An evaluation of a training intervention to support the use of evidence in healthcare commissioning in England.

A. Sabey
{"title":"An evaluation of a training intervention to support the use of evidence in healthcare commissioning in England.","authors":"A. Sabey","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIM\nClinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England are responsible for the health of their populations through the services they provide, yet we know that the use of evidence to inform commissioning decisions is low. A programme of training in seven CCGs in England was instigated in a joint piece of work by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and Academic Health Science Network in the West of England, to help build an evidence informed culture in commissioning.\n\n\nMETHODS\nEvidence workshops were delivered in each of the seven CCGs in the West of England by an experienced senior lecturer (the author) and local healthcare librarians. The workshop was developed by the author and an information scientist and included guidance and demonstration of a systematic evidence search covering both traditional and grey literature, and a brief look at quality of evidence including a critical appraisal activity. Participants were asked to evaluate the workshop on the day and to indicate an intended action they would take as a result of the workshop; a short follow-up interview was carried out with a sample of participants between 3 and 6 months later, to identify any longer term impact of the training.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 63 staff in a variety of commissioning-related roles attended the workshops between March and September 2016. 95% rated the workshop overall as either 'excellent' or 'good'. Of particular value was the involvement of the local healthcare librarian, helping to promote their expertise and services; and the discussion of grey literature as a valuable source of evidence. A variety of intended actions as a result of the training included initiating a thorough search for evidence for new projects, use of bibliographic databases, and making use of local library services for evidence searching. Follow-up interviews with nine staff revealed a positive impact in the longer-term. This ranged from simply triggering an interest in using evidence, boosting motivation and sharing information with colleagues; to changes in processes such as broadening the responsibility for finding and filtering evidence for business cases; to one clear case of financial savings resulting from a search for evidence by a senior commissioning manager.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nOffering short, interactive training workshops is valued by healthcare commissioners and can make a difference to their approach to and use of evidence in decision-making. There is a need for a flexible approach to the concept of evidence in healthcare commissioning, which includes the use of grey literature, and training can encourage and support the systematic search for an appraisal of this type of evidence. Tools for improving and sustaining this aspect of evidence use by commissioners are included here.","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

AIM Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England are responsible for the health of their populations through the services they provide, yet we know that the use of evidence to inform commissioning decisions is low. A programme of training in seven CCGs in England was instigated in a joint piece of work by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and Academic Health Science Network in the West of England, to help build an evidence informed culture in commissioning. METHODS Evidence workshops were delivered in each of the seven CCGs in the West of England by an experienced senior lecturer (the author) and local healthcare librarians. The workshop was developed by the author and an information scientist and included guidance and demonstration of a systematic evidence search covering both traditional and grey literature, and a brief look at quality of evidence including a critical appraisal activity. Participants were asked to evaluate the workshop on the day and to indicate an intended action they would take as a result of the workshop; a short follow-up interview was carried out with a sample of participants between 3 and 6 months later, to identify any longer term impact of the training. RESULTS A total of 63 staff in a variety of commissioning-related roles attended the workshops between March and September 2016. 95% rated the workshop overall as either 'excellent' or 'good'. Of particular value was the involvement of the local healthcare librarian, helping to promote their expertise and services; and the discussion of grey literature as a valuable source of evidence. A variety of intended actions as a result of the training included initiating a thorough search for evidence for new projects, use of bibliographic databases, and making use of local library services for evidence searching. Follow-up interviews with nine staff revealed a positive impact in the longer-term. This ranged from simply triggering an interest in using evidence, boosting motivation and sharing information with colleagues; to changes in processes such as broadening the responsibility for finding and filtering evidence for business cases; to one clear case of financial savings resulting from a search for evidence by a senior commissioning manager. CONCLUSION Offering short, interactive training workshops is valued by healthcare commissioners and can make a difference to their approach to and use of evidence in decision-making. There is a need for a flexible approach to the concept of evidence in healthcare commissioning, which includes the use of grey literature, and training can encourage and support the systematic search for an appraisal of this type of evidence. Tools for improving and sustaining this aspect of evidence use by commissioners are included here.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个培训干预的评估,以支持使用证据在英格兰的医疗保健委托。
英国的AIMClinical调试小组(ccg)通过他们提供的服务对其人口的健康负责,但我们知道,在调试决策中使用证据的情况很低。英国国家卫生研究合作研究所应用卫生研究和护理领导与英格兰西部学术卫生科学网络联合开展了一项在英格兰7个CCGs开展的培训方案,以帮助在委托中建立一种循证文化。方法由一位经验丰富的高级讲师(作者)和当地卫生保健图书馆员在英格兰西部的7个ccg中每个ccg举办证据研讨会。该研讨会由作者和一位信息科学家共同开展,内容包括指导和演示涵盖传统文献和灰色文献的系统证据检索,以及对证据质量的简要考察,包括一项关键的评估活动。参与者被要求评估当天的研讨会,并指出他们将采取的预期行动作为研讨会的结果;3至6个月后,对参与者样本进行了简短的随访访谈,以确定培训的长期影响。结果在2016年3月至9月期间,共有63名与调试相关的工作人员参加了研讨会。95%的人对整个车间的评价是“优秀”或“良好”。特别有价值的是当地医疗保健图书管理员的参与,帮助推广他们的专业知识和服务;并讨论灰色文献作为有价值的证据来源。培训后打算采取的各种行动包括开始为新项目彻底搜寻证据、使用书目数据库和利用当地图书馆服务进行证据搜寻。对9名工作人员的后续访谈显示长期的积极影响。这包括简单地激发对使用证据的兴趣,提高动机和与同事分享信息;改变流程,例如扩大寻找和过滤业务案例证据的责任;一个由高级委托经理查找证据而节省资金的明显案例。结论提供简短的互动式培训讲习班受到卫生保健专员的重视,可以使他们的决策方法和证据的使用有所不同。需要对医疗保健委托中的证据概念采取灵活的方法,其中包括使用灰色文献,培训可以鼓励和支持对这类证据的评估进行系统的搜索。这里包括了改善和维持专员在这方面使用证据的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts Perceived impact of a one-week journalology training course on scientific reporting competencies: prospective survey Artificial intelligence in health and science: an introspection A relação entre linguagem e práticas pseudocientíficas Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus among individuals with chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1