» Articles » PMID: 30961621

Health Research Systems in Change: the Case of 'Push the Pace' in the National Institute for Health Research

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2019 Apr 10
PMID 30961621
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Those running well-organised health research systems are likely to be alert for ways in which they might increase the quality of the services they provide and address any problems identified. This is important because the efficiency of the research system can have a major impact on how long it takes for new treatments to be developed and reach patients. This opinion piece reflects on the experience and learning of the United Kingdom-based National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) when it implemented continuous improvement activity to improve its processes.

Discussion: This paper describes the structure and work of the NIHR and why, despite is successes as a health research system and ongoing local continuous improvement, it believed in the value of an organisation-wide continuous improvement activity. It did this by implementing an approach called 'Push the Pace'. Initially, the organisation focused on reducing the amount of time it took for research to transition from an early concept to evidence that changes lives. This scrutiny enabled the NIHR to realise further areas of improvement it could make - additional goals were increased transparency, process simplification, and improved customer and stakeholder experience. We discuss our experience of Push the Pace with reference to literature on continuous improvement.

Conclusion: Continuous improvement is a cycle, an activity that is done constantly and over time, rather than an act or linear activity (such as Push the Pace). We believe that the work of Push the Pace has initiated a strong commitment to a culture of continuous improvement in the NIHR. This is significant because culture change is widely recognised as immensely challenging, particularly in such a large and distributed organisation. However, our biggest challenge will be to enable all staff and stakeholders of the NIHR to participate in the continuous improvement cycle.

Citing Articles

How to increase value and reduce waste in research: initial experiences of applying Lean thinking and visual management in research leadership.

Hildebrandt M, Kidholm K, Pedersen J, Naghavi-Behzad M, Knudsen T, Krag A BMJ Open. 2023; 12(6):e058179.

PMID: 36691235 PMC: 9171225. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058179.


How successful was the use of a community of practice for the implementation of evidence-based practices for heart failure within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs: Insights from a formative evaluation.

Sahay A, Mittman B, Gholami P, Lin S, Heidenreich P Health Res Policy Syst. 2022; 20(1):79.

PMID: 35804413 PMC: 9264639. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00880-9.


What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.

Recio-Saucedo A, Crane K, Meadmore K, Fackrell K, Church H, Fraser S Res Integr Peer Rev. 2022; 7(1):2.

PMID: 35246264 PMC: 8894828. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-022-00120-2.


A systems approach for optimizing implementation to impact: meeting report and proceedings of the 2019 .

Hanney S, Ovseiko P, Graham K, Chorzempa H, Miciak M BMC Proc. 2020; 14(Suppl 6):10.

PMID: 32760445 PMC: 7379765. DOI: 10.1186/s12919-020-00189-x.


How do organisations implement research impact assessment (RIA) principles and good practice? A narrative review and exploratory study of four international research funding and administrative organisations.

Kamenetzky A, Hinrichs-Krapels S Health Res Policy Syst. 2020; 18(1):6.

PMID: 31959198 PMC: 6971910. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0515-1.

References
1.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P . Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009; 374(9683):86-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. View

2.
Radnor Z, Holweg M, Waring J . Lean in healthcare: the unfilled promise?. Soc Sci Med. 2011; 74(3):364-371. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.011. View

3.
Turabi A, Hallsworth M, Ling T, Grant J . A novel performance monitoring framework for health research systems: experiences of the National Institute for Health Research in England. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011; 9:13. PMC: 3073949. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-9-13. View

4.
Morris Z, Wooding S, Grant J . The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011; 104(12):510-20. PMC: 3241518. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180. View

5.
Hanney S, Castle-Clarke S, Grant J, Guthrie S, Henshall C, Mestre-Ferrandiz J . How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015; 13:1. PMC: 4297458. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-13-1. View