Search

Purpose: Understanding the experiences and needs of healthcare workers is crucial in strengthening healthcare system resilience during times of change. We aimed to explore allied health (AH) professionals' perceptions of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on their work experiences., Participants and Methods: Qualitative descriptive study using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with AH professionals employed in a large Australian health service., Results: Four themes were conceptualized from interviews of 21 AH clinicians and consolidated with six AH managers. Impacts were at personal, service, and systems levels. An overarching theme of "acceptance of circumstances due to the pandemic" influenced experiences within each level. Service changes included service cessation, remote service delivery, new COVID-19 protocols and role or work location alterations. Some staff were empowered in making practice changes, while others lost research or career opportunities. Despite low COVID-19-related hospitalizations and fatalities, staff reported stresses from workload changes and fear for self or loved ones. Open, clear communication assisted in alleviating anxiety, while perceived involvement in decision making and administrative and/or technical support for implementation of new processes facilitated change management processes., Conclusion: The study demonstrates the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on AH professionals. Gleaned in a context with limited community disease transmission and without the challenges of providing care for large numbers of COVID-19 patients, the findings have implications for change management within health services in any context in which rapid change is required. The wellbeing of the workforce should be forefront. Clear communication is critical, with staff involved in decision-making where possible. The needs of vulnerable staff should be considered with clear processes and eligibility guidelines to ensure provision of appropriate support and transparency of decision making. Workloads should be monitored, and adequate infrastructure, technical support and training provided for new initiatives or processes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests in this work., (© 2023 Angus et al.)

Purpose: To describe the research capacity and culture, and research activity (publications and new projects) of medical doctors across a health service and determine if the research activity of specialty groups correlated with their self-reported "team" level research capacity and culture., Methods: Cross-sectional, observational survey and audit of medical doctors at a tertiary health service in Queensland. The Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) validated survey was used to measure self-reported research capacity/culture at organisation, team and individual levels, and presence of barriers and facilitators to research. An audit of publications and ethically approved research projects was used to determine research activity., Results: Approximately, 10% of medical doctors completed the survey (n= 124). Overall, median scores on the RCC were 5 out of 10 for organisational level, 5.5 for specialty level, and 6 for individual level capacity and culture; however, specialty-level scores varied significantly between specialty groups (range 3.1-7.8). Over 80% of participants reported lack of time and other work roles taking priority as barriers to research. One project was commenced per year for every 12.5 doctors employed in the health service, and one article was published for every 7.5. There was a positive association between a team's number of publications and projects and their self-reported research capacity and culture on the RCC. This association was stronger for publications., Conclusion: Health service research capacity building interventions may need a tailored approach for different specialty teams to accommodate for varying baselines of capacity and activity. When evaluating these initiatives, a combination of research activity and subjective self-report measures may be complementary., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest for this work and that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 Brandenburg et al.)

Purpose: The first aim of this study was to evaluate the current research capacity and culture among allied health professionals (AHPs) working in a large regional health service. The second aim of this study was to undertake principal component analyses (PCAs) to determine key components influencing our research capacity and culture., Patients and Methods: As part of a cross-sectional observational study, the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was administered to AHPs working in Gold Coast Health to measure self-reported research capacity and culture across Organization, Team, and Individual domains, including barriers to and motivators for performing research. An exploratory PCA was performed to identify key components influencing research capacity and culture in each of the three domains, and the results were compared with the findings of a previous study performed in a large metropolitan health district., Results: This study found moderate levels of research capacity and culture across all domains, with higher scores (median, IQR) reported for the Organization domain (7,5-8) compared to the Team (6,3-8) and Individual domains (5,2-7). Two components were identified in each domain. Components in the Organization domain included "research culture" and "research infrastructure"; components in the Team domain included "valuing and sharing research" and "supporting research"; and components in the Individual domain included "skills for conducting research" and "skills for searching and critiquing the literature". These components were found to be highly correlated with each other, with correlations between components within each domain ranging from 0.459 to 0.702., Conclusion: The results of this study reinforce the need for an integrated "whole of system" approach to research capacity building. Ongoing investment in tailored support and infrastructure is required to maintain current areas of strengths and build on identified areas of weakness at the level of organizations, teams, and individual AHPs, and consideration should also be given as to how support across these three levels is integrated., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Purpose: The current project evaluated the impact of a short-term, supported funding initiative that allowed staff from allied health (AH) professions to undertake research activity within rostered employment time. Specifically, the project will report on outcomes pertaining to individual research capacity, research output, and overall satisfaction with the initiative., Participants and Methods: Sixteen AH clinicians (n=16) from six AH professions participated in the evaluation of the initiative, with data being collected within a service improvement framework. Clinicians received up to 4 weeks of protected time relieved from their clinical duties to undertake research activities, including writing for publication, undertaking a systematic review, data analysis, and preparation of ethics applications. An AH Research Fellow provided additional support and mentorship, including the development of an implementation plan. Evaluation included pre-post measures of individual research capacity using a 15-item self-report Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) survey, a post-implementation satisfaction survey, and monitoring of research output achieved., Results: Statistically significant improvements ( p <0.05) were found on 14 out of 15 items on the RCC tool, with meaningful improvements in securing funding, analyzing qualitative data, writing for publication, literature searching skills, and providing advice to less experienced researchers. Overall satisfaction with the initiative was high, with positive comments from AH professionals (AHPs) regarding the initiative. Research output arising from the initiative included eleven manuscripts being submitted, with six currently in publication and others under review., Conclusion: The preliminary findings support the feasibility of implementing a local, clinical funding model to promote individual research capacity and research output for AHPs. The short-term funding should be supported by local mentorship and guidance. Local barriers and suggestions to optimize implementation, including integrating within existing research infrastructure and using flexible "backfill" options, will also be described., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.