Applying to the SDO and HSR programmes Managing evaluation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Managing evaluation research on behalf of the National Institute for Health Research

Applying to the SDO and HSR programmes

• NETSCC is funded by the National Institute for Health

Research (NIHR)

• It was established at the University of Southampton in

April 2008

• It incorporated the National Coordinating Centre for

Health Technology Assessment (established and run from the University of Southampton since 1996)

About NETSCC

NETSCC approach

• We are

Needs-led

because we assess what are the important questions to the NHS and other information consumers, and in what priority they should be answered.

• We are

Science-added

because we ask does the proposal meet the scientific quality we insist on, and how can we support the delivery of quality?

• We provide

Value for money

because assessment of need and scientific support maximises the relevance and benefits achievable within a funding stream.

NETSCC: Established: 2008

Health Services Research Established: 2008 Public Health Research Established: 2008 Health Technology Assessment Established: 1993 Service Delivery & Organisation Established: 1999 (LSH&TM) 2009 (NETSCC) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Funded by the MRC Managed by NIHR Established: 2008

The SDO programme

About the SDO programme

► Created in 1999, and is a part of the National Institute for Health Research which brings together DH/NHS investment in health research ► Focused on serving the research needs of the NHS management and leadership community, and building capacity to use research in decision making ► Has funded over 250 projects to date – spent around £9.6m in 2009/10. ► Website at www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk contains all our research, publications and lots more

SDO mission

► The NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme improves health outcomes for people by: ►Commissioning research and producing evidence that improves practice in relation to the organisation and delivery of health care, and ►Building research capability and capacity amongst those who manage, organise and deliver services – improving their understanding of the research literature and how to use research evidence

SDO programme structure

SDO Programme Executive Group Kieran Walshe Priority Areas Panel David Steel NHS Evaluations Panel Hugh Ross SDO Studies Panel Lorna McKee Research Commissioning Board Kieran Walshe KM/CB Expert Advisory Group Huw Davies

NETSCC at University of Southampton SDO Network

Research production

Commissioned Commissioned Researcher-led Researcher-led Types of Research Primary research Evidence synthesis Primary research Evidence synthesis Who defines the question? Researcher SDO programme Frequency Per year 2 calls 4 calls Priority areas Priority areas SDO studies SDO studies Primary research Evidence synthesis NHS SDO programme Researcher 2 calls Evaluations Evaluations

The SDO programme funds both commissioned and researcher-led funding streams through the Priority Areas, Evaluations, and SDO Studies panels.

Research production process

► The SDO programme, has both commissioned and researcher- led/responsive workstreams ► The process: ►Needs identification and prioritisation (for commissioned workstreams) ►Calls for applications – open, two stage (outline and then full proposals) ►Prioritisation, review and selection by panels and then by commissioning board – feedback at both stages ►Contracting – finalisation of changes, ethics/governance ►Research project management – progress reporting ►Project outputs, review and publication

► Expressed need for research from the NHS ► Capacity to generate new knowledge ► Organisational focus consistent with SDO mission ► Areas of sustained interest and intent ► Not covered by others (RfPB, PRP, HTA…) ► Actionable findings – likely to result in real changes ► Building on work that SDO has undertaken already

Is this important research?

► Adherence to the advertised commissioning brief ► Scientific quality – robust and rigorous design, appropriate use of theory and methods, right expertise and capacity to deliver ► Researcher liaison with knowledge users and integration of knowledge users into the knowledge production process ► Value for money

Is this high quality research?

Response to recent calls

13 shortlisted by SDO Studies Panel 29 SDO Studies - 09/1008 13 shortlisted by PA panel 47 Patient Safety - 09/1007 9 shortlisted by PA panel. Funding recommendation will be made by July 2010 commissioning board 30 Financial Pressures - 09/1006 2 recommended for funding 8 Emergency Planning - 09/1005 Funding recommendation will be made by July 2010 commissioning board 18 NHS Evaluations - EV2001 1 recommended for funding 3 Evaluating Management Fellowships - MF261 10 recommended for funding 36 Knowledge Mobilisation – KM259 5 recommended for funding 40 SDO Studies - SDO Studies

Comment n Call

Knowledge Mobilisation

► SDO Network hosted by the NHS Confederation ► Annual SDO/HSRN conference ► Chief executives’ forum and programme of SDO network events, events at NHS Confed conference, etc ► Knowledge interaction fund to support events and engagement between researchers and managers ► Knowledge synthesis and translation products – reports, summaries, monograph series, toolkits, guidance... ► Academic placements in NHS organisations ► SDO management fellowships attached to research projects ► SDO involvement with the Harkness Fellowships programme

Submitting a good proposal

• Contradictory accounts of planned research –

surprisingly common

• Incorrect or inconsistent numbers e.g. sample size

calculations,

• Unaware of major or related work in train
• Undue detail (too little, too much)
• Many judges read the non-expert summary first, then the

section on importance to the NHS.

Common faults in bids

Don’t

• Rush!
• Try to shape an ill-fitting proposal to a commissioned call
• Plan to establish the team later
• Demonstrate importance by saying only that the health

issue itself is important

• Fail to give a referenced account of literature
• Sprinkle liberally with unexplained acronyms!

Do

• Check remit carefully – NETSCC do an exacting remit

check

• Include clear objectives and a research question
• Demonstrate the need for the research by drawing on

stated knowledge gaps

• Show that that you know the literature and relevant

research underway

• Get advice on good methodological design – use a flow

diagram to illustrate management of your project

Do

• Proof-read, explain, keep it simple
• Take time with a plain-English “Summary for the non-

expert” and avoid jargon throughout

• Pull together a strong, multidisciplinary team and include

patients/public.

• Have a project manager/project oversight group or

committee

Thank you