NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

Revised on 17/01/2018

NIHR Policy Research Programme

Research Specification

Research call on understanding the scale and

nature of avoidable harm in prison healthcare

Timetable

● Deadline for stage 1 applications: 17 April 2018

● Notification of outcome of stage 1: May 2018

● Deadline for stage 2 application: 19 June 2018

● Notification of outcome of stage 2: July 2018

● Award of contract: August 2018 (subject to pre-contract

negotiations)

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

2

Table of content

Introduction 3

Background 3

Research Priorities and Objectives 5

Budget and Duration and Specific Assessment Criteria 8

Governance Issues 8

Standard Information for Applicants 11

General Comments about Applications 11

Research Management 11

Risk Management 13

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) 13

Outputs and Reporting Arrangements 14

Finance 15

Dissemination 15

Transparency 15

Application Process 16

Commissioning Process 17

Selection Criteria 18

Contacts 18

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

3

Introduction

1. The Department of Health and Social Care invites the submission of proposals for a single research project to determine the scale and nature of avoidable harm in provision of prisoner healthcare services in England.

2. This is a significant opportunity to inform policy in this area of key importance to patients and public, and practitioners. Applicants should be aware of other relevant policy research being commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care, including psychoactive substance in prisons, mental health management in prisons, and avoidable harm in primary care.

Background

3. In March 2014, the Secretary of State for Health announced an ambition to reduce avoidable harm in the NHS by half over the next three years, cut costs and save up to 6,000 lives1.

4. Patient safety is the avoidance of unintended or unexpected harm to people during the provision of healthcare. Avoidable harm has replaced previously used terms such as ‘adverse events’ in research contexts as it allows a clearer focus on areas where healthcare can be improved.

5. Research in acute hospitals in England has estimated the scale and nature of

avoidable harm2, and work is underway to understand the scale and nature of

avoidable harm in primary care3.

6. The prison population of England and Wales is one of the highest in Europe4, with a high turnover of prisoners. Prisoners are high consumers of healthcare services, consulting primary care doctors three times more than the equivalent community populations5.

1. Halving avoidable harm and saving up to 6,000 lives: Department of Health and Social Care, 26 March 2014.

Accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/halving-avoidable-harm-and-saving-up-to-6000-lives 22. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record

review BMJ 2001; 322 :517. Accessed at: http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7285/517 3. Bell BG, Campbell S, Carson-Stevens A, et al. Understanding the epidemiology of avoidable significant harm

In primary care: protocol for a retrospective cross-sectional study BMJ Open 2017;7:e013786. doi:

10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013786 4. International Centre for Prison Studies. World prison brief. Available from: http://www.prisonstudies.org/world-

prison-brief. 5. Marshall T, Simpson S, Stevens A. Use of health services by prison inmates: comparisons with the community.

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2001;55(5):364-5.

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

4

7. We need to understand the scale and nature of avoidable harm in healthcare

provided to prisoners to inform policy for improving patient safety and to ensure

equivalence of healthcare delivered to prisoners with those in the community, in

line with the National Partnership Agreement6 shared outcomes.

8. For commissioners of healthcare services and clinical staff, understanding

problems across healthcare and understanding what could have been done to

reduce or prevent harm can be an important catalyst for changing culture and

behaviour, critical to the aim of improving patient safety and the efficient

commissioning of services.

The need for research

9. Research in prisoner healthcare has often focused on specific issues or services

(e.g. safely managing mental health of prisoners). Whilst there is information on

the prevalence and associated risk factors for self-inflicted death7, suicide8 and

self-harm9 in prisons, research to date has not looked systematically at the scale

of avoidable harm or problems in the provision of prisoner healthcare services.

10. The National Partnership Agreement for Offender Healthcare10 highlights that

prisoners should receive an equivalent health and wellbeing service to those

available in the community. The findings of this research will highlight areas for

improvement and provide evidence to support commissioning and delivery of

services.

11. The National Reporting and Learning System suggests prisoners may be affected

by problems known to exist in regular primary care (e.g. medication omission,

delayed diagnosis, treatment delays, issues related to transfer of care or

6 Available online at:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/healthcare-for-offenders#eel-decline

7. Shaw J, Wainwright V, Webb R, Appleby L, Piper M, Rees J, et al. National Study of Self-Inflicted Death by

Prisoners 2008-2010. Manchester: University of Manchester. 2013. 8. van Ginneken EF, Sutherland A, Molleman T. An ecological analysis of prison overcrowding and suicide rates

in England and Wales, 2000–2014. International journal of law and psychiatry. 2016. 9. Hawton K, Linsell L, Adeniji T, Sariaslan A, Fazel S. Self-harm in prisons in England and Wales: an

epidemiological study of prevalence, risk factors, clustering, and subsequent suicide. The Lancet. 2014;383(9923):1147-54. 10

Ibid.

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

5

discharge planning, etc.), but these can be compounded by the constraints of the

custodial setting (e.g. attendance for hospital appointments being cancelled due

to unavailability of custodial staff to escort the patient). However, incident

reporting systems are affected by reporting bias and cannot readily provide a

systematic assessment of the scale and nature of problems in delivering

healthcare to prisoners.

12. Better information could help inform NHS England’s commissioning strategies for

service provision and contract requirements for healthcare services delivered in

prisons; it could also be used by NHS Improvement’s national patient safety team

to inform safety improvement initiatives; and to consider requirements and

recommendations for managing the healthcare and custody interface. It is also

important to ensure that services for mental and physical health for prisoners are

joined up.

Research Priorities and Objectives

Research questions 13. To support effective policy action, this research needs to explore both the scale

(quantitatively) of avoidable harm in the delivery of healthcare to prisoners, and

the nature of harm to identify the factors affecting any issues identified (likely to

be qualitatively).

14. Proposals should to address the following research questions:

● What is the scale and nature of problems in the delivery of healthcare services to prisoners, which lead to avoidable adverse patient outcomes?

● What are the particular factors or challenges in the delivery of healthcare services to prisoners which might lead to avoidable harm or adverse patient outcomes? Why do these arise?

Research Scope

15. Patient safety is the avoidance of unintended or unexpected harm to people during the provision of healthcare11. Whilst the level and threshold of seriousness of harms to warrant inclusion should be defined by the bidders, you should be

11

. https://improvement.nhs.uk/improvement-hub/patient-safety/

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

6

mindful of the level of harm considered ‘significant’ by patients in the Dalton review of duty of candour12.

16. The research should cover a representative sample of all NHS funded services provided to adults resident in secure estates (including female, open prisons, and local prisons but excluding Young Offenders institutions). This will not include offenders in community settings, on parole or probation or in other parts of the criminal justice system (e.g. courts or police custody).

17. This covers NHS funded healthcare services provided to prisoners, regardless of whether that healthcare is delivered in the prison or not. This would include mental health, and drug and alcohol services, where these are NHS funded.

18. The focus for identifying problems in healthcare services should be on services delivered in prisons, and on the healthcare and custody interface. Problems identified in access to care provided in other primary or acute settings (e.g. in GP surgeries or hospitals outside of the secure estate) will be relevant when related to the prison healthcare system (e.g. a prisoner not being able to access planned investigation or treatment in acute care, or not having information needed for their safe healthcare obtained from or passed to primary care providers), but the care provided within those acute or primary services generally would be out of scope.

19. Final definitions and operationalisation of terms will be discussed and agreed with the successful applicant.

Research Design

20. We envisage research which will be primarily based on a case record review of prison healthcare records, supported by qualitative research to understand the particular challenges around the interface of healthcare and custodial processes, and of administering healthcare services to people in prison.

21. To answer the broad policy question, the case record review would need to be a representative sample of prisoner contact with the healthcare system. Bidders are asked to set out in appropriate detail how this can be achieved. The bidder should outline any potential issues or challenges associated with sampling prisons/prisoner population and suggest suitable mitigations.

22. Sampling could be enriched but should not be biased towards any particular sub-group of users (or possibly non-users) of prison healthcare services. For

12

. Dalton D & Williams I. 2014 Building a culture of candour. Royal College of Surgeons. Accessed at:

https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/about-the-rcs/government-relations-and-consultation/duty-of-candour-review/

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

7

example, sampling those patients admitted to hospitals from prison as emergencies, or 999 calls from prison estates would be methods to enrich the sample.

23. The sampling of patients and prisons should take into account the need to provide an overall estimate for England, and be representative of the prison population. Bidders should justify the basis for sampling and selection in terms of the current evidence base (acknowledging its inadequacies). Ideally the sample will include offenders with a mix of different types of sentence (e.g. long, short, awaiting trial) to understand if risk of avoidable harm differs depending on type of sentence.

24. A retrospective review of the patients included in this sample should be undertaken, to determine the proportion of cases where this deterioration in health appears to have been associated with one or more problems with the healthcare system in the secure estate (whether possible errors of omission or commission by individuals, errors associated, or specific issues relating to the offender healthcare setting or custodial-healthcare interface).

25. Research should be informed by, and complement, the systematic clinical review methodology of previous13 and recent14 studies of avoidable deaths in hospitals and in primary care15.

26. Though a primarily records-based study is envisaged, bidders may wish to consider any additional statistical analysis of healthcare data that could indicate patient safety concerns or could explain the causes of avoidable harm (e.g. recorded reason for ambulance emergency attendance to prisons, ‘did not attend’ data for hospital appointments for prison postcodes).

27. To fully answer the research question around the nature of the problems in delivering health to prison population, supporting qualitative research with prison healthcare staff, uniform staff (prison officers), and other NHS staff and commissioners is likely to be needed. Qualitative research with prisoners is also a potential source, though this would create additional design and ethical

13

. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record

review BMJ 2001; 322 :517. Accessed at: http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7285/517 14

. Hogan, Healey, Neale et al. 2012 Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a

retrospective case record review study BMJ Qual Saf 22 (2): 182. 15

. Bell BG, Campbell S, Carson-Stevens A, et al Understanding the epidemiology of avoidable significant harm

In primary care: protocol for a retrospective cross-sectional study BMJ Open 2017. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013786

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

8

approval challenges that may not make it feasible within the timescales required for this research.

28. Given the potential challenges of conducting case review research in the prison population, it is expected that the project will include a small pilot phase to test the suitability of the approach. Bidders should outline their suggested approach to piloting and testing the methodology.

29. The successful applicants will need to demonstrate skills and experience in:

● clinical and research expertise; ● developing or applying clinical review processes; ● expertise (or access to expertise) in conducting research in custodial

settings, including an understanding of the challenges of data access and securing all necessary approvals; and an

● understanding of the particular structure and challenges of the prison healthcare system.

30. Therefore, we encourage bids from multi-disciplinary teams.

31. Final contracting will be subject to the project securing the necessary research approvals, including from the Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) National Research Committee. Details of the process are available online, here.

Budget and Duration and Specific Assessment Criteria

32. There is not a fixed budget for this initiative and the applicants are requested to

propose their indicative budget at Stage 1 and detail it at Stage 2, if they are

shortlisted from Stage 1.

33. The research aims to commence in autumn 2018 (subject to contracting) and will run for 30 months. Outputs should include:

● Draft and interim reports and updates as agreed at project scoping ● A final publishable report, with an executive and lay summary ● A presentation of findings to DH/ALB colleagues and key stakeholders

Governance Issues

34. A research advisory group including relevant stakeholder groups such as, where

appropriate, representatives of the Department of Health and Social Care

(DHSC), NHS Improvement, NHS England, Ministry of Justice and a range of

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

9

interested parties should be established. The advisory group will provide

guidance for the research, meeting regularly over the lifetime of the research.

The successful bidders for this research should be prepared to review research

objectives with the advisory group, and to share emerging findings on an ongoing

basis. They will be expected to:

● provide regular feedback on progress

● produce timely reports to the advisory group

● produce a final report for sign off

35. Research contractors will be expected to work with nominated officials in DHSC,

its partners and the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility. Key documents

including, for example, research protocols, research instruments and reports

must be provided to DHSC in draft form allowing sufficient time for review (a

minimum of 2 weeks).

36. A final report is required by spring 2021.

37. The final report, with an accessible executive summary, will be peer reviewed and circulated to policy makers in the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, NHS Improvement and Ministry of Justice. Once the study is complete, a summary of the final report will be placed in the public domain, on the NIHR Policy Research Programme website. This is where the outputs resulting from expenditure of public funds are made available for public scrutiny so it is important that the summary of the final report is easily accessible to the lay reader.

38. Applicants should consider the full range of potential audiences and describe how the research findings could be disseminated most effectively to ensure that the lessons from this research impact on policy and practice in the NHS. This can include research summaries for audiences of service users, service providers, commissioners, regulatory bodies, professional bodies, and practitioners. Key specific stakeholders include:

● Government Departments and associated organisations, to assess the policy

impact and to inform related policy; ● Healthcare commissioners, requiring evidence to inform the commissioning of

services; and ● Clinicians and prison staff, to identify effective practice, supporting service

redesign, and improvement of services for patients

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

10

39. Wider audiences will include:

● relevant professional bodies, to inform communications with members, pre-registration curriculum development, and the development of post-registration learning and development opportunities;

● regulators including the Health and Care Professions Council, Care Quality Commission, and Monitor;

● service user representatives; and ● other clinical professionals and related academic audiences, to ensure

awareness of advances in practice and to support multi-disciplinary working.

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

11

Standard Information for Applicants

40. The sections below provide standard information on different aspects of NIHR

PRP funding and will contain details relevant to your application.

General Comments about Applications

41. Applications will be considered from other UK countries (Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland) provided they address the priority areas in a way that is

relevant to the needs of the Department of Health and Social Care (England) and

meet all other selection criteria.

42. Applicants are encouraged to submit multidisciplinary applications.

43. Applicants must provide details of the pathway to impact. These should include

plans for engaging relevant stakeholders to ensure beneficial research

knowledge is translated into policy and practice. Monitoring and evaluation plans

should be developed to determine the extent to how the activities proposed will

deliverable measurable benefits to patients and public.

44. It will be important to communicate research findings directly to policy makers,

practitioners and users, as well as through traditional communication routes. This

requirement will need to be reflected in work programmes and dissemination

plans. The NIHR expects that research data will be made available for analysis

and re-use.

45. Applicants should consider the full range of potential audiences and describe how

the research findings could be disseminated most effectively to ensure that the

lessons from this research impact on policy and practice.

Research Management

46. Day-to-day management of this research will be provided by the principal

investigator. They and their employers should ensure that they identify, and are

able to discharge effectively, their respective responsibilities under the

Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) Research Governance

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

12

Framework for Health and Social Care (Department of Health and Social Care,

2005)16, which sets out the broad principles of good research governance.

47. All successful research involving National Health Service (NHS) and social care

users, carers, staff, data and/or premises must be approved by the appropriate

research ethics committee (REC) or social care research ethics committee

(SCREC). For further information on RECs, please visit the Health Research

Authority website: http://www.hra.nhs.uk/

48. The successful research team must adhere to the Data Protection Act (1998) and

the Freedom of Information Act (2000). Effective security management, and

ensuring personal information and assessment data are kept secure, will be

essential. In particular:

● the research team shall, at all times, be responsible for ensuring that

data (including data in any electronic format) are stored securely. The

research team shall take appropriate measures to ensure the security of such

data, and guard against unauthorised access thereto, disclosure thereof, or

loss or destruction while in its custody;

● personal data shall not be made available to anyone other than those

employed directly on the project by the research team, to the extent that they

need access to such information for the performance of their duties. The

research team should show that they have experience of and access to

appropriate databases and IT support to maintain data security and integrity

and that meets regulatory standards.

50. For any research involving clinical trials, the successful team will be expected to

be familiar with the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for Evaluating

Complex Interventions (MRC, 2000)17, and to follow the principles of the MRC

Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials (MRC, 1998)18 in proposing

structures for oversight of such trials and comply with the Medicines for Human

Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004.

16

Department of Health and Social Care. (2005). Research governance framework for health and social care [Online]. 2ndEd.

London: HMSO; [cited 2008 March 26]; Available from URL: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/ 17

Medical Research Council. (2000). A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to

improve health [Online]. [cited 2008 March 26]; Available from URL: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/ 18

Medical Research Council. (1998). Guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials [Online]. [cited 2008 March 26];

Available from URL: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/good-clinical-practice-in-clinical-trials/

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

13

51. The Institution leading the proposal should confirm that it has the capacity and is

prepared to take on sponsorship responsibilities for clinical trials undertaken as

part of the programme. Where the proposal includes a proposal for multi-site

clinical trial activities the research unit should demonstrate that they have the

experience of governance and management of clinical trials across multiple

clinical trial sites.

Risk Management

52. Applicants should submit, as part of their proposal, a summary explaining what

they believe will be the key risks to delivering their research, and what

contingencies they will put in place to deal with them.

53. A risk is defined as any factor which may delay, disrupt or prevent the full

achievement of a project objective. All risks should be identified. The summary

should include an assessment of each risk, together with a rating of the risks

likelihood and its impact on a project objective (using a high, medium or low

classification for both). The risk assessment should also identify appropriate

actions that would reduce or eliminate each risk, or its impact.

54. Typical areas of risk for an evaluation study might include ethical approval, site

variation in data gathering, staffing, resource constraints, technical constraints,

data access and quality, timing, management and operational issues; however,

please note this is not an exhaustive list.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)

55. The NIHR Policy Research Programme expects the active involvement of

patients and the public (e.g. service users and carers) in the research that it

supports, where appropriate. However, the nature and extent of patient and

public involvement (PPI) is likely to vary depending on the context of the study.

Applicants should describe how the issue of PPI will be addressed throughout the

research process. For example, this could include patient and public involvement

in refining research questions, designing research instruments, advising on

approaches to recruitment, assisting in the collection and analysis of data,

participation or chairing advisory and steering groups, and in the dissemination of

research findings.

56. Applicants are required to detail what active involvement is planned, how it will

benefit the research and the rationale for their approach. PPI needs to be

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

14

undertaken in a manner that acknowledges that some people may need

additional support, or to acquire new knowledge or skills to enable them to

become involved effectively (see INVOLVE publications for guides for

researchers). Applicants should therefore provide information on arrangements

for training and support. In addition, applicants should note that a budget line for

the costs of PPI is included in the finance form. Where no PPI is proposed, a

rationale for this decision must be given.

57. For further information and guidance about PPI, please visit the INVOLVE

website: http://www.invo.org.uk/.

Outputs and Reporting Arrangements

58. The research team will be expected to provide regular progress reports over the

lifetime of the research and will be provided with a progress report template to

complete at regular intervals. In addition to describing progress, these reports will

allow researchers to indicate any significant changes to the agreed protocol, as

well as setting down milestones for the next reporting period, giving an update on

PPI and any publications or other outputs. Information on emergent findings that

can feed more immediately into policy development will be encouraged and

should be made available as appropriate.

59. A final report on the research, with an accessible executive summary, will be

required within one month following completion of the research. The report will be

peer reviewed and may be circulated among relevant stakeholders within the

Department of Health and Social Care and its partners. Once the study is

completed, a summary of the final report will be placed in the public domain, on

the relevant Policy Research Programme web pages. This is where the outputs

resulting from expenditure of public funds are made available for public scrutiny

so it is important that the summary of your final report is easily accessible to the

lay reader.

60. Research contractors are obliged to give at least 28 days notice before

submission of any publication arising from research funded by the NIHR Policy

Research Programme. In this instance, ‘publication’ concerns any presentation,

paper, press release, report or other output for public dissemination arising from

a research project funded by the PRP. Research contractors remain under an

obligation to provide notice even after the contract has ended. Publication of

PRP-commissioned research is subject to prior consent of the Secretary of State,

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

15

which will not be withheld unreasonably and cannot be withheld for more than

three months from the time the publication is submitted.

Finance

61. The duration of the research and individual projects within the contract will be no

longer than is consistent with high quality studies. In assessing proposals, the

Department will be seeking value for money as well as scientific excellence and,

in particular, the potential for policy impact which is key.

62. Applicants are asked to address the timing and nature of deliverables,

maximising staff resources and other options for interim reporting in their

proposals.

63. Applicants should always provide an indicative budget for the planned research.

64. Costings can include up to 100% full economic costing (FEC) but should exclude

output VAT. Applicants are advised that value for money is one of the key criteria

that peer reviewers and commissioning panel members will assess applications

against.

65. All applications are expected to start within 2 months of funding being agreed,

subject to pre-contract negotiations and specific requirements.

Dissemination

66. Applicants should describe how the research findings could be disseminated

most effectively, ensuring that results of this research impact on policy and

practice in the NHS, DHSC, and/or in social care.

67. Publication of scientifically robust research results is encouraged. This could

include plans to submit papers to peer reviewed journals, national and regional

conferences aimed at service providers, professional bodies and professional

leaders. It might also include distribution of executive summaries and

newsletters. Less traditional dissemination routes are also welcomed for

consideration.

Transparency

68. In line with the government’s transparency agenda, any contract resulting from

this tender may be published in its entirety to the general public. Further

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

16

information on the transparency agenda is at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-and-contracting-

transparency-requirements-guidance.

69. If you wish to view the standard terms and conditions of the NIHR Policy

Research Programme contract, please go to: www.nihr.ac.uk/prp.

Application Process

70. To access the research specification, the application form and relevant guidance,

please visit the NIHR PRP web pages at http://www.nihr.ac.uk/prp and the NIHR

funding opportunities page.

71. The NIHR CCF runs an online application process and all applications must be

submitted electronically. No applications will be accepted that are submitted by

any means other than the online process. Deadlines for the submission of

outline and full research applications occur at 1.00 pm on the day indicated

and no applications can be accepted after this deadline.

72. We strongly recommend that you submit your application on the day before.

Once the 1.00 pm deadline passes, the system shuts down automatically and

CCF Programme Managers are unable to re-open it. If you are experiencing any

technical difficulties submitting your application, please contact the CCF on 0208

843 8027 in good time, before 1.00 pm on a closing date.

73. Applicants are expected, before submitting applications, to have discussed their

applications with their own and any other body whose cooperation will be

required in conducting the research.

74. In order for your full application to be validated and submitted you are required to

gain electronic approval from the relevant authorities before the application

deadline. The Declarations page must be approved:

a. by the Lead Applicant to confirm that the content of the application

is complete and correct.

b. by an administrative or finance officer for the contracting (host)

institution to confirm that the financial details of the application are

correct and that the host institution agrees to administer the award if

made.

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

17

c. by a Head of Department or Senior Manager to confirm that they

have read the application and that, if funded, the work will be

accommodated and administered in the named institution and that

the applicants may undertake the work.

75. Until this is completed the lead applicant is unable to validate and submit

the application.

Commissioning Process

76. The standard NIHR PRP commissioning cycle includes the following steps:

77. In the standard 2 Stages’ Commissioning, outline applications or, in case of

Expression of Interest (EOI), short EOI applications will be short-listed by a

Commissioning Panel. Incomplete applications, applications too remote from the

issues set out in the research specification, or applications that have clearly

inadequate presentation or methods may be rejected at this stage.

78. Applications that are successfully short-listed by the Commissioning Panel will

proceed to Stage 2 of the application process and will be invited to submit a

Stage 2 full application for consideration.

79. All full applications submitted to NIHR PRP will be reviewed by both stakeholder

and independent academic referees. Wherever time permits, applicants will be

given one week to respond to the peer reviewers’ comments.

80. Full applications and any related documentation will then be considered by the

Commissioning Panel, which is comprised of independent experts (possibly with

observers from other government departments and executive agencies), who will

advise the NIHR on which applications are most suited to receive funding. The

Panel may be informed by input from external reviewers. However, it is ultimately

the responsibility of the Panel to make any funding recommendations to the

Department of Health and Social Care.

81. At Stage 2, applicants should expect to be invited to present their application and

to be questioned by the Commissioning Panel. The final decision on whether a

NIHR Policy Research Programme Research Specification

18

presentation and Q&A session will be included in the commissioning process will

be made after Stage 1 short-listing and will be based on a number of factors,

including volume of applications. The Lead-Applicant and up to two selected

collaborators are strongly advised to be available for the Stage 2

Commissioning Panel dates (indicated at the beginning of this document).

Selection Criteria

82. The Commissioning Panel members are directed to consider applications against

the criteria stated in this research specification as well as selection criteria

detailed below:

● RELEVANCE of the proposed research to the research specification

● QUALITY of the research design

● QUALITY of the work plan and proposed management

arrangements

● STRENGTH of the research team

● IMPACT of the proposed work

● VALUE for money (justification of the proposed costs)

● INVOLVEMENT of patients and the public

Contacts

83. General enquiries regarding the application and commissioning process can be

directed to the PRP CCF Help Desk by telephone at 0208 843 8027 or by email

to prp@nihr.ac.uk