Table 3.
Summary of analysis across Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) research theme/working group (RT/WG) leads and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (OUH) senior clinician (SC) interviews, organised by theme
| Theme | Positive changes mentioned (interviewee type) | Challenges and risks mentioned (interviewee type) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Research activity | Research activity has increased over time (SC and RT/WG) The Oxford BRC plays an important role in enabling research to happen and helps attract additional research funding (RT/WG) |
For some, it is unclear how decisions are made about which clinical areas receive Oxford BRC support (SC) The types and topics of research taking place may not fully align with OUH clinical needs (SC) |
| 2. Formalisation of research roles | There has been an increase in the number of medical and non-medical clinical research staff (SC and RT/WG) More clinical staff have time protected for research, which better enables them to engage in research (SC and RT/WG) |
The fixed-term, part-time nature of Oxford BRC research posts can create tension for OUH staff organisation and planning (SC) |
| 3. Communication and awareness of research | Staff awareness of ongoing research and associated opportunities has increased in some clinical areas (SC) Oxford BRC has increased the profile of patient engagement in research through multiple initiatives (RT/WG) |
Clinical staff should be better informed about research taking place, opportunities to get involved and findings (SC) External communications could be improved (SC) |
| 4. Reputation | Oxford BRC improves the reputation and profile of OUH (SC and RT/WG) | None mentioned |
| 5. Staff recruitment and retention | Staff are attracted to the OUH because they believe the Oxford BRC and links to the University of Oxford will create opportunities for research and career development (SC and RT/WG) Research opportunities may encourage staff not to leave the OUH (SC) |
High quality staff (especially non-medical staff) move into research posts and out of clinical work (SC mainly, but also RT/WG) |
| 6. Patient benefits from staff involvement in research | Staff are better informed about developments in treatments (SC) Staff reflect more on clinical decisions and how to deliver care (SC and RT/WG) Patients interact with staff more; they may receive better care and feel better cared for (SC) Patients gain access to new treatments (SC) Patients report that they enjoy being involved in research and feel they are contributing to the public good (SC and RT/WG) |
Patients may feel inconvenienced or overburdened, particularly if study design and communication to patients are poor (SC) |
| 7. Access to infrastructure | Additional, improved or lower-priced infrastructure has become available in some areas because of research (SC and RT/WG) | In other areas, there may be opportunities to share infrastructure which are not being realised (SC) Research activity can put additional pressure on clinical infrastructure (SC) |
| 8. Novel treatments and technologies | Many patients have had access (or earlier access) to novel treatments and technologies because of research (SC and RT/WG) | None mentioned |
| 9. Attitudes to research | In some areas staff have become more interested, motivated and willing to use research findings (SC)a | Some perceive a split between the University and NHS; some staff never engage with research and may feel ‘outside’ of research (SC and RT/WG) |
| 10. Collaboration | Oxford BRC brought more collaboration between Oxford University and the OUH; it made research more clinically relevant and raised the profile of research in the OUH (RT/WG mainly, but also SC) | None mentioned |
aIn some areas, interest and willingness to use findings has been high for a long time, or has increased through a wider shift towards evidence-based medicine