Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The objective of this paper is to share lessons learnt from engaging multi-disciplinary practitioners in a complex field of social policy in a consensus building exercise using an adapted Delphi-method. Multi-disciplinary practitioners include all professionals, policymakers and researchers who can affect, or are affected by, the success of the organisation or service in question. This methodology paper discusses just one very focused component of the challenge of engaging multi-disciplinary practitioners: how practitioners from a wide range of backgrounds can be engaged through surveys. The issue of concern in the survey we conducted was Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). This report focuses solely on the methods used, and is written for other organisations or researchers considering a similar approach. Suggestions include using participants' own language in subsequent surveys; minimising selection criteria of participants; and taking practical steps to manage potential weaknesses in the Delphi method such as the required time commitment of both researchers and participants.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Government accountability --- Public administration --- Administrative agencies --- Management audit --- Government productivity --- Auditing --- 404 Bestuurskunde --- #SBIB:35H202 --- #SBIB:35H415 --- Overheidsmanagement: prestatiemanagement --- Beleidscyclus: evaluatie --- Government accountability. --- Management audit. --- Government productivity. --- Auditing. --- Administration, Public --- Delivery of government services --- Government services, Delivery of --- Public management --- Public sector management --- Political science --- Administrative law --- Decentralization in government --- Local government --- Public officers --- Audit, Management --- Management auditing --- Operation audits --- Operational auditing --- Operations auditing --- Industrial management --- Productivity, Government --- Capital productivity --- Production (Economic theory) --- Accountability in government --- Responsibility --- Agencies, Administrative --- Executive agencies --- Government agencies --- Regulatory agencies --- Law and legislation --- Public administration - Auditing --- Administrative agencies - Auditing

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Changes in technology, organisational structures and practices, patterns of animal ownership, the expectations of animal owners and the wider public, and the pandemic have all contributed to an increasingly complex environment for veterinary practice. These developments raise questions concerning core aspects of the existing regulations and guidelines, including what it means for an animal to be 'under care' of a veterinary surgeon, and professional obligations for providing out-of-hours care. The aim of this study was to collect evidence to support the review of the regulations and guidance RCVS should offer in relation to 'under care' and 'out of hours' care. The overall research programme gathered information from members across the veterinary profession, using focus group discussions, in-depth interviews with key veterinary stakeholder organisations, and from a large-scale quantitative survey.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Q aims to connect people working in quality improvement across the UK healthcare system, to make it easier for them to share ideas, enhance their skills and thus bring about a change that benefits patients. It is led by the Health Foundation and supported and co-funded by NHS England and NHS Improvement. As an embedded but independent evaluator commissioned by the Health Foundation, RAND Europe has been a 'critical friend' of Q from 2016 to 2020. The first two years of this evaluation were primarily formative in approach, focusing on how Q was designed and established, and feeding the data back to the Q team to support and inform the ongoing design and management of Q. The later stages of the evaluation took a more summative approach, focusing on the impact of Q on its members as well as on its wider contributions to healthcare improvement. The study has involved nearly 200 interviews and focus groups, 13 surveys, several case studies and deep dives of Q in different areas of the UK, citizen ethnography, review of key strategic and improvement literature, observations at Q events and Q team meetings and a social network analysis of connections between Q members. RAND Europe conducted a separate evaluation of the first design year of Q in 2015 and an interim evaluation report for this study was published in 2018.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The ability to sequence and understand different variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and their impact is crucial to inform policy and public health decisions. Soon after the UK went into its first lockdown in March 2020, the CCOVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium was launched. COG-UK is a collaboration of experts in pathogen genomics including academic institutions, public health agencies, the Wellcome Sanger Institute, NHS Trusts and Lighthouse Labs. RAND Europe evaluated how COG-UK delivered against its objectives, for example how it contributed to advancing scientific knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, informing public health decisions, and providing information that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of vaccines and treatments. The evaluation also examined the diverse factors that influenced COG-UK progress and impact, including enablers and challenges, and considered implications for the future.