Simon Wills Head of Wessex Drug & Medicines Information Centre Introduction Research is needed to help inform service development and to demonstrate the value of Medicines Information centres to the NHS and patient care. Compared to certain areas of pharmacy practice such as Clinical Pharmacy, the specialty of Medicines Information can call on little published evidence to support the importance of its role (1,2). In order to correct this, the UKMi Executive has agreed that a national plan is necessary. In line with the English Department of Health NHS research strategy Best Research for Best Health (3), the UKMi strategy has these objectives: 1. To manage a specialist national research programme, and attract partners and funding, so that UKMi is recognised for research excellence. 2. To build vision, resources, training and career development, and so create a lasting culture in which pharmacists engaged in providing UKMi services will aspire to undertake research based on the ideas which the strategy contains. 3. To direct the research activities of individuals within a wider framework, so that each effort forms part of a series of nationally agreed goals which ultimately seek to improve patient care and ensure effective management of information resources. 4. To deliver and revise UKMi services based on the evidence of research so that public money is spent appropriately. Research will drive innovation and improve service quality. However, in an attempt to focus research efforts, UKMi Executive decided to identify major specific research topics. References 1.Hands D, Stephens M & Brown D. A systematic review of the clinical and economic impact of drug information services on patient outcome. Pharmacy World Sci 2002; 24: Spinewine A, Dean B. Measuring the impact of medicines information services on patient care: methodological considerations. Pharmacy World Sci 2002; 24: Research and Development Directorate, Department of Health (England). Best Research for Best Health: A New National Health Research Strategy. Jan Use of a Delphi Technique to Identify UKMi Research Priorities Discussion The Delphi technique has limitations. As adapted for the present study, participants were clearly ‘steered’ by UKMi presenting its own research ideas for prioritisation in round 1 rather than relying totally on participants identifying ideas themselves. However, this was a deliberate decision designed to ensure that participants did not focus simply on one aspect of the service (e.g. enquiry answering). It did not stop participants submitting many research suggestions of their own (over 40), and interestingly the economic research question brought out by Delphi round 1 eventually was the second most popular research topic. The Delphi technique has been a useful mechanism to both secure agreement between participants and to engage service users and partners in the decision-making process. UKMi must now take these clearly identified research priorities forward as it implements its national Research Strategy and ensure that evidence from research is used both to support and improve its services. Wessex Drug and Medicines Information Centre Pharmacy Department Southampton General Hospital Method The Delphi technique has been interpreted and used in a variety of ways. Essentially it is a method of achieving consensus amongst a group of people by asking participants to vote for a series of ideas or objectives in order to prioritise them. Early in the development of the UKMi Research Strategy, five broad areas for MI research were identified: Patient care, Service performance and quality, Partnerships and users of the service, Information technology, Personnel and training. From ideas available on the Research Zone of the UKMi website, two were selected from each of these categories. Topics were selected on the basis of being broad-based, covering core MI activities, and being of importance to customers, service users and MI staff alike. The list of ten topics was sent by to thirty-three individuals from around the UK who were asked to decide which topics they felt were most important by voting: Most important (voting score of +3) Unsure/ undecided (score +2) Less important (score +1) Blanks or unclear intentions were scored as zero. See below: The 33 participants were selected on the basis of having strategic roles and an understanding of UKMi. Note that two chief pharmacists had dual roles: UKMi Exec members (n=13) Chief pharmacists (n=6) PCT/ stHA pharmacists (n=10) UKCPA/clinical pharmacy (n=3) Guild Healthcare Pharmacists (n=1) Schools of Pharmacy (n=2) As well as voting, participants were asked to nominate new topics which they felt should be on the list. The five topics with the highest vote were retained. To these were added five additional research subjects selected from the new topics identified by participants. These were selected based on frequency of nomination. The new list of ten topics was then re-presented to all participants who replied to the first round of Delphi. This time participants were asked to vote for the topics they wanted to see in the strategy, scoring +1 for yes and zero for other responses. The five topics with the highest scores were identified as the top priorities for UKMi research in the Research Strategy. Results Of the 33 individuals approached to participate, 24 responded to the Delphi round 1 (73% response rate) and 22 of these completed round 2. The two rounds of the Delphi technique identified the following as the top five specific priorities for UKMi research: 1. What impact does the UKMi enquiry answering service have on patient care? (100% of round 2 vote) 2. What economic impact do UKMi services and products have for the NHS? What are the costs and benefits? (77%) 3. Are UKMi internet resources (e.g. new product reviews, news) used by healthcare professionals in the care of individual patients? (73%) 4. What can UKMi contribute to the management and maintenance of electronic prescribing systems? (73%) 5. How can UKMi best support 24/7 NHS services? (68%) None of the remaining round 2 research topics scored more than 40% of the vote.