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

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015 Clukey 1

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

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015 Clukey 2

 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

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015 Clukey 3

 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)

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015 Clukey 4

 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

APNA 29th Annual Conference Session 2034.1: October 29, 2015 Clukey 5



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.