Research delivery secondments: A scoping review.

Aim: To explore and summarise published literature with regards to secondments to clinical research and to identify the gaps in research to inform further work. Design: Systematic scoping review. Method: A scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research framework. Databases searched included CINAHL, PubMed, Medline and Embase. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. Two reviewers independently retrieved full‐text studies for inclusion and applied the framework as a tool for synthesising Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research recommendations. Results: Six papers and one abstract published between 2003 and 2018 were included. All secondees (n = 34) were released from NHS posts, with secondments (where specified) ranging in duration from 0.25 to 2 years and for 40%–100% of their working hours. All seven papers reported benefits for personal and professional development, predominantly in the form of personal reflections. Few described involvement with research delivery teams. Conclusion: Published initiatives vary in nature and lack standardised reporting and measurement of impact. Further research is required to identify benefits at a departmental or organisational level, the facilitators for setting up secondments and the application of knowledge gained from secondment opportunities. Implications for the Profession: Undertaking a research secondment is reported to offer professional and personal benefit for clinical staff. Research secondments are one way in which a research culture can practically be embedded within clinical settings. Impact: This scoping review identified a lack of published empirical research seeking to understand research secondments as a tool to enhance research and evidence engagement. Although there is a suggestion that secondments could positively impact staff retention, there is limited evidence about the benefit for the organisation or for patient care. These findings have implications for staff, managers and their organisations. Reporting Method: The PRISMA‐ScR guidelines were used to guide reporting. No Patient or Public Contribution: This was not relevant to the research design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]