Tagged / nhs

HE policy update for the w/e 1st September 2017

We continue our series of summer updates focussing on themes rather than news with a look at learning gain.  We have updates on the Industrial Strategy Bell review of Life Sciences, and an update on the TEF from UUK.

Learning Gain

Learning gain has become a potential hot topic for universities over the last year – could it be the magic bullet for problems with TEF metrics?  Why is it a policy issue and what are the implications of the policy context for universities and students?  Wonkhe recently published a helpful summary in July by Dr Camille B. Kandiko Howson, from Kings College.

Background – TEF – The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) includes learning gain alongside student outcomes more generally as one of its three main criteria for assessing teaching excellence (the others are teaching quality and learning environment).  The relevant TEF criteria are:

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain  
Employment and Further Study (SO1) Students achieve their educational and professional goals, in particular progression to further study or highly skilled employment  
Employability and Transferrable Skills (SO2) Students acquire knowledge, skills and attributes that are valued by employers and that enhance their personal and/or professional lives
Positive Outcomes for All (SO3) Positive outcomes are achieved by its students from all backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes

Further definition was given in the “Aspects of Quality” guidance (see the TEF guidance issued by HEFCE):

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain is focused on the achievement of positive outcomes. Positive outcomes are taken to include:

  • acquisition of attributes such as lifelong learning skills and others that allow a graduate to make a strong contribution to society, economy and the environment,
  • progression to further study, acquisition of knowledge, skills and attributes necessary to compete for a graduate level job that requires the high level of skills arising from higher education

The extent to which positive outcomes are achieved for all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is a key feature. The distance travelled by students (‘learning gain’) is included”.

And it goes on:

  • Work across the sector to develop new measures of learning gain is in progress. Until new measures become available and are robust and applicable for all types of providers and students, we anticipate providers will refer to their own approaches to identifying and assessing students’ learning gain – this aspect is not prescriptive about what those measures might be.”

The TEF guidance issued by HEFCE included examples of the sorts of evidence that universities might want to consider including (amongst a much longer list):

  • Learning gain and distance-travelled by all students including those entering higher education part-way through their professional lives
  • Evidence and impact of initiatives aimed at preparing students for further study and research
  • Use and effectiveness of initiatives used to help measure and record student progress, such as Grade Point Average (GPA)
  • Impact of initiatives aimed at closing gaps in development, attainment and progression for students from different backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes.

TEF Assessment – If you have been following the debates about the TEF in Year 2 (results now published), you will be aware that the assessment of institutions against these criteria was done in two ways – by looking at metrics (with benchmarking and subdivision into various sub-sets), and by review of a written provider assessment.

  • The metrics that were used in TEF Year 2 for Student Outcomes and Learning Gain were from the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey (DLHE), specifically the DLHE declared activity 6 months after graduation – were they in employment of further study, and if in employment, was it “highly skilled” as defined by SOC groups 1-3 (managerial and professional).
  • So the metrics used in Year 2 of TEF do not cover learning gain at all. In fact they only really relate to SO1 above, are of limited use in terms of employability for SO2. DLHE doesn’t measure employability, only employment. Of course, DLHE is being replaced, after major consultations by HESA throughout 2016 and 2017 with the new Graduate Outcomes survey, which will take a longer-term view and look at a broader range of outcomes. (read more in our Policy Update of 30th June 2017).
  • So for the TEF year 2, any assessment of learning gain was done through the written submissions – and as noted above there are no measures for this, it was left to providers to “refer to their own approaches to identifying and assessing students’ learning gain”.

Universities UK have published their review of Year 2 of the TEF (see next section below) which includes a strong endorsement from UUK members for a comparative learning gain metric in future iterations of the TEF.

Measuring Learning Gain – As referred to above, there is a HEFCE project to look at ways of measuring learning gain.

They are running 13 pilot projects:

  • careers registration and employability initiatives – this  uses surveys and is linked most closely to SO2 – employability
  • critical-thinking ‘CLA+’ standardised assessment tool – also uses the UK Engagement Survey (UKES). CLA+ is a US assessment that is done on-line and asks students to assess data and evidence and decide on a course of action or propose a solution. As such, it measures general skills but is not subject specific.
  • self-efficacy across a range of disciplines
  • skills and self-assessment of confidence measures
  • a self-assessment skills audit and a situational judgement test
  • HE in FE
  • A multi-strand one: standardising entry and exit qualifications, new measures of critical skills and modelling change in learning outcomes
  • a project that will analyse the Affective-Behaviour-Cognition (ABC) model data for previous years
  • research skills in 6 disciplines
  • psychometric testing
  • learning gain from work-based learning and work placements
  • a project evaluating a range of methodologies including degree classifications, UKES, NSS, Student Wellbeing survey and CLA+
  • employability and subject specific learning across a range of methods – includes a project to understand the dimensions of learning gain and develop a way to measure them, one to look at R2 Strengths, one to look at career adaptability and one looking at international experience.

These are long term (3 year) projects – HEFCE published a year 1 report on 6th July 2017 – you can read more on our 14th July policy update – this flags a couple of challenges including how to get students to complete surveys and tests that are not relevant to their degree (a problem also encountered by the UKES). The report suggests embedding measurement “in the standard administrative procedures or formal curriculum” – which means a survey or test through enrolment and as part of our assessment programme.

To become a core TEF metric there would need to be a national standard measure that was implemented across the sector. That means that have to be mass testing (like SATs for university students) or another national survey alongside NSS and the new Graduate Outcomes survey (the replacement for DLHE) – with surveys on enrolment and at other points across the lifecycle.

Some BU staff are taking a different approach – instead of looking at generic measures for generic skills they have been looking at measuring specific learning gain against the defined learning outcomes for cohorts of students on a particular course. This is a much more customised approach but the team have set some basic parameters for the questions that they have asked which could be applied to other courses. The methodology was a survey. (Dr Martyn Polkinghorne, Dr Gelareh Roushan, Dr Julia Taylor) (see also a more detailed explanation, March 2017)

Pros, cons and alternatives

In January 2016, HEPI published a speech delivered in December 2015 by Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills, and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary-General at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris. In the speech, the author argues strongly for institutions worldwide to measure and use learning gain data. He supports the use of specific measures for disciplines although points out the difficulties with this – not least in getting comparable data. So he also focuses on generic skills – but he doesn’t suggest a specific methodology.

An HEA presentation from December 2016 mentions a number of inputs that “predict both student performance and learning gains” – including contact hours, class size (and a host of other things including the extent and timing of feedback on assignments).

It is worth looking quickly at GPA (Grade Point Average) as this is also mentioned in the TEF specification as noted above. The HEA are looking at degree standards for HEFCE now, having done a pilot project on GPA in 2013-14.  The report notes that “potential capacity to increase granularity of awards, transparency in award calculations, international recognition and student engagement in their programmes”. The summary says, “The importance to stakeholders of a nationally-agreed, common scale is a key finding of the pilot and is considered crucial for the acceptance and success of GPA in the UK”, and that “The pilot providers considered that the development of widespread stakeholder understanding and commitment would require clear communication to be sustained over a number of years.”

Wonkhe have a round up on the background to the GPA debate from June 2016,

Although the big focus for the TEF was on outputs not inputs, the Department for Education has announced that it will start to look at including some of the inputs. See our HE policy update for 21st July where we look at the new teaching intensity measure that will be part of the subject level TEF pilots. You can read more about this in a THE article from 2nd August:

  • The pilot “will measure teaching intensity using a method that weights the number of hours taught by the student-staff ratio of each taught hour,” explains the pilot’s specification, published by the Department for Education“. Put simply, this model would value each of these at the same level: two hours spent in a group of 10 students with one member of staff, two hours spent in a group of 20 with two members of staff, one hour spent in a group of five students with one member of staff,” it explains. Once contact hours are weighted by class sizes, and aggregated up to subject level, those running the pilot will be able to calculate a “gross teaching quotient” score, which would be an “easily interpretable number” and used as a “supplementary metric” to inform subject-level assessments”.

The contact hours debate is very political – tied up with concerns about value for money and linked to the very topical debate on fees (speech on 20th July by Jo Johnson .and see our HE Policy Update for 21st July 2017)

This is all very interesting when, as mentioned above, the TEF specification for year two put so much emphasis on measuring outcome and not just inputs: “The emphasis in the provider submission should be on demonstrating the impact and effectiveness of teaching on the student experience and outcomes they achieve. The submission should therefore avoid focusing on descriptions of strategies or approach but instead should focus on impact. Wherever possible, impact should be demonstrated empirically. “

Experts and evidence – There will be a real push from the sector for evidence that the new teaching intensity measure and reporting of contact hours and other things really does make a difference to students before it is included in the TEF. The HEA’s position on this (2016) is a helpful summary of the debate about contact hours.

There is an interesting article in the HEPI collection of responses to the Green Paper in January 2016  from Graham Gibbs, former Professor at the University of Winchester and Director of the Oxford Learning Institute, University of Oxford, and author of Dimensions of quality and Implications of ‘Dimensions of quality’ in a market environment. He supports the use of learning gain metrics as a useful tool. He points out that “cohort size is a strong negative predictor of both student performance and learning gains”. He also adds “Russell Group Universities have comparatively larger cohorts and larger class sizes, and their small group teaching is less likely to be undertaken by academics, all of which save money but reduce learning gains”. He does not accept that contact hours, or institutional reputation (linked to high tariff entry and research reputation) impact learning gain.

There is an interesting article on the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) website here written by the authors of an article that looked at class size.

Impact so far – So what happened in the TEF – a very quick and incomplete look at TEF submissions suggests that not many institutions included much about learning gain (or GPA) and those that did seem to fall into two categories – those participating in the pilot who mention the pilot, and some who mention it in the context of the TEF core data – e.g. Birmingham mention their access project and learning gain (but don’t really evidence it except through employment and retention). Huddersfield talk about it in the context of placements and work experience but again linked to employment outcomes, although they also mention assessment improvement.

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) – year 2 review

Universities UK have published their review of Year 2 of the TEF following a survey that UUK did of their members.

The key findings from the report are:

  • There appears to be general confidence that overall process was fair, notwithstanding the outcomes of individual appeals. Judgements were the result of an intensive and discursive process of deliberation by the assessment panel. There was a slight correlation between TEF results, entry tariff and league table rankings.
  • It is estimated that the cost of participating in the TEF for 134 higher education institutions was approximately £4 million. This was driven by the volume of staff engagement, particularly senior staff.
  • Further consideration will need to be given to how the TEF accounts for the diversity of the student body, particularly part-time students, and how the TEF defines and measures excellence. [UUK also raises a concern about judgements possibly being skewed by prior attainment]
  • If subject-level TEF is to provide students with reliable information it must address the impact of increased metric suppression [this relates to metrics which could not be used because of small numbers, particularly for part-time students and for the ethnicity splits], how judgments are made in the absence of data [particularly an issue for those institutions affected by the NSS boycott], the comparability of subject groupings and the increase in cost and complexity of submissions and assessment.

[To address the issue with suppression, the report noted that the splits for ethnicity will be reduced from 6 to 3 for subject level TEF (p35)]

These findings also suggest that if the TEF is to make an effective contribution to the ongoing success of the whole UK sector, the following issues would merit consideration as part of the independent review:

  • How the TEF defines and measures excellence in a diverse sector and supports development of teaching and learning practice.
  • The role that the TEF plays across the student decision-making process and the relationship with the wider student information landscape.
  • The process for the future development of the TEF and the role of the sector, including students and devolved nations.
  • The relationship between the TEF and quality assessment, including regulatory baselines and the Quality Code.

Figure 4 shows the data benchmarking flags received by providers at each award level – these two charts are interesting because they show that providers with negative flags still received gold (and silver).

The survey also asked about future developments for the TEF with learning gain being a clear leader – ahead of teaching intensity. HEFCE is running learning gain pilots, as discussed above, and teaching intensity will be the subject of a pilot alongside subject level TEF. Interestingly, on p 33 a chart shows that nearly 70% of respondents believed that “there is no proportionate approach for producing a robust subject level TEF judgement which will be useful for students”.

Industrial Strategy

Following our update on the Industrial Strategy last week there are a couple of updates. Innovate UK has announced funding for businesses to work on innovative technologies, future products and services. The categories link closely to the Industrial Strategy priorities including digital technologies, robotics, creative economy and design and space applications as well as emerging technologies and electronics.

There was also an announcement about funding for innovative medicines manufacturing solutions.

Sir John Bell has published his report for the government on Life Sciences and the Industrial Strategy. There are seven main recommendations under 4 themes, which are summarised below. You can read a longer summary on the BU Research Blog.

Some interesting comments:

  • The key UK attribute driving success in life sciences is the great strength in university-based research. Strong research-based universities underpin most of the public sector research success in the UK, as they do in the USA and in Scandinavia. National research systems based around institutes rather than universities, as seen in Germany, France and China, do not achieve the same productivity in life sciences as seen in university-focussed systems.” (p22)
  • “The decline in funding of indirect costs for charity research is coupled to an increasing tendency for Research Councils to construct approaches that avoid paying indirect Full Economic Costs (FEC). Together, these are having a significant impact on the viability of research in universities and have led to the institutions raising industrial overhead costs to fill the gap. This is unhelpful.” (p24)
  • “It is also recommended, that the funding agencies, in partnership with major charities, create a high-level recruitment fund that would pay the real cost of bringing successful scientists from abroad to work in major UK university institutions.” (see the proposal to attract international scientists below).
  • On clusters “Life sciences clusters are nearly always located around a university or other research institute and in the UK include elements of NHS infrastructure. However, evidence and experience suggests that governments cannot seed technology clusters and their success is usually driven by the underpinning assets of universities and companies, and also by the cultural features of networking and recycling of entrepreneurs and capital.” And “Regions should make the most of existing opportunities locally to grow clusters and build resilience by working in partnership across local Government, LEPs (in England), universities and research institutes, NHS, AHSNs, local businesses and support organisations, to identify and coalesce the local vision for life sciences. Science & Innovation Audits, Local Growth Funds and Growth Hubs (in England), Enterprise Zones and local rates and planning flexibilities can all be utilised to support a vision for life sciences. “ (see the proposal on clusters under “Growth and Infrastructure” – this was a big theme in the Industrial strategy and something we also covered in our Green Paper response)
  • On skills: “ The flow of multidisciplinary students at Masters and PhD level should be increased by providing incentives through the Higher Education Funding Council for England.2 and  “Universities and research funders should embed core competencies at degree and PhD level, for example data, statistical and analytical skills, commercial acumen and translational skills, and management and entrepreneurship training (which could be delivered in partnership with business schools). They should support exposure to, and collaboration with, strategically important disciplines including computer and data science, engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics and material science.”

Health Advanced Research Programme (HARP) proposal – with the goal to create 2-3 entirely new industries over the next 10 years.

Reinforcing the UK science offer 

  • Sustain and increase funding for basic science to match our international competition – the goal is that the UK should attract 2000 new discovery scientists from around the globe
    • The UK should aim to be in the upper quartile of OECD R&D spending and sustain and increase the funding for basic science, to match our international competitors, particularly in university settings, encouraging discovery science to co-locate.
    • Capitalise on UKRI to increase interdisciplinary research, work more effectively with industry and support high-risk science.
    • Use Government and charitable funding to attract up to 100 world-class scientists to the UK, with support for their recruitment and their science over the next ten years.
  • Further improve UK clinical trial capabilities to support a 50% increase in the number of clinical trials over the next 5 years and a growing proportion of change of practice and trials with novel methodology over the next 5 years.

Growth and infrastructure – the goal is to create four UK companies valued at >£20 billion market cap in the next ten years.

NHS collaboration – the Accelerated Access Review should be adopted with national routes to market streamlined and clarified, including for digital products. There are two stated goals:

  • NHS should engage in fifty collaborative programmes in the next 5 years in late-stage clinical trials, real world data collection, or in the evaluation of diagnostics or devices.
  • The UK should be in the top quartile of comparator countries, both for the speed of adoption and the overall uptake of innovative, cost-effective products, to the benefit of all UK patients by the end of 2023.

Data – Establish two to five Digital Innovation Hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people.

  • Create a forum for researchers across academia, charities and industry to engage with all national health data programmes.
  • Establish a new regulatory, Health Technology Assessment and commercial framework to capture for the UK the value in algorithms generated using NHS data.
  • Two to five digital innovation hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people should be set up as part of a national approach and building towards full population coverage, to rapidly enable researchers to engage with a meaningful dataset. One or more of these should focus on medtech.
  • The UK could host 4-6 centres of excellence that provide support for specific medtech themes, focussing on research capability in a single medtech domain such as orthopaedics, cardiac, digital health or molecular diagnostics.
  • National registries of therapy-area-specific data across the whole of the NHS in England should be created and aligned with the relevant charity.

Skills

  • A migration system should be established that allows recruitment and retention of highly skilled workers from the EU and beyond, and does not impede intra-company transfers.
  • Develop and deliver a reinforced skills action plan across the NHS, commercial and third sectors based on a gap analysis of key skills for science.
    • Create an apprenticeship scheme that focuses on data sciences, as well as skills across the life sciences sector, and trains an entirely new cadre of technologists, healthcare workers and scientists at the cutting-edge of digital health.
    • Establish Institutes of Technology that would provide opportunity for technical training, particularly in digital and advanced manufacturing areas.
    • There should be support for entrepreneur training at all levels, incentivising varied careers and migration of academic scientists into industry and back to academia.
    • A fund should be established supporting convergent science activities including cross-disciplinary sabbaticals, joint appointments, funding for cross-sectoral partnerships and exchanges across industry and the NHS, including for management trainees.
    • High quality STEM education should be provided for all, and the government should evaluate and implement additional steps to increase the number of students studying maths to level 3 and beyond.

JANE FORSTER                                                             |                               SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                                               Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                                              65070

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                      |                               policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

New publication on Community Hospitals

The Health Services Journal published a commentary this week on Community Hospitals [1].  This online article is written by Dr. Emma Pitchforth who is based at RAND Europe in Cambridge (& BU Visiting Faculty), Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (Faculty of Health & Social Sciences) and Dr. Ellen Nolte based at the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies

The authors highlight the recently completed NIHR study on Community Hospitals [2].  The notion of a Community Hospital in the UK is evolving from the traditional model of a local hospital staffed by general practitioners and nurses and serving mainly rural populations. Along with the diversification of models, there is a renewed policy interest in community hospitals and their potential to deliver integrated care. However, there is a need to better understand the role of different models of community hospitals within the wider health economy and an opportunity to learn from experiences of other countries to inform this potential.

With ease of access and a sense of homeliness, there is potential for Community Hospitals to be better integrated into NHS in England.  The authors suggest that a more strategic role for ‘traditional’ Community Hospitals might be timely within the NHS in England.  They further conclude that if challenges around Community Hospitals are addressed and their within the English health system is properly defined, they could provide positive benefits to the health service. It seems that, if done correctly, Community Hospitals could be a traditional solution to help address some of the modern day challenges of the NHS.The full NIHR report is Open Access and can be found here!

Last year the research team had already published a scoping review article from the NIHR study [3].

 

 

References:

  1. Pitchforth, E., van Teijlingen, E., Nolte, E. (2017) Community hospitals: a traditional solution to help today’s NHS? Health Services Journal (11 July) https://www.hsj.co.uk/community-services/community-hospitals-a-traditional-solution-to-help-todays-nhs/7020019.article#/scientific-summary
  2. Pitchforth, E., Nolte, E., Corbett, J., Miani., C, Winpenny., E, van Teijlingen, E., Elmore, N,, King, S,, Ball, S,, Miler, J,, Ling, T. (2017) Community hospitals and their services in the NHS: identifying transferable learning from international developments – scoping review, systematic review, country reports and case studies Health Services & Delivery Research 5(19): 1-248.
  3. Wimpenny, E.M., Corbett, J., Miami, C., King, S., Pitchforth, E., Ling, T., van Teijlingen, E. Nolte, E. (2016) Community hospitals in selected high income countries: a scoping review of approaches and models. International Journal of Integrated Care 16(4): 13 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2463

 

Delivering DEALTS 2!

 

 

 

 

Health Education England  (HEE) has commissioned Bournemouth University to deliver a new ‘‘Train the Trainers’ enhanced education programme called ‘Dementia Education and Learning Through Simulation’  2 (DEALTS 2). This builds on previous work undertaken in 2013/14 by HEE to ensure healthcare professionals understand and can deliver key competencies according to the Dementia Core Skills Education and Training Framework at TIER 2 (Skills for Health and Health Education England, 2015).

Prof Jane Murphy, Dr Michele Board, Dr Michelle Heward and Ashley Spriggs from the Ageing and Dementia Research Centre (ADRC) delivered the first pilot session in Oxford on 10th May 2017.  This interactive day was really well received and included attendance by Jan Zietara, Head of Operational Delivery, HEE; Jacqueline Fairburn-Platt, Associate Dean Quality Improvement, HEE Thames Valley as well as Dementia and Quality Improvement Leads.   Over the next 2 months another 12 sessions will be delivered to trainers across the HEE regions in England. The delivery of the programme will be evaluated as well as the roll-out across England by the trainers themselves to staff to understand the impact the education is having on practice for the delivery of dementia care.  In June the early evaluation work will be supported with the help of a Student Research Assistant, Laurie Emerson.  Laurie is currently a final year psychology student in Faculty Sci Tech.

Business collaboration & networking

gamechanger

Need help with networking? – why not book onto the business engagement and networking session on 2 November for some hints and tips that you can put into practice.

Date: Wednesday 16 November

Location: The Fusion Building, Bournemouth University

Event information:

Building on the successful Game Changer event held earlier in the year, Bournemouth University and NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group present The Game Changer Reloaded – promoting innovation and fostering collaboration across Dorset. Join Richard Dolan, Dr Phil Richardson and Professor Jim Roach and a diverse collection of speakers to learn more about the art of the possible and the power of innovation to transform health services within the region.

Places are going fast for both sessions so make sure you book your space. Academics are encouraged to attend both sessions but if you are looking for potential funding partners / research collaborators session 2 is a must.

It’s free: book now for sessions 1 and/or 2

Timings:

Session 1 – 9.00 am -3.00 pm: Speakers from BU and external organisations share their innovation journeys throughout the day providing inspiration and ideas to those attending as to how to get involved.

Session 2 – 3.15 pm  – 4.15 pm: Facilitation and networking: This session offers the opportunity to share ideas and develop future collaborations. There’s also the chance to begin to consider research ideas that could subsequently be progressed in order to obtain external funding in the future.

Each session will need to be booked separately.

Throughout the day there’s a pop-up innovation exhibition for guests to enjoy and to share and refine ideas.

It’s free: book now for The Game Changer Reloaded 

This event forms a number being run at the university as part of the Festival of Enterprise.

Need help with networking? – why not book onto the business engagement and networking session on 2 November.

Event: The Game Changer: Reloaded

gamechanger

Date: Wednesday 16 November

Location: The Fusion Building, Bournemouth University

Event information:

Building on the successful Game Changer event held earlier in the year, Bournemouth University and NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group present The Game Changer Reloaded – promoting innovation and fostering collaboration across Dorset. Join Richard Dolan, Dr Phil Richardson and Professor Jim Roach and a diverse collection of speakers to learn more about the art of the possible and the power of innovation to transform health services within the region.

Timings:

Session 1 – 9.00 am -3.00 pm: Speakers from BU and external organisations share their innovation journeys throughout the day providing inspiration and ideas to those attending as to how to get involved.

Session 2 – 3.15 pm  – 4.15 pm: Facilitation and networking: This session offers the opportunity to share ideas and develop future collaborations. There’s also the chance to begin to consider research ideas that could subsequently be progressed in order to obtain external funding in the future.

Each session will need to be booked separately.

Throughout the day there’s a pop-up innovation exhibition for guests to enjoy and to share and refine ideas.

It’s free: book now for The Game Changer Reloaded 

This event forms a number being run at the university as part of the Festival of Enterprise.

Need help with networking? – why not book onto the business engagement and networking session on 2 November for some hints and tips that you can put into practice.

Save the date! Wednesday 16 November 2016

events

Save the date! Wednesday 16 November 2016

Event: The Game Changer: Reloaded

Location: The Fusion Building

About:

“The Game Changer: Reloaded” builds upon the success of an event held earlier in the year (The Game Changer), promoting innovation and collaboration across Dorset. In partnership with The NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group (Dorset CCG) Innovation Team and with a variety of inspiring speakers including presentations from the  Orthopaedic Research Institute (ORI), Disaster Management Centre (DMC),  Amuzo and Guide Dogs.  The event aims to promote the art of the possible and demonstrate the power of innovation in order to transform health services within the region.

There will be no charge to attend the event  and the event will run all day. Registration will be required. Further details will be available shortly including information on how to reserve your free place.

Any queries please feel free to contact Jayne Codling or Rachel Clarke within RKEO.

Online event – Using population health models to deliver whole system preventative care

Wordle Feb 2014 Health, Well-Being & Society

Date : 20 September

Time: 4.00pm – 5.00pm

Event type: Online event

About the event:

The Personalised Health and Care 2020 agenda, and more recently the Local Digital Roadmaps, build on the commitment to exploit the information revolution outlined in NHS five year forward view.

With the development and implementation of these plans, alongside place-based sustainability and transformation plans (STPs), organisations must find new ways to collaborate to deliver more joined-up care for the populations they serve.

This live online event will explore how joining up data and information can bring about whole system transformation at a local level.

Click here for more information about the content of the event and the speakers.

Knowledge mobilisation research fellowships – NIHR

NIHR

The National Institute of Health Research invites applications for its knowledge mobilisation research fellowships. These fellowships support innovative and creative proposals that seek to improve the effective use of health research knowledge within NHS or other public healthcare settings and simultaneously study implementation processes and impacts.

Proposals must be grounded in knowledge mobilisation theory. Fellowships should be used to:

•develop and enhance the understanding of knowledge mobilisation in healthcare;

•develop new ways of sharing existing research findings;

•enhance existing knowledge mobilisation mechanisms;

•shape new research questions of particular and timely relevance to the NHS;

•enhance the capability of the fellow to facilitate networking between researchers and potential research users.

Individual researchers working in healthcare or academic organisations may apply.

Further details, including full eligibility criteria, can be found in the relevant guidance notes for applicants.

Full details of this programme can be found here.

If you are interested in submitting to  this call  you must contact your  RKEO Funding Development Officer with adequate notice before the deadline.

For more funding opportunities that are most relevant to you, you can set up your own personalised alerts on Research Professional. If you need help setting these up, just ask your School’s/Faculty’s Funding Development Officer in  RKEO or view the recent blog post here.

If thinking of applying, why not add notification of your interest on Research Professional’s record of the bid so that BU colleagues can see your intention to bid and contact you to collaborate.

Sensor-integrated urometer for measuring real-time urine output (HEIF funded project)

File 29-06-2016, 18 24 05

The project team from the Faculty of Science & Technology has received Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) to undertake a series of activities aimed at encouraging university and the public sector to harness the benefits of advanced assistive technologies. (The HEIF  project started last year and is due to finish at the end of July.)

The nature of HEIF funding encourages knowledge exchange and support to develop a broad range of knowledge based interactions between universities and colleges and the wider word, which result in economic and social benefit to the UK.  In current clinical practices, urinary output measurement and supervision are prevailing medical intervention treatments for patients suffering from critical illness, aging bladder, post-surgery urination difficulties and long-term bedridden. However, the urinary output is still measured and monitored manually by healthcare staff, which is extremely time-consuming and prone to undesirable human errors commonly, arose in these repetitive and monotonous tasks. The project aims to invent an automatic device for remotely monitoring of urinary output, which features real-time remotely wireless catheter fall-off and flow rate monitoring, urinary output minute-by-minute monitoring and real-time states visualization.

The project team is made up of a number of researchers and students from multidisciplinary domains in addition to academics. The team (Prof Hongnian Yu, Mr Arif Reza Anwary; Mr Daniel Craven, Mr Muhammad Akbar, and Mr Pengcheng Liu) has recently presented their three developed prototypes at the collaborator’s site (Royal Bournemouth Hospital). The feedback and comments from the hospital staff are very positive. Dr Simon McLaughlin, the project collaborator from the Royal Bournemouth Hospital, said ‘The project looks to have progressed well. The work is excellent and the one of the prototypes is almost ready to deploy.’

The team  hope to continue to consolidate the current developed prototypes and build on top of them to invent the commercially acceptable products.

Fusion in Action: Clinical Academic PhD scholarships jointly funded with NHS

Fusion Diagram Doing a PhD may appeal to midwives and other NHS health professionals, but it often involves having to make difficult choices. Undertaking a part-time PhD means studying on top of a busy clinical position, but starting full-time study involves stepping away from practice, which may lead to a loss of clinical skills and confidence. The Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) at Bournemouth University has come up with a novel solution making it easier for midwives to undertake a doctorate while still maintaining their clinical skills. This approach is highlighted in the latest publication by Dr. Susan Way and colleagues, describing a process where CMMPH collaborate with NHS partners to apply for a match-funded PhD. [1]  The first partnership was with Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (PHT), with later partners expanded to cover the Isle of Wight and Southampton. Currently there are negotiations with Dorset Country Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Non NHS organisations have also showed an interest with the Anglo European Chiropractic College (AECC) our likely next collaborator.

Dr. Know 2016

This jointly funded clinical academic doctorate allows midwives to combine clinical practice with a research role, working across BU and their NHS Trust. The studentships runs for four years and PhD students will spend two days per week working as a midwife in clinical practice and three days per week working on their thesis. This set up facilitates the co-creation of knowledge. Anybody interested in developing a joint clinical academic PhD with us please contact Dr. Susan Way (sueway@bournemouth.ac.uk), Prof. Vanora Hundley (vhundley@bournemouth.ac.uk), or Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (evteijlingen@bournemouth.ac.uk) .

In addition to providing the individual midwives with excellent education, these studentships are designed to examine an area of clinical practice identified by the collaborating organisation where the evidence is lacking and research is needed. As a consequence the research studies will be directly relevant to practice and will have a demonstrable impact in the future. Hence BU will be able to show that its research and education have a direct benefit to the wider society. Moreover, the studentships currently benefit midwifery practice by building a critical mass of research-focus practitioners, who will translate research findings into practice and so create a culture of evidence-based practice. At BU the model has also been adopted by other professional groups such as nursing, physiotherapy and occupational therapy (OT).

 

The result is a clinical academic doctoral studentship is probably the best practical example of BU’s concept of FUSION, since it truly fuses research, education and practice.

 

Susan Way, Vanora Hundley & Edwin van Teijlingen.

CMMPH

 

 

References:

  1. Way. S., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E., Walton, G., Westwood, G. (2016). Dr Know. Midwives (Spring Issue): 66-67.

Big Data in Health and Care – ‘Using data to gain new insights’

Data-science-history

Date: Tuesday 19 April

Location: St. Mary’s Stadium – Britannia Road Southampton, Hampshire SO14 5FP GB – View Map

Time: 9:00am – 5:00pm

About the event:

Big Data in healthcare is being used to cure disease, improve quality of life, avoid preventable deaths and more importantly plan primary prevention strategies. With the UK population increasing and all of us living longer, through initiatives such as the Vanguards, models of care are rapidly changing, and many of the decisions behind those changes are being driven by data.

This Big Data conference, chaired by Richard Samuel, (Fareham and Gosport, South-Eastern Hants CEO) will provide an overview of Big Data from experts within the field, as well as practical examples of how Big Data is being used to improve the way that we deliver services. A Big Data expo will be accessible throughout the day and in the afternoon a variety of plenary sessions will gather feedback from participants to help shape future actions.

To register: Click here

If you have any questions or queries regarding the event or any specific access needs please do not hesitate to contact Katie Cheeseman – Digital Health Programme Manager katie.cheeseman@wessexahsn.net                                                                                     

 

New NHS article by BU Visiting Faculty Minesh Khashu

FileLaptopImageDataManagement-1024x1024Minesh Khashu (BU Visiting Faculty and clinician in Poole Hospital) and Jeremy Scrivens published their third instalment of a series of online papers on the NHS.  This contribution is called ‘Can We Heal an Ailing Healthcare System? Part 3’.  They deep dive into this idea of transformation through a strengths-based approach.   They consider how we can build an NHS Social Movement by bringing the whole system together to inquire into and extend NHS’s Positive Core.  The blog (online paper) can be accessed here!

For more information you can also follow the two authors on Twitter: Minesh Khashu(@mkrettiwt) & Jeremy Scrivens (@jeremyscrivens)

 

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

Project funding available to support vulnerable, marginalised and deprived communities in order to address health inequalities which exist in Dorset

Introduction

The Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Local Authorities, supported by the Public Health team, are very keen to build on the success of the 2012 Olympics in Dorset and have developed a legacy fund to provide a significant resource for investment in innovative and evidence based local projects in Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole.

Aim

The aim of the legacy fund is to create a legacy and inspire communities by investing in projects that focus on the particularly vulnerable, marginalised and deprived communities in order to address health inequalities which exist in Dorset.

Criteria

Projects will:

  • Target vulnerable people or marginalised communities
  • Tackle identified health inequalities
  • Inspire people towards a healthier lifestyle
  • Have a lasting legacy

The next round of funding is now open and closes on 30 January 2015.

For more information click here.

(BUDI were successful in round 1 with 2 projects awarded through this fund  – Bournemouth Symphony Orchestera and Dorset Fire & Rescue Service. Click here for funded awards to date project reference 36 & 43 – PDF at the bottom of the page.)

BU at the THE Awards 2014

 

The Bournemouth University and Poole Hospital research team who developed a medical device to make epidurals safer and more effective, were celebrating being shortlisted for the THE Awards 2014 in London last night.

The project was nominated for Outstanding ICT initiative of the Year and – although pipped to the post by the Open University – being shortlisted for an award of this calibre is an incredible achievement and honour.

BU’s Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation Professor John Fletcher was at the ceremony. He said: “Congratulations to the NHS-BU team for being shortlisted. We were very worthy contestants.  I felt privileged and proud to share the evening with such a successful team.”

The nominated team at the awards ceremonyThe clinical project was initially proposed by the senior consultant anesthetist at Poole Hospital, Professor Mike Wee. The device was developed by Dr Neil Vaughan for his PhD, supervised by Professor Wee and Dr Venky Dubey. Dr Richard Isaacs – now at Southampton General Hospital – was also part of the research team. All four, pictured here, were at the awards ceremony, along with colleagues from across the university who have supported this innovative and important project.

Comedian Jack Dee hosted proceedings, sharing his unique and entertaining take on the Higher Education sector!

A full list of categories and winners can be viewed on the THE website. The event organisers also took over £9000 in donations for the Institute of International Education’s ‘Scholar Rescue Fund’; a charity that has led global efforts to rescue threatened scholars and students.

Congratulations to all nominees and winners and thank you to THE for such organising such a fabulous evening!

Image: (Top left clockwise) Dr Venky Dubey, Dr Neil Vaughan, Dr Richard Isaacs, Professor Mike Wee.

Centre for Leadership, Impact and Management in Health and Social Care launched at Bournemouth University

A centre to provide leadership and management development opportunities and support across the health and social care sector has been launched at  BU.

The Centre for Leadership, Impact and Management in Bournemouth (CLiMB)  offers a range of development options – including leadership and management programmes; coaching and mentoring development; accreditation for in-house programmes; and consultancy, research and impact evaluation.

Director of CLiMB Professor Keith Brown said: “CLiMB is being launched to bring together Bournemouth University’s strengths of research, consultancy and education in the leadership of health and social care services.  “Never before have these services been under the level of financial pressure and public scrutiny that they are currently, coupled with increasingly high public expectations for quality services.  “These needs and demands can only be met by better leadership at all levels within the health and social care sector.”
The centre has been launched after more than five years of research and development in the field of leadership and management in health and social care.  Professor Brown was asked by the government’s Social Work Reform Board, established following the death of Peter Connelly, to develop a leadership pathway for social work managers.

This was extensively evaluated for impact and then adapted for healthcare in response to the Francis report at Mid Staffordshire Hospital.

The Centre was officially opened on 12th November by Bournemouth West MP Conor Burns, who said: “Too often in health and social work, organisations have become too immersed in process and procedure that they lose sight sometimes of the outcome.  We should be proud of what Keith and the team do in terms of outcomes for people… making a contribution emotionally and economically.”

Sue Sutherland OBE, Chair of BU’s Board and former Chief Executive of Poole Hospital, said: “The launch of this centre is really important.  It is absolutely rising to the challenges that the sector faces, helping to develop the best health and social care service that’s borne out of leadership at every point of the sector.”

CLiMB currently receives HEIF funding. Higher Education Innovation Funding aims  to support and develop a broad range of knowledge-based interactions between universities and colleges and the wider world, which result in economic and social benefit to the UK.