Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30961621›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Health research systems in change: the case of 'Push the Pace' in the National Institute for Health Research.

Rebecca Moran, Jennifer Butt, Simon Heller, Jeremy Hinks, Lynn Kerridge, Mark Samuels, Stephen Hanney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca MoranNIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Chilworth, Southampton, SO17 1BJ,, United Kingdom. r.c.moran@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5344-2505
Jennifer ButtNIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Chilworth, Southampton, SO17 1BJ,, United Kingdom.
Simon HellerDepartment of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Room EU38, E Floor, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX,, United Kingdom.
Jeremy HinksNIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Chilworth, Southampton, SO17 1BJ,, United Kingdom.
Lynn KerridgeNIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Chilworth, Southampton, SO17 1BJ,, United Kingdom.
Mark SamuelsMedicines Discovery Catapult, Mereside, Alderley Park, Alderley Edge, Cheshire, SK10 4TG,, United Kingdom.
Stephen HanneyHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom.
NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre · GBBrunel University of London · GBMedicines Discovery Catapult · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThose 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.

conclusionContinuous 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.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchGovernment ProgramsOrganizationsQuality ImprovementDelivery of Health CareHumansResearchUnited Kingdomcontinuous improvementHealth research managementNational Institute for Health Researchproductivity

Identifiers

PMID30961621
PMCPMC6454738
OpenAlexW2933991408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.