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical education research (ClinEdR) is a growing field that aims to ensure the way healthcare professionals are taught and learn is evidence‐based. There is growing interest in how this evidence is generated in a robust, timely and cost‐effective fashion. In this 'How to ...' paper, we draw on relevant literature and our own experiences to offer suggestions on how novice researchers can navigate entry into the field of ClinEdR. We summarise key resources for those at the earliest stages of their interest in ClinEdR and scholarship and provide personal experiences of networking, collaborating and balancing research with a clinical or teaching role. This paper will be of interest to those at any stage in their clinical career with little to no experience of ClinEdR, but the enthusiasm to get started. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Incubator for Clinical Education Research (ClinEdR) is a UK‐wide network, established with support from the National Institute for Health Research, to lead initiatives to build capacity in the field. A key barrier identified by this group is that many experienced educators, clinicians, and researchers, who may be committed to supporting others, have little guidance on how best to do this. In this "How to ..." paper, we draw on relevant literature and our individual and collective experiences as members of the National Institute for Health Research ClinEdR incubator to offer suggestions on how educators can support others to develop successful careers involving ClinEdR. This article offers guidance and inspiration for all professionals whose role involves research and scholarship and who encounter aspiring or developing clinical education researchers in the course of their work. It will also be of interest to researchers who are starting out and progressing in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document offers guidance on finding and applying for funding in the field of Clinical Education Research (ClinEdR). It emphasizes the importance of understanding one's motivations and abilities before pursuing funding opportunities and provides tips on researching and targeting relevant funders. The document includes a glossary of funding terminology and insights into what funders typically look for in a proposal. It also highlights the importance of involving patient and public representatives in research projects and provides advice on disseminating findings and dealing with unsuccessful funding bids. [Extracted from the article]

Context: Nurses are integral to patient safety, but little is known about their narrative constructions of identity in relation to their dyadic interactions with trainee doctors about patient safety and competence during the trajectory of a medical career. Aim: We sought to examine how identities are constructed by experienced nurses in their narratives of patient safety encounters with trainee doctors. Methods: Our qualitative study gathered narrative data through semi- structured interviews with nurses of different professional standing (n = 20). Purposive sampling was used to recruit the first eight participants, with the remainder recruited through theoretical sampling. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively through a social constructionist framework and deductively using a competence framework. Results: We classified seven identities that participants constructed in their narratives of dyadic interactions with trainee doctors in relation to patient safety: nurses as teacher, guardian of patient wellbeing, provider of emotional support, provider of general support, expert advisor, navigator and team player. These identities related to the two key roles of nurses as educators and as practitioners. As they narrated these dyadic interactions, participants constructed identities that positioned trainee doctors in character tropes, suggesting gaps in professional competence: nurses as provider of general support was commonly narrated in the context of perceived deficits of personal or functional capabilities and nurses as team player was mainly associated with concerns (or reassurances) around ethical capabilities. Discussion and Conclusion: Our findings are consistent with, and extend the wider literature on the development of professional competence, interprofessional collaboration in health care, and the nature and organisation of nursing work. Nurses' work in ensuring patient safety and support trainee doctors' professional development merits greater formal recognition and legitimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Research indicates that people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) receive inferior healthcare and experience poorer health outcomes compared with those with higher SES, in part due to health professional (HP) bias. We conducted a scoping review of the impact of HP bias about SES on clinical decision-making and its effect on the care of adults with lower SES., Design: JBI scoping review methods were used to perform a systematic comprehensive search for literature. The scoping review protocol has been published in BMJ Open ., Data Sources: Medline, Embase, ASSIA, Scopus and CINAHL were searched, from the first available start date of the individual database to March 2023. Two independent reviewers filtered and screened papers., Eligibility Criteria: Studies of all designs were included in this review to provide a comprehensive map of the existing evidence of the impact of HP bias of SES on clinical decision-making and its effect on the care for people with lower SES., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were gathered using an adapted JBI data extraction tool for systematic scoping reviews., Results: Sixty-seven papers were included from 1975 to 2023. 35 (73%) of the included primary research studies reported an association between HP SES bias and decision-making. Thirteen (27%) of the included primary research studies did not find an association between HP SES bias and decision-making. Stereotyping and bias can adversely affect decision-making when the HP is fatigued or has a high cognitive load. There is evidence of intersectionality which can have a powerful cumulative effect on HP assessment and subsequent decision-making. HP implicit bias may be mitigated through the assertiveness of the patient with low SES., Conclusion: HP decision-making is at times influenced by non-medical factors for people of low SES, and assumptions are made based on implicit bias and stereotyping, which compound or exacerbate health inequalities. Research that focuses on decision-making when the HP has a high cognitive load, would help the health community to better understand this potential influence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Quality improvement (QI) interventions are designed to resolve the recurring challenges of care for older individuals, such as working conditions for staff, roles of older individuals in their own care and their families, and relevant stakeholders. Therefore, there is a need to map the impacts of QI interventions in older adult care settings and further improve health and social care systems associated with older adults., Objective: This review aims to compile and synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of policy and practice QI interventions in older adult care. The secondary aim is to understand the care of older individuals and QI intervention-related experiences and perspectives of stakeholders, care providers, older individuals, and their families., Methods: The mixed methods review will follow the standard methodology used by Joanna Briggs Institute. The published studies will be searched through CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, and Web of Science, and the unpublished studies through Mednar, Trove, OCLC WorldCat, and Dissertations and Theses. This review included both qualitative and quantitative analyses of patients undergoing older adult care and any health and care professionals involved in the care delivery for older adults; a broad range of QI interventions, including assistive technologies, effects of training and education, improved reporting, safety programs, and medical devices; the experiences and perspectives of staff and patients; the context of older adult care setting; and a broad range of outcomes, including patient safety. The standard procedure for reporting, that is, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, will be followed., Results: A result-based convergent synthesis design will be used in which both quantitative and qualitative studies will be analyzed separately, and the results of both syntheses will be then integrated during a final (convergent) synthesis. The integration will compare the findings of quantitative and qualitative evidence using tables in light of the results of both syntheses., Conclusions: This comprehensive review is expected to reflect on the insights into some QI interventions and their impact, outline some common challenges of quality for older adult care, and benefit both the practical usefulness of care service activities and the society at large., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/56346., (©Md Shafiqur Rahman Jabin, Ray Samuriwo, Marcus Chilaka, Emilia Vann Yaroson. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 18.04.2024.)