Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership

Mann, Mala, Woodward, Amanda, Nelson, Annmarie and Byrne, Anthony 2019. Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership. Health Research Policy and Systems 17 (1) , 100. 10.1186/s12961-019-0504-4

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

The importance of linking evidence into practice and policy is recognised as a key pillar of a prudent approach to healthcare; it is of importance to healthcare professionals and decision-makers across the world in every speciality. However, rapid access to evidence to support service redesign, or to change practice at pace, is challenging. This is particularly so in smaller specialties such as Palliative Care, where pressured multidisciplinary clinicians lack time and skill sets to locate and appraise the literature relevant to a particular area. Therefore, we have initiated the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS), a knowledge transfer partnership through which we have developed a clear methodology to conduct evidence reviews to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care. PaCERS methodology utilises modified systematic review methods as there is no agreed definition or an accepted methodology for conducting rapid reviews. This paper describes the stages involved based on our iterative recent experiences and engagement with stakeholders, who are the potential beneficiaries of the research. Uniquely, we emphasise the process and opportunities of engagement with the clinical workforce and policy-makers throughout the review, from developing and refining the review question at the start through to the importance of demonstrating impact. We are faced with the challenge of the trade-off between the timely transfer of evidence against the risk of impacting on rigour. To address this issue, we try to ensure transparency throughout the review process. Our methodology aligns with key principles of knowledge synthesis in defining a process that is transparent, robust and improving the efficiency and timeliness of the review. Our reviews are clinically or policy driven and, although we use modified systematic review methods, one of the key differences between published review processes and our review process is in our relationship with the requester. This streamlining approach to synthesising evidence in a timely manner helps to inform decisions faced by clinicians and decision-makers in healthcare settings, supporting, at pace, knowledge transfer and mobilisation.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Medicine
Publisher: BioMed Central
ISSN: 1478-4505
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 18 December 2019
Date of Acceptance: 6 November 2019
Last Modified: 31 Jan 2020 22:58
URI: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/id/eprint/127632

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics