UK Federation of ISSUE 9 February 2003 PRIMARY CARE Upheaval and New Challenges. . . The last few months have been times of change. PCRNs have been involved in deciding on the correct organisational models for Research Governance and Management within PCT consortia and developing the partnerships to make these new organisations work. Setting up new research studies has raised new areas, particularly relating to sponsorship and indemnity, that we have had to address. The restructuring within the Department of Health and the demise of the four Directorates of Health and Social Care has generated concerns about future funding for some PCRNs and the Federation. The merger and renaming of networks (see associated article by David Hannay about the Scottish networks) and the development of new networks continues apace. Networks are continually re-inventing themselves and confusion is created by the use of different names for the networks that are promoting primary care research (e.g. PCRN and R&D Support unit). To say that this is a time of upheaval and uncertainty is an understatement!! However, change not only provides new challenges but also provides opportunities. Back in our history many networks arose from local research clubs. Subsequently, PCRNs became thought of as a conduit to disseminate information about R&D to primary care, they then became associated with capacity building and “bottom-up” research. However, PCRNs are much more than this. They are the means by which high quality primary care R&D can be delivered. Large multicentre trials or the recruitment of representative cohorts of patients/practitioners is dependent on the involvement of well organised primary care networks. In this time of organisational change, one of the major challenges for networks is to ensure that we maintain our profile and ensure that we do not get forgotten about in the new structures and funding streams. The Federation has a voice on most national bodies concerned with the development of primary care research (e.g. Society for Academic Primary Care, Primary Care Research Management & Governance Group, RCGP Primary Care Research Team Assessment Project Management Advisory Group, Conference of Academic Organisations in General Practice, RCGP Research Group, National Cancer Research Network Primary Care Studies Development Group) and the members of the Steering Group work hard to make sure that the benefits of PCRN, to the development of primary care research, are not forgotten. However, local publicity is just as important as a national voice. 2002 was a successful year for many networks. I would like to use this newsletter to belatedly wish you all a very productive and successful 2003. Sue Wilson Chair Included in this issue The future of PCRNs in Scotland p2 Evaluation Toolbox p3 News from the Research Interest Groups p4-6 Report of the 5th Annual Conference p8-10 Network Tour p12 The Future of Primary Care Research Networks in Scotland Primary Care Research Networks (PCRNs) in Scotland were established between 1998 and 2000 with funding from the Chief Scientist’s Office. This funding was either from the NHS Support Fund (TayRen, Forth Valley, Fresco, Borders), from the Primary Care Support Fund (Highlands & Islands, Lothian, Dumfries & Galloway), or by joint funding (Westnet). The aims were to develop a culture of primary care research by providing research training, supporting researchers, and undertaking non-commercial research to improve the provision of primary care. However, not all parts of Scotland were covered by the eight PCRNs, which had different constitutions and terms of reference. Some networks were linked to university departments or larger consortia such as TayRen, some were based on research practices such as WestNet, and others linked to a primary care trust with an emphasis on individuals developing their own research ideas (Dumfries & Galloway). PCRNs in Scotland have been under review, partly because of the piecemeal nature of these arrangements, partly because of a reduction in funding from the Chief Scientist’s Office with the Primary Care Support Fund being abolished, and partly because of research governance which involves increased management of research. These problems were recognised two years ago when a “Scottish Framework for Primary Care Research” was proposed based on the MRC general practice research framework. Following discussions, this has now developed into the “Scottish Practices and Professionals Interested in Research” (SPPIRe). SPPIRe aims to increase the amount of research relevant to patient care undertaken in a primary care setting. The four principle functions will be to develop a dynamic register of research interested practices and professionals, to translate research requests and protocols into workable procedures, to rationalise the number of requests to professionals and practices undertaking research, and to link the primary care sector into research governance structures. SPPIRe will be organised on the basis of an orbital model, with central co-ordination being carried out by the Scottish School of Primary Care (part of NHS Education for Scotland) and four regional nodes collaborating between regional primary care trusts and their associated higher education institutions. The four regional nodes will be based in the West on Glasgow, in the South East on Edinburgh, in the East on Dundee and in the North on Aberdeen. It is intended that the four regional nodes of SPPIRe will be incorporated with the primary care trust that is taking responsibility for research governance, and will also maintain close links with local university departments. The four regional nodes will have four main functions, namely to contribute to a national data base, to liaise with professionals and practices in the region, to maintain strong links with local university departments, and to act as a contact point for the acceptance of projects requiring regional recruitment. Funding for these new proposals has yet to be confirmed, as have the interim arrangements for existing PCRNs. D R Hannay, Director Dumfries & Galloway Primary Care Research Network UKFPCRN Steering Committee The Annual General Meeting approved the nominations of three new members: Caroline Gunnell, Rhian Hughes and Brian McKinstry. Daryl Goodwin, formerly of STaRNet and Pali Hungin (NoReN) came to the end of their terms and Madge Vickers (MRC GPRF) has resigned due to pressure of other commitments. All three have played important roles in developing and supporting the Federation and we are truly grateful for their contributions. The Officers and Members of the Steering Committee are listed. If you have any suggestions or issues to raise please contact one (or all!) of them. 2 Sue Wilson (Chair) Midlands PC-CRTU [email protected] David Hannay (Vice Chair) Dumfries & Galloway PRCN [email protected] Rose Streeton (Treasurer) PCRN for Northants [email protected] Fenny Green RCGP Research Group [email protected] Caroline Gunnell ELENoR [email protected] Beverley Hancock Trent Focus [email protected] Rhian Hughes North Staffordshire GP Research Network [email protected] Mike Kirby HertNet [email protected] Brian McKinstry Lothian PCRN [email protected] Greg Rubin NoReN [email protected] Helen Smith WReN [email protected] An Evaluation Toolbox for Research Capacity Building Those involved in primary care research networks have little doubt about the success of the network movement in stimulating a R&D culture in primary care. However, securing continued funding may require more than conviction and anecdotes of success. The Federation is committed to demonstrating the value and contribution of its members to building research capacity in primary care and has commenced the development of an Evaluation Toolbox. The Toolbox contains examples of how a wide range of research capacity building activities can be evaluated. It uses a framework for users to review their activities in terms of cost, contribution towards building research capacity and evaluation indicators. Proposed evaluation indicators include the traditional measures of output and outcome and the capacity building features can be used to describe the added value of an activity in ways that cannot be demonstrated by traditional measures. Defining the resources required to support an activity encourages users to identify the true cost of an activity to consider whether it provides “value for money” and to reflect on if and where resources should be reallocated. The table below provides an example. Activity Resources Study days, ● workshops and seminars ● ● Costs of delivering the study session (trainer, venue, materials) Organisation and administration costs Capacity Building Features Evaluation Indicators ● Increases research skills of participants ● Number of attendees at each session ● Flexible and timely training is provided based an needs assessment ● Range of professions represented ● ● Increases understanding and reduces risk of errors or wasted time Participants’ evaluation data ● Provided training locally, increasing uptake and reducing travelling time and costs Advertising - printing and postage The Federation intends to produce a first draft of the Toolbox for circulation in the Spring. Two things will be needed to develop the Toolbox further. Firstly, members will be asked to contribute to the Toolbox by providing further examples of activities that can be evaluated using the framework. Secondly, it is hoped that a number of organisations will volunteer to pilot the application of the Toolbox. Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Please contact the Federation Administrator. STOP PRESS – FUNDING NEWS Federation costs in the past have been met through membership subscriptions (approximately 25%) and support from core funding. It was reported at last December’s Annual General Meeting that the only funding received in the previous year was membership subscriptions and no decision had been made on additional funding for this year. The Chair has written to the R&D offices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland requesting a contribution to funding, based on a population split, for the next three years. Good news! Just before going to press we heard that the England funding proportion has been agreed by Professor Cliff Bailey. We are still waiting to hear about the outcome of our applications to the rest of the UK but the funding promised so far will be sufficient to ensure that the Federation continues in some form. 3 News from the Research Cardiovascular Disease Research Interest Group Twenty delegates attended the Research Interest Group meeting at the Fielder Centre at Hatfield on 13th September. The presentations produced much lively debate and a consensus was reached about how to move the group forward and collaborate. Professor David Brodie presented the work that is currently underway at the Research Centre for Health Studies, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College. Over the last twelve months progress has been made both on physical and human resources. A clinical exercise research laboratory has been commissioned which includes an electronic treadmill; full metabolic facilities and a twelve lead ECG. Three fully funded PhD research students have been appointed and are now working in the area of motivational interviewing, breathing dynamics and cardiac power output. Further two research students will be appointed to be involved in telemedicine applications in cardiology and cardiovascular and repertory dynamics in exercise. Three other colleagues from within the Faculty of Health Studies are engaged in research topics with application to cardiac rehabilitation. HertNet will be collaborating with Professor Brodie on two projects next year. David Shaw who works at the same Centre described a fascinating qualitative process-based approach designed to explain apparent gender differences in psychological adjustment to cardiac 4 disease. This is important work because in the UK coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death among women. It also causes an incalculable amount of morbidity and suffering but despite this women have been comprehensively neglected by researchers and by the health care system, a subject which has been discussed in the BMJ this year HertNet presentations included a literature review on the effect of sexual intercourse on the cardiovascular system and the development of a systematic approach treating erectile dysfunction in the cardiovascular patient. The network also presented the current status of the Hearts for Life programme and Dr Karen Windle described the planned evaluation. Dr Rosie Savage from the Battersea Research Group and the Department of Cardio logical Science at St. George’s Hospital presented a project in early development which is designed to evaluate the value of clinically assured heart rate control and the effect of ACE inhibitors in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation in primary care. Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is the most sustained arrhythmia seen in general practice, currently effecting approximately 1.5% of the population. The prevalence of AF ranges from about 1% in those under 60 years to nearly10% in those over 80 years and this number continues to grow rapidly due to demographic changes. An average practice with 10,000 patients would have approximately 60 patients with permanent AF and therefore collaboration will be the order of the day to achieve suitable numbers of patients for this study. This presentation stimulated much debate. The afternoon session was chaired by Sally Kendal and was entitled ‘Taking the work forward’. The group was in agreement that the best way forward would be to develop a web-based discussion group, which would allow us to collaborate and share ideas. HertNet agreed to set this in motion. Interest Groups Mental Health Research Interest Group The Mental Health Research Interest Group (MHRIG) met in London on September 11th with a new Chair, Irwin Nazareth from NoCTeN. The meeting included presentations from Scott Weich (NoCTeN), Amy Scammell and Caroline Hagelskamp (Battersea Research Group), Olwyn Johnstone (WReN) and Margaret Maxwell (Scottish School of Primary Care). The second part of the meeting was devoted to group work discussing the future remit and direction of the Group. Here is a summary of the feedback. The general view was that the Group should meet twice a year with one meeting as part of the Annual Conference. Day long meetings should be scheduled at locations around the UK. There were lots of ideas and suggestions about the remit of the Group (no order of priority). ● The MHRIG should be a forum for raising, discussing and encouraging research ideas. ● The MHRIG should provide an opportunity for researchers to present work in progress as well as completed research. It should be an opportunity for trouble shooting, especially valuable for new researchers. ● It provides an opportunity for networking and developing shared projects. ● The MHRIG, by including researchers working in practice, provides an opportunity to identify relevant and high priority research questions. ● The resources in the Group could be used for peer support and mentorship (although there are limitations on how much time members can spend providing support). ● The Group might be involved in arranging research skills training that is particularly relevant to mental health issues. ● Relationship with other groups. We should find out about other groups with a similar interest and ensure that they know about us. We should try to avoid overlap. ● The MHRIG should encourage links across the interfaces - between service development and research - with new organisational structures e.g. PCTs should be involved - with groups similar to the MHRIG, to avoid overlap and to ensure that the two groups know about each other. ● The Group should explore consumer involvement. ● Mental health problems in different cultural groups ● Depression ● Patient perception of care ● Implementation and evaluation of new models of care ● Somatic problems The Group did not raise any “burning” research questions that we could look at as a Group. However, the following list represents the interests of some of the Group members who attended. ● Depressive disorders ● Lack of services for adolescents ● Accessibility by GPs to mental health services ● Data collection, quality indicators and the new GP contract ● Ethnicity and mental health ● Research into consultations ● The doctor-patient relationship ● Psychologists in primary care ● Service development and education - evaluating initiatives It was agreed that the Group feedback should be shared with all MHRIG members on the database with a request that they in turn give feedback. Themes suggested for future meetings were (no order of priority): ● Behaviour change ● Primary care organization ● Addictions Headache Research Interest Group The Federation has been asked to canvas interest in a Headache Research Interest Group. The Group will provide an opportunity for researchers to discuss their early research ideas, current projects and completed projects with members of other research networks. The group will aim to develop, where appropriate, collaborative research initiatives, and encourages researchers to conduct and disseminate their research into headache. The Group will be chaired by Dr David Kernick who is lead research GP in an NHS Culyer supported general practice, a member of SaNDNet and a Council member of BASH (British Association for the Study of Headache). If you would like to join the Group please email: [email protected] 5 Primary Care Cancer Research Interest Group A first meeting of this research interest group was held during the 5th Annual UKFPCRN Conference held at the SECC, Glasgow on 2nd December 2002. The meeting was attended by 15 members interested in the primary care input and effect on cancer care research. The meeting was opened with a discussion group on the role and scope of primary care cancer related research. The multidisciplinary audience offered interest and examples of where primary care could contribute to the research in Cancer from prediagnosis to tertiary and palliative care. This was followed by presentation of the early findings of a study by Moyez Jiwa (BACReN) on the effect of referral letters on time to diagnosis and prioritisation, The GRAF study. Dr David Weller, the Chairman of the Group facilitated a discussion on the future of the group. The general consensus was that the group was viable, important and should continue. However, as it was a relatively new forum, it should be a “virtual” group until the next formal meeting at next year’s conference. In the meantime, anyone with an interest in joining this group should contact the Federation Administrator by e-mailing [email protected] 6 National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Primary Care Clinical Studies Development Group (PCCSDG) The first meeting of the PCCSDG was held in London on 12th February. This Clinical Studies Group has been funded by the NCRI to lead the development, in a co-ordinated way, of primary care focussed cancer research. Background: Many patients with cancer first present to their GP. Diagnosis of cancer in primary care is a complex and difficult task. There is currently considerable interest in improving the diagnosis, screening and referral practices in primary care. Furthermore, primary care is involved in all stages of the ‘cancer journey’ from the first time a patient reports a symptom, through diagnosis, treatment and cure or death. The co-ordination of patient interaction with the many different elements of healthcare systems and managing the significant co-morbidity are roles that fall on primary care. What does the PCCSDG offer cancer and primary care research? It is always easier to start with what it does not offer - a ring-fenced source of funding. What it does have is: ● Access to the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) infrastructure ● An opportunity to develop a small number of ‘demonstration projects’ within the NCRN framework. ● The potential to interact more effectively with other sectors of cancer research, including secondary care researchers, the Clinical Trials Units, the site-specific Clinical Studies Groups, the national Translational Cancer Research Network etc. It is widely accepted that there is a need to increase the volume of primary care based cancer research and the PCCSDG is being asked to identify concrete proposals for new primary care focussed research. Who is on the PCCSDG? Clinical Studies Development Group is chaired by David Weller (University of Edinburgh) and currently has about 20 members. The membership comprises a variety of people who have an interest in primary care focussed cancer research and includes people from Universities, networks, PCTs, Department of Health, Trials Units and secondary care. What opportunities does this offer networks? The focus of the PCCSDG will be to develop and promote high quality, multi-centre, primary care focussed trials. Within the next 4 weeks or so, we will be trying to identify a small number of potential trials that can be worked up, supported through the process of securing funding and run with the support of the NCRN infrastructure. The ongoing role of the PCCSDG will be to identify those high quality studies that should be prioritised and support them in the same manner. If anyone has a potential cancer clinical trial that they would like to submit to the PCCSDG they can contact either myself ([email protected]) or David Weller ([email protected]) and we will ensure that this is discussed at the next meeting of the Clinical Development Group. Pensions Madge Vickers, in her role as Director of the MRC GPRF, has been concerned by reports of research time not being counted as eligible for pension calculations. She has investigated this and writes: Research nurses employed by hospital trusts have always been able to access the NHS Pension Scheme as part of their terms of employment. Practice nurses became eligible to access the NHS Pension Scheme with effect from 1st September 1997. Initially the NHS Pensions Agency suggested that only time spent on General Medical Services (GMS) would be eligible as pensionable hours and questioned whether research could be regarded as GMS. The MRC GPRF raised this matter with the DH who agreed that it had implications for both GPs and nurses involved in primary care research and needed to be resolved. Research Governance: notes for primary and community care (www.doh.gov.uk/research/index.htm) issued by the department in July 2002 has addressed this issue within the section relating to GP’s statutory terms of service and the PCT’s duty of care. The guidance from the DH to PCTs is that research conducted in relation to a patient registered with a GP occurs ‘under the general supervisory control of the National Health Service’ and that services do not cease to be subject to GMS regulations because ‘a GP arranges to deliver them through a research sponsor, and in such a way that they are not fully provided and funded by the NHS.’ It seems likely that as a result of this guidance that time spent on research could now be considered to be pensionable. SAPC Newsletter The SAPC is inviting contributions to its newsletter. As a guide, contributions should be limited to issues that are of relevance to the SAPC readership such as: ● Research themes ● Teaching initiatives ● Successes to share ● Academic announcements Space is especially tight and the following word limits should be adhered to: ● ‘Larger’ organisations - 200 words ● ‘Smaller’ organisations - 100 words S A P C THE SOCIETY FOR ACADEMIC PRIMARY CARE The 32nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Academic Primary Care (formerly AUDGP) A multidisciplinary conference for researchers and teachers in primary care 16 - 18 July 2003 MICC, Manchester Programme: Keynote presentations from AnnLouise Kinmonth, Cambridge and John Skelton, Birmingham Debate: “Managing health professionals: should we be more trusting or do more checking?” Aneez Esmail and Kieran Walshe, Manchester Abstract submissions are invited for presentation in plenary, parallel and poster sessions Deadline for submission of abstracts: 14 March 2003 Deadline for early bird registration: 9 May 2003 Members and non-members welcome PGEA accreditation applied for If there are issues that you would like to share, but need more words then articles may be submitted but please contact the editor in advance. Please send copy to Val Roberts ([email protected]). Any queries please contact: Dr Richard Neal University of Wales College of Medicine 01978 316267 [email protected] For information please visit: www.sapc.ac.uk and click on ASM Manchester 2003 Or contact: Sue Stewart, SAPC Secretariat Tel: 01865 331839, Fax: 01865 331125 Email: [email protected] Previous copies of the newsletter are available at www.sapc.ac.uk. 7 Report of the Fifth Annual Conference Research Networks Scottish Exhibition Centre - The Fifth Annual Conference of the UKFPCRN was attended by about 120 delegates representing all but two of 41 member organisations of the federation in the UK. This year’s conference was organised and sponsored by the seven Scottish networks. The conference started with Research Interest Groups meetings (Cardiovascular Disease, Primary Care Cancer and Mental Health) before an introductory welcome by Professor David Hannay (Dumfries & Galloway) the Vice Chairman of the Federation. Professor Graham Watt (Department of General Practice in Glasgow) delivered the first plenary talk on ‘Inequalities in Health’ with special reference to the special problems of the west of Scotland, emphasising ‘inverse care’ where those who needed health services most had the least resources. This was followed by parallel sessions with workshops on communicating with patients and integrating research networks with Primary Care Trusts. The themes of the presentations were cardiovascular disease, the development of effectiveness tools and advantage/disadvantage in primary care. After time for poster viewing, Dr Helen Smith, Co-Chair of the International Federation of PCRNs gave a talk on ‘The challenge of networking primary care research networks in an international context’. This was followed by the Annual General Meeting of the Federation where the main concerns were uncertainties about continued funding, 8 Health Service reorganisation, and the pressures of research governance and problems of indemnity for research workers. New members of the Steering Committee were approved by the Meeting: Caroline Gunnell from ELENoR, Rhian Hughes from the North Staffordshire GP Research Network and Bryan McKinstry from the Lothian PCRN. There was a lively dinner and ceilidh at the Glasgow Moat House hotel in the evening from which some photographs featured next morning in an excellent talk by Mike Kirby on ‘Highlights of the previous day’. This was followed by Professor Laerum from the University of Oslo talking about the influence on healthcare quality inter-disciplinary low back pain guidelines in Norway. Then there were parallel sessions with workshops on ‘Recruitment’ and ‘Complexity’ and presentations on accessing care and trials in primary care. There was also a writers’ clinic by Tim Albert. Before lunch there was another poster display session and a talk about Inequality and Poverty by Sir John Arbuthnott who had headed the Arbuthnott report on the re-allocation of Health Service resources in Scotland. After lunch there were more parallel sessions with workshops on domestic violence and heart disease in Scotland, and papers on quality in health care, mental health and developing research capacities. The final talk was by Dr. Sally Wyke, Director of the Scottish School of Primary Care outlining the vision of the Scottish School and its achievements over the past two years. The conference was ended by Professor David Hannay who presented prizes to Dr Moyez Jiwa from Sheffield and Dr Mark Gabby and associates from Liverpool for the best posters. Professor Hannay ended by thanking Marie Pitkethly and Margaret Feeney from TayRen in Dundee, and Helen Chesser from the Scottish School of Primary Care in Edinburgh for organising a very successful conference for which Denys Hancock, Federation Administrator, had helped with publicity. David Hannay Vice Chair A network co-ordinator’s view Attending the UKFPCRN annual conference is certainly a good way of seeing different parts of Britain! I’d never visited Glasgow and I have to admit I’m a bit of a sucker for a ceilidh so off Battersea Research Group flew with 4 presentations and 3 posters in tow. First of all, the city did not disappoint and in fact 2/5 BRG attendees returned voicing a desire to move there. We were oddly excited at being in the ‘armadillo’ bit of the SECC and a bit disappointed to be in the shopping mall-esque attachment but it proved to be good enough for David Gray so we didn’t really mind. In fact the facilities were excellent. of the UK Federation of Primary Glasgow 2-3 December 2002 CentreR As for the content of the conference the theme this year was ‘quality and inequality’ and in a way these two concepts reflect my feelings on the proceedings. Firstly, relating to quality, I thought that there was overall a high standard of poster and oral presentations. These ranged from ‘traditional’ style academic studies such as Moyez Jiwa’s study on telephone triage and older persons, to examples of implementation of new services such as the Community Psychotherapy Project from the Child and Adult Mental Health Service at Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS trust, to WReN’s poster on making research governance a reality. Secondly, the quality of the conference was also displayed through the variety of work included in the programme. Along with old favourites such as an international perspective and research interest groups this year saw the inclusion of a writers’ clinic by Tim Albert and a workshop on complexity theory by Chris Burton. In terms of Inequality, I thought Ricky Banarsee’s workshop on developing strategies for PCRNs illustrated the differences between all the networks in terms of focus (building capacity, undertaking research, or both), funding/ support and expectation. These differences can be seen as inequalities and I think are to some extent by some. Really it’s only by working through these to develop personal supportive relationships with one another that we’ll be able to grow as a Federation, support current members and engage new primary care professionals effectively. Secondly, I feel that we would do well to encourage more ‘new’ primary care researchers to come to this meeting in the future. The format, especially with the Interest Groups and friendly atmosphere, makes it more encouraging and less threatening than, for example, SAPC. This year I felt as if a good deal of the delegates were more established primary care researchers or network leaders and I think it would be good to try to redress the balance. Overall I would say that Glasgow worked well in two ways - it illustrated how primary care research has come and it illustrated how far we could go. Certainly BRG will be making a renewed effort over the next year to support colleagues from other PCRNs and get involved in new and more innovative areas of project work. Thank you TayRen. Thank you Glasgow. Where are we next year? Amy Scammell Battersea Research Group From a researcher’s perspective This was my first Primary Care Network conference since joining WReN a year ago as a Primary Care Network Facilitator. I have come to Primary Care from a background in laboratory based medical research and from research administration for a major UK research funder. Having helped PCTs to tackle the new systems needed to be developed for Research Governance, I focussed my attention on conference workshops and presentations based on this theme and links between the networks and PCTs. The workshop from the RCGP on Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA) and PCT RM&Gs was extremely informative and came at just the right time for me as I plan to make more people aware of the PCRTA scheme during visits in the New Year. It made me realise just how tight the timings are for becoming compliant with research best practice and how it integrates into the research governance framework. Ricky Barnasee’s workshop on devising strategies for primary care research networks that integrate with PCTs was illuminating, particularly in the sense that we all appear to be facing similar challenges in our work at the current time. We had the opportunity to share and reflect on these during at the workshop, a process which was particularly reassuring! WReN has been involved in a bid to become part of a Biobank spoke and it was highly instructive to attend Wendy Marsden’s workshop on the recruitment potential to Biobank UK. It is clear that WReN will need to engage a number of the ideas that Wendy has used so effectively. An area of primary care in which WReN needs to become more 9 engaged with is podiatry and Wesley Vernon and team’s presentation on worker roles in foot care services highlighted the lessons in research capacity building that are needed for this often overlooked subject. The Trent Focus work of Gill Sarre also provided me with many ideas of how to engage with and support the PCTs in my area. I am sure I will be using many of the ideas put forward. All in all I learnt a huge amount from the conference which was just the right size for making contacts and exchanging ideas. The workshops and talks were timely and have provided me with a lot more helpful information for my work. Jenny Baverstock WReN First time delegate’s view As the new Project Officer for PCRTA and a newcomer to Primary Care research issues, I have been on a steep learning curve for the last couple of months. The UK Federation’s Annual Conference at the beginning of December allowed me to demonstrate and put into practice what I have learnt, increased my knowledge of and interest in research issues, and gave me the opportunity to meet colleagues from the networks and PCTs. On the Monday morning we had a workshop planned with Sara Shaw, and although I had been assured that the networks were ‘a good, friendly bunch’, the nerves did not quite subside. However, my anxieties soon diminished in the informal and approachable atmosphere that seemed to dominate the conference. It seemed odd to me at first that quite a few people seemed already to know who I was and what I did, but everyone made me feel very welcome. It was an excellent opportunity to finally meet people with whom I had frequently been e-mailing about the scheme, as well as to make new mutually beneficial contacts. I found the conference agenda varied and flexible, making it easy for people to attend the talks and workshops that suited their interests. I thought that the conference was well organised and the location was excellent. With the conference centre next to the hotel and within easy reach of Glasgow airport, it was accessible, convenient and very pleasant. I also much appreciated the effort that had gone into the evening dinner and ceilidh although I was frightened off by the Scottish dancing! However, what I liked most about the conference was the fact that discussion was always free flowing, and it was stimulating being around so many people who are clearly incredibly passionate about research. To sum up, my first experience of the UKFPCRN Annual Conference was very positive, and I look forward to what next year’s Conference has in store. Susie Braam Research Project Officer, RCGP Advance Notice The 6th Annual Conference of the UKFPCRN will be held in Birmingham on 24th - 25th November 2003. The theme of the conference will be A Celebration of Research Capacity Building Abstracts for presentations (posters, papers and workshops) must be received by July 31st. Full details will be distributed shortly but please put this date in your diary! For further information please email: [email protected] 10 Review: Safety Issues for Research in the Community: a video training package This video is a safety training tool, produced by Southampton University for health and social researchers working in the community and contains a list of “dos and don’ts”. It is divided into four sections: 1. Assessing safety in the community 2. Prevention strategies 3. Identifying and responding to risk 4. Follow-up actions. The video was excellent, beginning with the introduction “I think the scariest interview I’ve ever had was...” and ending with the final statement “You should remember that thankfully such events are extremely uncommon. By being aware of the risks and taking steps to keep risks to a minimum and knowing how to respond in the event of an incident, you can help to ensure that such events continue to be a rarity in the future.” Despite being slightly scary (the music accentuated this), points were made effectively with volunteers reconstructing real-life situations as if they had personally encountered them. Common-sense tips such as having a mobile-phone, a copy of your timetable up on the whiteboard, and agreed times of when you will ring in and what happens if you don’t were well-made. A safety policy for home visits should include standard operating procedures that incorporate action plans, incident reporting procedures and review procedures. This video forms a useful adjunct to the safety policy. We strongly recommend the video for induction of all new staff who will be undertaking home or community visits. Furthermore, we found that the video was also an ideal discussion aid which has prompted us to discuss and review our existing safety procedures. The video, entitled “Safety Issues for Research in the Community” lasts twelve and a half minutes, and is available from Julia Barry, Divisional Administrator, Department of Primary Medical Care, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton SO16 5T, 020380 241 061, and costs £35.00 including VAT and postage. Elaine Kidney and Helen Walker, Research Associates, Department of Primary Care and General Practice, The University of Birmingham. If you would like to submit a review of a book, video or training package to NetConnect please email: [email protected] North American Primary Care Research Group Kurt Stange, President of NAPCRG visits the Federation Stand The 30th Annual Meeting of this group (NAPCRG) was held in New Orleans in November. The theme was “Building Research Capacity” and included a plenary from Paul Thomas, formerly Director of WeLReN. Around 40 Brits attended the meeting and made a significant contribution to the proceedings through poster presentations, papers, workshops, a forum and a plenary session. The Federation awarded bursaries towards the cost of attending to Jonathan Graffy (ELENoR) and Vicky Hammersley (Trent Focus). There was a record number of applications for bursary awards and the standard was extremely high. Jonathan presented two papers: one about a RCT of the effectiveness of support from volunteer breastfeeding counsellors and the other on the role of the practice manager in primary care research. Vicky, with colleagues from the Trent Focus, facilitated a forum on how networks provide an integrated approach to research capacity building. The next issue of NetConnect will include reports from Jonathan and Vicky. The 2003 NAPCRG meeting will take place in Banff (Canada), October 25-28, and the closing date for abstracts is April 23, 2003. See www.napcrg.org for more information. 11 Network Tour The Federation recently welcomed two more networks into the membership, Mersey Primary Care R&D Consortium and the North Staffordshire GP Research Network. Mersey Primary Care R&D Consortium The Mersey Primary Care R&D Consortium (“the Consortium” came into existence in April 1999 following a successful application for funding from Budget 1 of the NHS R&D Levy. The Consortium has been created to generate high quality R&D activity, relevant to the needs of primary care. Our objectives are as follows: ● Increase external funding ● Develop research capacity within primary care on a multi- disciplinary basis ● Expand consumer involvement ● Encourage appropriate and relevant dissemination ● Increase partnerships and networking The creation of a consortium specifically for R&D signals the central importance of this activity for the teams within it and offers Merseyside an exemplar of the enormous future potential for primary care-led R&D. This organisation allows us to share and utilise the knowledge, skills and experience of a large group of health care professionals including 39 general practitioners and over 40 nurses of whom a significant proportion have experience in R&D related activity. Secondly, it provides us with a much bigger population for study than is possible on the basis of an individual practice. The Consortium has access to a population of some 70,000 people across a geographical area stretching from Southport, through Bootle and Liverpool to South Cheshire, with socio-economic backgrounds ranging from deprived inner city areas to affluent rural communities. These benefits mean that we will engage in R&D of greater intrinsic value than if acting separately. Website: www.merseyprimarycare.org Contact: Gabrielle Marr R&D Coordinator University of Liverpool Department of Primary Care Whelan Building Brownlow Hill Liverpool L69 3GB Telephone: 0151 794 4552 Fax: 0151 794 5604 Email: [email protected] Head of Network Professor Chris Dowrick North Staffordshire GP Research Network The Network includes a core of 16 general practices in North Staffordshire committed to continuous computerised morbidity recording, to support a primary care research programme in partnership with Primary Care Sciences at Keele University. Our research interests centre on consultation for common symptoms in primary care, particularly musculoskeletal pain. The Network hosts a large programme of research including trials funded by ARC, a large programme from the MRC supports ongoing work on optimal management of osteoarthritis in primary care, and a number of other projects are supported by Wellcome and NHS(E) grants. Two groups within the Network have formed Consortia to host Budget 1 NHS R&D funding and they are respectively the second and third largest primary care consortia (second to MidRec). The Network supports a number of PhD/MD research fellowships for GPs as well as physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Contact: Rhian Hughes Research Manager North Staffordshire GP Research Network Primary Care Sciences Centre Keele University Hornbeam Building Keele Staffordshire ST5 5BG Telephone: 01782 583918 E-mail: [email protected] Head of Network Professor Peter Croft Next issue of NetConnect is June 20 03 Please send articles for inclusion to [email protected] Printed by Print Revolution Ltd [email protected]