RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, university medical centres (UMCs) bear primary responsibility for conducting medical research and delivering highly specialized care. The TopCare program was a policy experiment lasting 4 years in which three non-academic hospitals received funding from the Dutch Ministry of Health to also conduct medical research and deliver highly specialized care in specific domains. This study investigates research collaboration outcomes for all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals in general and, more specifically, for the domains in the non-academic hospitals participating in the TopCare program. Additionally, it explores the organizational boundary work employed by these hospitals to foster productive research collaborations. METHODS: A mixed method research design was employed combining quantitative bibliometric analysis of publications and citations across all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals and the TopCare domains with geographical distances, document analysis and ethnographic interviews with actors in the TopCare program. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis shows that, over the period of study, international collaboration increased among all hospitals while national collaboration and single institution research declined slightly. Collaborative efforts correlated with higher impact scores, and international collaboration scored higher than national collaboration. A total of 60% of all non-academic hospitals' publications were produced in collaboration with UMCs, whereas almost 30% of the UMCs' publications were the result of such collaboration. Non-academic hospitals showed a higher rate of collaboration with the UMC that was nearest geographically, whereas TopCare hospitals prioritized expertise over geographical proximity within their specialized domains. Boundary work mechanisms adopted by TopCare hospitals included aligning research activities with organizational mindset (identity), bolstering research infrastructure (competence) and finding and mobilizing strategic partnerships with academic partners (power). These efforts aimed to establish credibility and attractiveness as collaboration partners. CONCLUSIONS: Research collaboration between non-academic hospitals and UMCs, particularly where this also involves international collaboration, pays off in terms of publications and impact. The TopCare hospitals used the program's resources to perform boundary work aimed at becoming an attractive and credible collaboration partner for academia. Local factors such as research history, strategic domain focus, in-house expertise, patient flows, infrastructure and network relationships influenced collaboration dynamics within TopCare hospitals and between them and UMCs.
Asunto(s)
Centros Médicos Académicos , Investigación Biomédica , Conducta Cooperativa , Países Bajos , Humanos , Investigación Biomédica/organización & administración , Centros Médicos Académicos/organización & administración , Bibliometría , Hospitales , Publicaciones , Cooperación InternacionalRESUMEN
The complexity of regulations governing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) places a great burden on hospitals. Consequently, many hospitals seek to alleviate regulatory pressures by seeking an alternative quality management system (QMS). This paper takes the Netherlands as a case. To investigate how QMSs for IITs are organized in Dutch hospitals, we adopted the theoretical concepts of mentoring and monitoring in a mixed methods study in the period 2014-2018. In clinical practice and international guidelines, monitoring is seen as the standard quality assurance for ongoing trials. However, hospitals have implemented monitoring programs that resemble mentoring. The contrast between these ideal types is less pronounced in practice as both combine elements of compliance and feedback for learning in practice. In a monitoring setting, learning is one-way, from monitor to researcher; whereas mentoring focuses on mutual support and learning. To tackle problems in each system, the authority of the Board of Directors (BoD) and the BoD's relationship with staff members are crucial. We discuss the challenges that BoD and staff face in keeping an integrated view of the various components of QMSs.
Asunto(s)
Tutoría , Humanos , Exactitud de los Datos , Investigadores , Mentores , HospitalesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: National regulatory regimes for supervising ongoing clinical trials are affected by external challenges, both international, such as harmonization of EU legislation, and national, such as critical reviews of incidents. This study examines how supervisory bodies dealing with ongoing trials respond to external challenges of the past two decades and engage in institutional work to maintain, repair, or improve the Dutch regulatory regime. METHODS: International and national regulatory documents were analyzed and interviews (n = 27) were conducted with various actors, including public supervisory bodies, hospital staff, and boards of directors. FINDINGS: In the Netherlands, EU harmonization directed at centralizing and coordinating the regulatory regime for good clinical trial practice in Member States has paradoxically led to further fragmentation. The resulting ambiguity and inefficiency remained largely unresolved until a serious incident in a university hospital became a catalyst to clarify both the interconnected responsibilities and working relationships of various supervisory bodies. New legislation and regulatory methods were implemented, and actors outside the legislative framework became active in the field in order to strengthen supervision of ongoing trials, further multiplying yet also aligning with existing regulatory regimes. CONCLUSIONS: Public supervision of ongoing trials is fragmented in the Netherlands because the responsibilities and resources are unevenly distributed. In countries like the Netherlands, public supervisory bodies must do a great deal of institutional work to align with new EU regulations and still safeguard their traditional regulatory mechanisms that protect human safety. However, national regulatory traditions also offer new opportunities to strengthen the quality assurance of clinical trials.
Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Control Social Formal , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Hospitales , Países Bajos , Riesgo , SeguridadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The EU Clinical Trials Directive (EUCTD) and the EU Clinical Trials Regulation aim to harmonize good clinical practice (GCP) of clinical trials across Member States. Using the Netherlands as a case study, this paper analyzes how endeavours to implement the EUCTD set in motion a dynamic process of institutional change and institutional work. This process lead to substantial differences between policy and actual practice; therefore, it is important to learn more about the implementation of harmonization policies. METHODS: Relevant documents, such as legal texts and previous research, were analyzed. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders in clinical trials and inspectors from (inter)national supervisory bodies (n=33), and Dutch Health Care Inspectorate inspections were observed (n=4). RESULTS: Dutch legislators' efforts to implement the EUCTD created a new level of governance in an already multilevel legislative framework. Institutional layering caused a complex and fragmented organizational structure in public supervision, leading to difficulties in achieving GCP. This instigated institutional work by actors, which set in motion further incremental institutional change, principally drift and conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization processes can create dynamic cycles between institutional change and institutional work, leading to significant divergence from the intended effects of legislation. If legislation intended to strengthen harmonization is not carefully implemented, it can become counterproductive to its aims.