Enabling the success of academic health science centres in Australia: where is the leadership?

2014 ◽  
Vol 201 (11) ◽  
pp. 636-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E Theile ◽  
Ian A Scott ◽  
Jennifer H Martin ◽  
Areti Gavrilidis
Keyword(s):  
Health Science ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Science Centres

England gets five academic health science centres to compete on global stage

BMJ ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 338 (mar11 1) ◽  
pp. b1005-b1005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. Kmietowicz
Keyword(s):  
Health Science ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Science Centres

scholarly journals Academic health science centres in Australia: let's get competitive

2011 ◽  
Vol 194 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas M Fisk ◽  
Steven L Wesselingh ◽  
Justin J Beilby ◽  
Nicholas J Glasgow ◽  
Ian B Puddey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Science ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Science Centres

scholarly journals Patient Safety Culture and Leadership within Canada's Academic Health Science Centres: Towards the Development of a Collaborative Position Paper

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy Nicklin ◽  
Heather Mass ◽  
Dyanne Affonso ◽  
Patricia O'Connor ◽  
Mary Ferguson-Paré ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Safety Culture ◽  
Patient Safety Culture ◽  
Position Paper ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Science Centres

scholarly journals When Health Systems Consider Research to Be Beyond the Scope of Healthcare Delivery, Research Translation Is Crippled Comment on "Academic Health Science Centres as Vehicles for Knowledge Mobilisation in Australia? A Qualitative Study"

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Jorm ◽  
Donella Piper
Keyword(s):  
Formative Evaluation ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Research Translation ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Knowledge Mobilisation ◽  
Science Centres ◽  
Innovation Space

Edelman and colleagues’ analysis of the views of Board members of Australian Research Translation Centres (RTCs) is well timed. There has been little study of Australian RTCs to date. We focus on their recommendations regarding knowledge mobilisation (KM) to open broader debate on the wisdom of regarding UK practices as a blueprint. We go further and ask whether successful RTCs might, as a result of responding to local context, create idiosyncratic structures and solutions, making generalisable learning less likely? There has been much invested in Australian RTCs and implications of government’s formative evaluation of their work is discussed. Five recommendations are made that could help RTCs: allowing system end-users a greater say in funding decisions, taking a broader, more democratic approach to kinds of knowledge that are valued; investing in methodologies derived from the innovation space; and, a creative attention to governance to support these ideas.

Evaluating an Alternative Funding Plan

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-32
Author(s):  
M. Anderson ◽  
J. Cosby
Keyword(s):  
Potential Application ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Plan Evaluation ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Alternative Funding ◽  
Science Centres ◽  
Queen's University

There have been increasing levels of interest shown across Canada in the potential application of alternative funding arrangements for academic health science centres. This article outlines the approach, and some preliminary results, of the alternative funding plan evaluation at Queen's University. Following a discussion of the AFP itself, the article describes the first phase of the evaluation process. Several studies nearing completion are outlined, as are other pieces of research that will be conducted before the AFP is renegotiated in 1999. Finally, the authors provide a brief discussion of the organizational and methodological issues that emerge when evaluating an AFP.

Impact of entrepreneurship training on clinician engagement in innovation creation: an evaluation of the Johns Hopkins Hexcite programme

BMJ Leader ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. leader-2019-000197
Author(s):  
Adler Archer ◽  
Jasmine Mcneil ◽  
Teresa Johnson ◽  
Ewan Ferlie ◽  
Paul Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Design Thinking ◽  
Team Building ◽  
Building Design ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Entrepreneurship Training ◽  
Science Centres ◽  
Team Productivity ◽  
Start Ups

BackgroundAcademic health science centres are an ideal location to translate innovative discoveries into clinical practice. However, increased cost, decreased time and encroaching technology are few of the challenges that academic clinicians face in an increasingly digitised healthcare industry. Academic health science centres have begun creating training to involve clinicians in developing and deploying innovative solutions. Few of these programmes engage clinicians in interactive and interdisciplinary activities.ApproachHexcite is a 16-week entrepreneurship training programme at Johns Hopkins. During the programme, clinicians with innovative clinical software ideas learn how to launch start-ups. Clinicians accepted into the programme team up with a business expert, design expert and technical expert. Teams participate in 15 expert-led interactive 3-hour workshops, interview potential customers, regularly pitch their ideas to industry experts and iteratively refine their products.MethodsThis report examined anonymous participant feedback, quantitative data from team productivity reports, and interview responses between 2015 and 2019. Outcomes were assessed using the Kirkpatrick Model.Results and conclusionMany clinicians reported improved understanding of team building, design thinking and marketing communications as well as increased involvement in innovation. Many teams received funding after Hexcite. Outcomes from previous cohorts will guide more robust evaluation measures for future cohorts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document