Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Whilst I agree with Dr Moutoussis's comments on the fragmentation of
NHS systems and resources, I suspect his letter is written from an acute
trust perspective. Working in Primary Care, I deal with General Practice
research, and come across many research projects that use GP lists for
identification of potential participants, with information packs posted
out to those eligble. The patients who wish to participate contact the
study team, and the team carry out consent, intervention etc. This gets
around the difficulties in using senior clinicians for the recruitment
process, relying instead on an experienced and competent study team.
Perhaps redirecting his research arena would circumvent some of the
difficulties Dr Moutoussis describes? What I find in Primary Care is that
there is a lot of hospital research which could work very effectively in
this domain, but that overlooks the opportunity of General Practice
recruitment.
As with all business models, the client (researcher) is advised to
take his or her custom to the organisation best able to deliver. This
potentially strengthens the researcher's plight when trying to find the
right Trust to adopt a study, as through the current NIHR landscape each
Trust is eager to bring research onto its patch. Perhaps the fragmentation
the author described is not a bad thing in this respect?
With respect to the business of IRAS - the online integrated
applications system is intended to reduce bureaucracy dramatically,
ensuring that key research information is input once, and the resulting
REC, R&D and SSI forms automatically populated from the base dataset. In
the old days it would have been many forms duplicating the same
information, repeated for each organisation and Trust involved - so it
would appear that things are improving. Perhaps he would be helped by
having a competent trial co-ordinator to undertake some of the
administrative tasks for him? For research on the NIHR Portfolio, access
to Research Network staff support is also available - and the R&D office
of the local NHS Trust is always happy to support and advise on the
applications process.
Certainly I would be pleased to discuss with any researcher ways that
good quality research could be structured to make use of the valuable
patient population available in Primary Care.
Andrea Shemilt
Research and Development Facilitator, NHS North of Tyne
Bevan House, 1 Esh Plaza, Sir Bobby Robson Way, Great Park, Newcastle upon
Tyne, NE13 9BA
Falling research in the NHS - a Primary Care perspective
Whilst I agree with Dr Moutoussis's comments on the fragmentation of
NHS systems and resources, I suspect his letter is written from an acute
trust perspective. Working in Primary Care, I deal with General Practice
research, and come across many research projects that use GP lists for
identification of potential participants, with information packs posted
out to those eligble. The patients who wish to participate contact the
study team, and the team carry out consent, intervention etc. This gets
around the difficulties in using senior clinicians for the recruitment
process, relying instead on an experienced and competent study team.
Perhaps redirecting his research arena would circumvent some of the
difficulties Dr Moutoussis describes? What I find in Primary Care is that
there is a lot of hospital research which could work very effectively in
this domain, but that overlooks the opportunity of General Practice
recruitment.
As with all business models, the client (researcher) is advised to
take his or her custom to the organisation best able to deliver. This
potentially strengthens the researcher's plight when trying to find the
right Trust to adopt a study, as through the current NIHR landscape each
Trust is eager to bring research onto its patch. Perhaps the fragmentation
the author described is not a bad thing in this respect?
With respect to the business of IRAS - the online integrated
applications system is intended to reduce bureaucracy dramatically,
ensuring that key research information is input once, and the resulting
REC, R&D and SSI forms automatically populated from the base dataset. In
the old days it would have been many forms duplicating the same
information, repeated for each organisation and Trust involved - so it
would appear that things are improving. Perhaps he would be helped by
having a competent trial co-ordinator to undertake some of the
administrative tasks for him? For research on the NIHR Portfolio, access
to Research Network staff support is also available - and the R&D office
of the local NHS Trust is always happy to support and advise on the
applications process.
Certainly I would be pleased to discuss with any researcher ways that
good quality research could be structured to make use of the valuable
patient population available in Primary Care.
Andrea Shemilt
Research and Development Facilitator, NHS North of Tyne
Bevan House, 1 Esh Plaza, Sir Bobby Robson Way, Great Park, Newcastle upon
Tyne, NE13 9BA
andrea.shemilt@northtyneside-pct.nhs.uk
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests