scholarly journals Ten minutes with Professor Helen McShane, Director, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

BMJ Leader ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-97
Author(s):  
Helen McShane ◽  
Anthony Robert Berendt
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Bell ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Lorna R Henderson ◽  
Vasiliki Kiparoglou

Objective: To assess the training and development needs of researchers and support staff affiliated to the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), one of the largest BRCs in England, and to find out about their past experiences of training. Design: A cross-sectional online questionnaire survey. Setting and Participants: A convenience sample of clinicians, nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, researchers and support staff (N=798) affiliated with the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the type of training and the secondary outcome measures were the duration, location and timing of training. Results: The response rate was 24%. Of 189 respondents, 114 were women (60%) and 75 men (40%). Respondents included research scientists (31%), medical doctors and dentists (17%), nurses and midwives (16%) and research managers and administrators (16%). Seventy-one percent respondents (n=134) reported attending at least one training activity in the last year and the most wanted training was leadership skills (25%), followed by research grant and fellowship writing (18%) and statistical analysis (16%). An ideal length of a training course was half a day (41%), whole day (25%) and 1-2 hours (22%). The most preferred time of the day for training was morning (60%) and afternoon (22%) and the favoured delivery style of training was an interactive workshop (52%), lecture/talk (25%), online (9%) and practical activities (9%). The main barriers to attending training courses were the lack of time (n-18%), work commitments (13%), and childcare responsibilities (6%). Conclusions: Translational researchers and supporting affiliates want short, easily accessible, interactive training sessions, particularly leadership training skills and grant and fellowship writing. However, practical elements are important too e.g. in a convenient location during the working day. Work commitment is the biggest obstacle in doing training.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 453-453
Author(s):  
Sam Foster

Sam Foster, Chief Nurse, Oxford University Hospitals, considers what it takes to be an ally of people in less privileged groups in the workplace


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (15) ◽  
pp. 941-941
Author(s):  
Sam Foster

Although the latest report on workforce equality shows positive changes, some improvements are marginal and the issue must be kept high on the agenda, says Sam Foster, Chief Nurse, Oxford University Hospitals


2022 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Sam Foster

Sam Foster, Chief Nurse, Oxford University Hospitals, considers the lessons from research into the trainee nurse associate role and the implications for workforce planning


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 687-687
Author(s):  
Sam Foster

Sam Foster, Chief Nurse, Oxford University Hospitals, reflects on how the pandemic has changed work practices and suggests that refocusing priorities can not only improve staff wellbeing but also productivity and competition


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Maassen ◽  
Sebastian Fritsch ◽  
Julia Gantner ◽  
Saskia Deffge ◽  
Julian Kunze ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND The increasing development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in medicine driven by researchers and entrepreneurs goes along with enormous expectations for medical care advancement. AI might change the clinical practice of physicians from almost all medical disciplines and in most areas of healthcare. While expectations for AI in medicine are high, practical implementations of AI for clinical practice are still scarce in Germany. Moreover, physicians’ requirements and expectations of AI in medicine and their opinion on the usage of anonymized patient data for clinical and biomedical research has not been investigated widely in German university hospitals. OBJECTIVE Evaluate physicians’ requirements and expectations of AI in medicine and their opinion on the secondary usage of patient data for (bio)medical research e.g. for the development of machine learning (ML) algorithms in university hospitals in Germany. METHODS A web-based survey was conducted addressing physicians of all medical disciplines in 8 German university hospitals. Answers were given on Likert scales and general demographic responses. Physicians were asked to participate locally via email in the respective hospitals. RESULTS 121 (39.9%) female and 173 (57.1%) male physicians (N=303) from a wide range of medical disciplines and work experience levels completed the online survey. The majority of respondents either had a positive (130/303, 42.9%) or a very positive attitude (82/303, 27.1%) towards AI in medicine. A vast majority of physicians expected the future of medicine to be a mix of human and artificial intelligence (273/303, 90.1%) but also requested a scientific evaluation before the routine implementation of AI-based systems (276/303, 91.1%). Physicians were most optimistic that AI applications would identify drug interactions (280/303, 92.4%) to improve patient care substantially but were quite reserved regarding AI-supported diagnosis of psychiatric diseases (62/303, 20.5%). 82.5% of respondents (250/303) agreed that there should be open access to anonymized patient databases for medical and biomedical research. CONCLUSIONS Physicians in stationary patient care in German university hospitals show a generally positive attitude towards using most AI applications in medicine. Along with this optimism, there come several expectations and hopes that AI will assist physicians in clinical decision making. Especially in fields of medicine where huge amounts of data are processed (e.g., imaging procedures in radiology and pathology) or data is collected continuously (e.g. cardiology and intensive care medicine), physicians’ expectations to substantially improve future patient care are high. However, for the practical usage of AI in healthcare regulatory and organizational challenges still have to be mastered.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rinita Dam ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Maria Julia Milano ◽  
Laurel D Edmunds ◽  
Lorna R Henderson ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of success in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignA retrospective descriptive study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.Data2409 publications accepted or published from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017.Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised clinical research (39%, n=939), basic research (27%, n=643), and other types of research (34%, n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories. Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169), and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant smaller proportions i.e. 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared to male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author(s) with gender of the first author(s) (χ 2 33.742, P < 0.001), corresponding author(s) (χ2 540.774, P < 0.001) and joint last author(s) (χ 2 91.291, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAlthough there are increasing trends of female authors as first authors (41%) and last authors (23%), female authors are underrepresented compared to male authors in all six categories of scientific authorship in biomedical research. Further research is needed to encourage gender parity in different categories of scientific authorship.Strengths and limitations of this studyThis is the first study to investigate gender parity in six categories of scientific authorship: first authors, first corresponding authors, last authors and three joint authorship categories i.e. joint first authors, joint corresponding authors and joint last authors in biomedical research.This study provides an important benchmark on gender equity in scientific authorship for other NIHR funded centres and organisations in England.The generalisability of the findings of this study may be limited due to differences in medical specialities, research areas, institutional cultures, and levels of support to individual researchers.Using secondary sources for determining the gender of authors may have limitations, which could be avoided by seeking relevant information from original authors and institution affiliation at the time of submission.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document