Applying for an NIHR Doctoral Fellowship as an ODP - Blog 1

 

 

Introduction

Recently, I applied for an NIHR Doctoral Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship (DCAF). This blog looks at what that is, the process, and what I learnt. The hope is that it may highlight this route for those considering research careers and support those undertaking the application.

I have, for a while, undertaken elements of research, published articles and book chapters – but other than supporting dissertations for my master's qualifications, this has been quite ad-hoc and informal. I had several times started to look at how I could pursue further study at PhD level to increase my knowledge and application of research but ended up going around in circles – especially as I was ideally after a way that would also cover my wage and hence pay my mortgage, etc.

At work, I found myself increasingly drawn to patient safety activity, and I kept stumbling upon situations that sparked my curiosity and hinted at potential research opportunities. The thrill of discovery was invigorating, fuelling my passion for research. Initially, it seemed like I might be able to obtain funding from my organisation – so with this in mind, I started to work up a research proposal.

A particular issue had become apparent during several Never Event incidents for which I had supported systems reviews, and we had begun to explore some of these within the organisation. I started to focus more on one area, undertaking a physical review in seven different clinical areas and developing a literature scoping review—thus helping to identify both a need for the research and a gap in current knowledge. I also identified and spoke to a lecturer at a local university who was interested and happy to act as my research supervisor, allowing me to draft a PhD proposal in the format the university set out.

After this activity, it became apparent that funding was not likely. Despite the setback, I had a reasonably well-worked proposal with costings, so I contacted several organisations, including the NIHR Patient Safety Collaborative. The support I received was invaluable, reassuring me that I was on the right path. Looking at funding opportunities from the NIHR, I included a discussion about the Clinical and Practitioner Fellowship schemes. I researched them before deciding to apply for the DCAF.

The NIHR supports several fellowship schemes, including those open to any individuals and those specifically for health care professionals, including AHPs and, thus, ODPs. The ICA comprises four schemes supporting a basic level, pre-doctoral, doctoral, and advanced (post-doctoral) activity. They typically have a couple of intakes a year.

Although the DCAF application deadline was approaching (less than two months), I felt confident because I already had a drafted PhD proposal and had spoken to a supervisory team.

What is the DECAF?

The DECAF [click for NIHR ICA page] is a three-year (up to 6 years part-time) award that supports you in undertaking research for 80% of your time with 20% in practice / professional development. Funding covers the university fees, research costs, extra training to support your growth, and your wage, which is paid at the same level you are currently employed at.

A robust support document guides you through the process, and the application must be submitted online.

You need to be supported by two organisations, one of which has to be an NHS organisation and one of which could be a university. These are referred to as the host and partner organisations, but each organisation can undertake either role. This means the process is also open for university employees, as the university could be the host organisation.

Outline of the elements that need to be submitted.

The application process involves submitting a lot of information through an online portal. The majority are text boxes into which you paste your content, with some extra documents uploaded as Excel or Word documents.

You also need to get participants to click on a link and agree that they are supporting the application. These participants are:-

·       Primary Doctoral supervisor and up to two other academic supervisors

·       Up to three clinical supervisors

·       Heads of department / senior managers for host and partner organisation

·       Administrative Authority / Finance Officer

There is also an order for some of these approvals—specifically around the two heads of department /senior managers. They both must agree on their inclusion initially. Then, one of the individuals needs to upload the supporting letter (this is the only document that you cannot upload). Once you have completed uploading everything else and submitted the application, they need to both approve it and act as the final sign-off. Because of this, you need to allow time into the submission process for sign-off.

This is a brief list of the expected content (around a maximum of 12,450 words), not including the three uploaded documents.

Content

Research Title (300 words max)

Applicant CV (imported from your ARAMIS account)

Degree and professional qualifications

Research grants held

Publication record

Relevant prizes, awards and other academic distinctions

Research career to date (1000 words max)

Contextual factors (500 words max)

Plain English summary of research (600 words max)

Scientific abstract (500 words max)

Detailed research plan (5000 words max)

Patient and public involvement with the proposal (350 words max)

Patient and public involvement with research (350 words max)

Justification for not involving patient and public (350 words max)

Proposed training and development programme (1000 words max)

Supervision justification (250 words max for each supervisor)

Collaborations (600 words max)

Host and partner organisation support letter (1000 words max)

Detailed budget

Uploads -          Reference list (Word doc 1 page) -          Schedule of Events Cost Attribution Tool (SOECAT) form (EXCEL) -          Figures (Word doc 1 page) -          Research timetable / GANTT chart (PDF)

Who helped?

I was shocked at how supportive people were. I got much support from the NIHR Patient Safety Collaborative—indeed, one of my academic supervisors comes from them. During the application process, you are encouraged to contact one of the NIHR Research Support Services (RSS) to gain their support and assistance. These were useful in further developing my research proposal by helping me understand key elements the NIHR was looking for and help with other vital areas.

As ODPs, we tend to be underrepresented in research, and as such, I struggled to find anyone who had submitted to the NIHR for a fellowship. I did, though, manage to find two research paramedics: one who had successfully been awarded the DCAF and the other who had been successful in both a bridging award and the ACAF. This was helpful as it allowed someone to review the proposal and give insight into the lived experience of applying.

Multiple other people assisted, including work colleagues, other supervisors, and some previous people I had worked with, including some members of the public, to support the proposal, patient engagement, and the plain English summary.

What I learnt

Finding who to speak to Talking to different people will be vital in developing your proposal. This will include individuals within and outside your organisation in a related field, academia, and industry. The first issue may be working out who to speak to. Even within the organisation, I struggled to find the right person to talk to about research. Once I found the correct person, she was helpful and supported me. Externally, your literature review may have identified key players; do not be worried about approaching them, as they are often passionate about the subject and keen to share.

Public Patient Engagement This is a cornerstone of the application and includes how you plan to and worked with public and patients in both the research and the proposal stage. Reflecting on this, I think however much public patient engagement you have planned – add some more. I struggled to access public representatives – partly because I didn’t know who to talk to. If I were doing this again, I would have increased this. Speak to your trust research team and your local NIRH ARC to see if they can help you access people. It is difficult as you typically will not have funding. Still, it is a real need and will help you plan to get fresh (non-healthcare) eyes on the work.

There is much information needed. Do not underestimate the time involved, the delays you will get in replies, or the people who are on leave. I recommend applying for either a bridging award from the NIHR or the Pre Doctoral Award (PCAF) to pay for your time and support you in preparing the application, including funding patient and public engagement sessions. There are limits to the information that you submit, such as word counts that don’t always exactly match up with word counts in MS Word. Some restrictions are not obvious. For example, I broke up the main proposal with three diagrams—only to discover that you cannot load these up into the area where you paste the proposal and need to load these separately. This is limited to the equivalent of one page only, so I had to lose a diagram. Referencing is tight in that you are asked to justify your methodological approach, demonstrate a sound knowledge of the area, and provide a case for your research, but you are limited to only a page of references. You need to be reasonably IT literate and able to change file types to what they want. For instance, I built a Gantt chart in Excel, but this needed to be loaded as a PDF, so I had to take a screenshot, import it to PowerPoint, and save it as a PDF. This isn’t a big hurdle, but as you approach the deadline, these issues can add up. Be prepared to spend some time helping to facilitate the combined letter of support, understanding the process and who needs to do what, as getting two separate senior people from two separate organisations to develop a shared letter was a challenge.

It feels like you are doing a PhD before you do it There is a lot more information and detail that is required above and beyond an average PhD proposal, and as such, finding people who have undertaken the process is critical. Indeed, the application combines a research proposal and grant application rolled into one – and if you are like me, you will have done neither before.

Finding suitable supervisors was a struggle. Although I had identified and spoken with several individuals, it became apparent that this group would not represent as robust support as the NIHR would expect. Universities do tend to advertise the academics' research interests who support PhD students. There may be less information about the number of PhD students they have supported and academic prowess. I struggled to get support from the university through the standard help routes, partly because the expectations around what the NIHR fellowship required are unique. Once I did find a suitable primary supervisor, though, they were very supportive, and it was worth the time to recruit appropriate individuals and ones you feel you can communicate with.

We need to understand what the NIHR wants. You need to know what the NIHR wants or expects for every section you complete. While some of this can be gained from the supporting information, discussions with the NIHR RSS, the patient safety collaborative, and the two paramedic researchers helped to clarify this.

Clinical / Professional element This was a grey area. It felt that the NIHR deliberately did not want to be too prescriptive, but flexibility did make it more challenging to understand the expectations. It also reflected the variations in expectations from different regulators, i.e., NMC and HCPC. There was a tension between whether this should be a separate element (clinically biased) to maintain or extend skills or whether it should align with and support your research journey. If, for instance, your research was around traumatic injuries, you could see how placement in a specific trauma unit looking after these injuries would support your development, though less so potentially the hands-on clinical development. You have the advantage of having three years and are expected to have several placements. I decided to work for a year in the ED and a year in the ICU (one day a week). These areas don’t have ODPs, so agreeing on activities/roles would be significant. However, I also recognised this as an opportunity to wave the ODP flag in different areas. The plan is that as well as supporting medical staff with airway interventions, line insertions, etc., it would also be an opportunity to gain other skills and knowledge – which would need to be agreed upon with each area. My third year is split with half the year working in an NIHR research setting that plans and undertakes clinical trials and working with the ICU outreach team. In addition to the clinical element, this aligns with my research by allowing me to observe different teams in an almost ethnographic way and see how they work under stress in various environments, which links back to my research interest and proposal.

 

That is a summary of the application process. I hope sharing this helps someone in a similar position considering the journey. I await to hear in September if I have succeeded in the first round and been invited to an interview.

I am happy to answer any questions or help anyone applying for NIHR funding via this route.