Evaluation and Implementation - Research Highlights

Social and ethical issues arising from use of genomic technologies in clinical practice

Examination of the social and ethical issues that arise when introducing new technologies into patient care is being led by the PHG Foundation team of Hilary Burton, Shirlene Badger and Nina Hallowell.

[Read more]

This project will -

  • Document the groups' experiences of translating research into clinical practice
  • Observe laboratory work, research and clinical team meetings and clinical consultations with patients
  • Interview key stakeholders and analyse findings

In one of a series of case studies, Shirlene is working alongside Lucy Raymond’s team on the SPEED study (Specialist Pathology: Evaluating Exomes and Diagnostics), to explore what streamlining the diagnostic process means for affected individuals alongside observational interview work with relevant research and clinical specialists.


[Close expanded details]

CIPH/Data4Health Cambridge dementia register

The Data4Health Cambridge project aims to develop an integrated information platform to support the evaluation of public health interventions, clinical epidemiology and translational research across the entire population of Cambridgeshire.

[Read more]

The goal is to develop a ‘community cloud’ – an aggregated source of shared data meeting multiple needs and accessed by all. As an early exemplar, CIPH is working with Data4Health to build a local dementia register which fits with both the Cambridge Dementia Biomedical Research Unit and the Dementia and Neurodegenerative Disorders initiative within the BRC.

Other collaborators in the dementia register project are Cambridge University Health Partners (CUHP), the Addenbrooke’s e-Hospital programme, GPs, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), the Local Authority Public Health and Social Care Services, as well as with patient and public involvement groups. It will link to, and be able to take advantage of work underway in a number of other BRC themes.

A project protocol has been produced which includes scoping work to evaluate the technical, information governance and data requirements of the project, through collaboration with all the stakeholders. The work will specify the required resources from the perspectives of budget, time and expertise. Such information can be shared to assist similar, future projects.


[Close expanded details]

Contributing social science expertise to the evaluation of new technologies

Evaluating complex interventions requires a multidisciplinary approach to trial development and a coherent theoretical base for the development of interventions. When trials are conducted in clinical practice, parallel research often needed into how and why the effect came about – rather than...

[Read more]

Working with the resources of the Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, social science and health economic expertise will support experimental medicine studies by providing expertise in evaluation of quality of life, measurement of patient experience and health behaviours, and health economics. This will strengthen the ability to test treatments in clinical practice (Cooksey’s second translational gap) and to evaluate interventions designed to improve health care delivery and population health. With this new capacity, the existing trials unit can move beyond level 1 and 2 trials, to be a fully fledged clinical trials unit supporting, in addition, level 3 and 4 trials.


[Close expanded details]

Understanding how patients can contribute to improving the quality of medical care

While the main focus of the BRC is on the development of new scientific discoveries and how they can improve the health of the population, there is increasing interest in patients’ own roles in improving the quality of medical care.

[Read more]

Patient feedback is increasingly commonly used in all health care systems as one of the components of quality improvement. Doctors in the UK, however, are unused to receiving this type of feedback, especially feedback which relates to them as individual clinicians. We are therefore carrying our interviews with doctors from a range of specialties to understand how this type of feedback can best be used to improve performance.


[Close expanded details]