Building Collaborative Academic-Practice Research Teams Lory Lory - PDF document

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015 Building Collaborative Academic-Practice Research Teams Lory Lory Clukey Clukey, PhD, PhD, PsyD PsyD, RN, CNS RN, CNS The speaker has no conflicts of interest to disclose.  Participants will examine the benefits of collaborative partnerships between academic faculty and clinicians for research and evidence-based projects.  Attendees will be able to identify potential barriers to forming and completing academic-clinical collaborative projects.  Participants will be aware of ethical, legal and interpersonal issues that influence forming academic-clinical research partnerships.  Research to Practice Gap  Need for Practice built on solid evidence  Teams are more likely to get a project done  Everyone feels time pressures and yet many really want to build knowledge that informs practice  Academic nurses and clinical nurses bring different assets, information and skills to the table  Magnet status Clukey 1

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015  Many minds are better than 1 mind  Different disciplines bring different perspectives…interesting and enriching  Professional development  Burn out prevention  Learning  Visibility and prestige  Relationships  Personal satisfaction  Type of project being formed: ◦ Human Subject Research, ◦ Evidence Based Project, ◦ Quality Improvement Project  Need for IRB approval  Need for business and legal expertise and highest level of administration support ◦ Product production  Software, instrument development, program  Interagency agreement ◦ Different organizational purposes ◦ Different structures ◦ Different culture ◦ Different languages  Need for formalized contract…even among friends  Ethical and Legal considerations  Financial Issues ◦ Costs & profits ◦ Marketing & representation Clukey 2

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015  Collectively develop a plan for: ◦ Purpose ◦ Conduct ◦ Workload distribution (roles & responsibilities) ◦ Timeline(s) ◦ Resource distribution (payment) ◦ Data ownership (intellectual property) ◦ Product ownership (financial compensation) ◦ Patents ◦ Time limit for contractual agreement  Difficult process  Big problem = mismatched expectations  Need precise delineation of: ◦ responsibilities for each person involved ◦ administrative support ◦ time commitments (projected then add some) ◦ payment ◦ expected outcome(s) or products  Don’t leave anything assumed – THIS IS ESSENTIAL!!!  Put EVERYTHING in writing – even with friends  Each stakeholder shares perspectives, expectations, concerns  Requires a willingness to negotiate, compromise, communicate clearly & directly  Consensus needed  Need organizational approval  Need legal representation and approval  Consider cost and benefits that might not be very obvious (prestige, visibility, reputation) Clukey 3

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015  Different organizational ◦ Purpose ◦ Structure ◦ Goals ◦ Culture ◦ Expectations ◦ Reward systems ◦ Legal regulations ◦ Economic incentives ◦ Academic and Healthcare Businesses are different animals  Pressure for public institutions to generate new funding sources => expanding patents; stronger intellectual property protection; protecting inventions (genetic; software)  Changing regulations regarding “technology transfer offices”  Competition for limited resources  Unclear legal regulations  Communication, communication, communication…  Enhanced job satisfaction => retention  Clinical: targeted patient population; physical resources (labs, equiptment); expertise in disease management; most knowledgeable of clinical problems (set research priorities); feasibility of interventions; clinical testing  Academic: experts in research design, theory testing; data collection, management, stats & analysis; funding, grant writing, publication; research laboratories, libraries Clukey 4

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015 Bleich, M. R., Hewlett, P. O., Miller, K. L., Bender, K. (2004). Beyond tradition: Synergizing  intellectual and material capital to forge the new academic-service partnership. Journal of Professional Nursing, 20(5), 285-294. Blumenthal, D., & Meyer, G. S. (1996). Academic health centers in a changing environment.  Health Affairs , 15(2), 200-215. Cervantes, M. (2015). Academic Patenting: How universities and public research organizations  are using their intellectual properto to boost research and spur innovative start-ups. World Intellectual Property Organization . Retrieved from: http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/academic_patenting.html Centrella-Nigro, A. M., Faber, K., Wiklinski, B., Bognar, L., Flynn, D. L., LaForgia, M. (2015).  Effective collaboration among magnet hospitals: A win-win for nurses and institutions. American Journal of Nursing, 115(7), 50-54. Edward, K. (2015). A model for increasing appreciation, accessibility and application of  research in nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing , 31(2), 119-123. Foote, J. M., Conley, V., Williams, J. K., McCarthy, A. M., Countryman, M. (2015). Academic and  institutional review board collaboration to ensure ethical conduct of doctor of nursing practice projects. Journal of Nursing Education , 54(7), 373-377. Hulcombe, J., Sturgess, J., Souvlis, T., Fitzgerald, C. (2014). An approach to building research  capacity for health practitioners in a public health environment: An organizational perspective. Australian Health Review, 38, 252-258. Krumm, S. & Mock, V. (2005). Maximizing clinical-academic partnerships in studies of  symptom management: Examples of success. Advanced Studies in Nursing, 3(5), 164-169. Overholser, J. C. (2014). Protesting the decline while predicting the demise of clinical  psychology: Can we avoid a total collapse? Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy , 44, 273- 281. Clukey 5