L F Smith1. 1. Ilchester Research General Practice, Somerset.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: By the autumn of 1995, 14 research general practices had been funded. These are service NHS general medical practices that are supportive of primary care research and have a lead GP who has research experience as evidenced by publication in peer-reviewed journals. AIM: To ascertain the characteristics of those who have been successful in securing the first 14 grants, the effect the process has had on them, and the practical advice they would offer to future applicants and to future funding bodies. METHOD: A confidential postal survey of research general practices. RESULTS: They are atypical practices (high level of research and teaching involvement, mostly non-urban) with atypical lead GPs (male, research degrees, possess MRCGP, publications and grants obtained). Practices contemplating applying for future research practice grants should consider planning ahead, use of grant monies, protection of research time, involving the primary health care team, and sources of both internal and external support. Funding bodies need to make adequate funding available for capital expenditure and running costs as well as staff and lead GP time. CONCLUSION: Research general practices are ideal for integrating the core values of the medical profession, providing clinical care by medical generalists, teaching the discipline and researching its basis. Such practices should be funded on a rolling basis and throughout the United Kingdom. Future evaluation of funding such practices is needed and should confirm their utility both to the discipline and to patient care within the NHS.
BACKGROUND: By the autumn of 1995, 14 research general practices had been funded. These are service NHS general medical practices that are supportive of primary care research and have a lead GP who has research experience as evidenced by publication in peer-reviewed journals. AIM: To ascertain the characteristics of those who have been successful in securing the first 14 grants, the effect the process has had on them, and the practical advice they would offer to future applicants and to future funding bodies. METHOD: A confidential postal survey of research general practices. RESULTS: They are atypical practices (high level of research and teaching involvement, mostly non-urban) with atypical lead GPs (male, research degrees, possess MRCGP, publications and grants obtained). Practices contemplating applying for future research practice grants should consider planning ahead, use of grant monies, protection of research time, involving the primary health care team, and sources of both internal and external support. Funding bodies need to make adequate funding available for capital expenditure and running costs as well as staff and lead GP time. CONCLUSION: Research general practices are ideal for integrating the core values of the medical profession, providing clinical care by medical generalists, teaching the discipline and researching its basis. Such practices should be funded on a rolling basis and throughout the United Kingdom. Future evaluation of funding such practices is needed and should confirm their utility both to the discipline and to patient care within the NHS.