Agenda item

The Director of Public Health in conjunction with De Montfort University submit a report to outline the first stages of work which includes a public health workforce research capacity audit, the appointment of a Local Authority Research Practitioner (LARP), a new research clinic, the creation of a Public Health Research Working Group, the development of a forward-looking research strategy, strengthened university partnerships, new research governance infrastructure, and a research repository.

The Director of Public Health in conjunction with De Montfort University submitted a report to outline the first stages of work which includes a public health workforce research capacity audit, the appointment of a Local Authority Research Practitioner (LARP), a new research clinic, the creation of a Public Health Research Working Group, the development of a forward-looking research strategy, strengthened university partnerships, new research governance infrastructure, and a research repository.

The Acting Consultant for Public Health gave a slide presentation, key points to note were as follows:

·       Leicester was unique in its demographics and applying national research evidence could be problematical. It was vital for Leicester to build strong research resources and evidence.

·       Working with communities was key.

·       A new Local Authority Research Practitioner post had been taken up, partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and partly with De Montfort University.

·       A workforce skills audit had been completed to map current capabilities and inform development.

·       A research clinic had been established to support staff undertaking research.

·       A cross-team working group was developing a research strategy.

·       Work was ongoing to strengthen governance and ethics.

·       For the workforce audit, the response rate had been 43%. A diverse skill-set was found to be in place. Most people had a lot of experience in data collection but there were other areas which could be improved upon via the ongoing workforce plan.

·       There was a focus on relationship building, including with the universities. A summer research showcase was planned to promote local work.

·       The research governance and ethics work focused on developing an ethical framework with the communities.

·       It was hoped that a research repository would create a systematic record of all external collaborations.

·       There were also examples of individual projects being worked on.

·       There were 6 recommendations to Scrutiny:

o   To note the strategic direction

o   To endorse the principal of community partnerships

o   To gather views on expanding the current work

o   To note the research repository and endorse its mechanism for oversight and accountability with partners

o   To support with the progress made on governance and ethics

o   To request a further update on the implementation of the Public Health Research Strategy at a future meeting

In response to member questions and comments, the following was noted:

·       Members welcomed community partnerships.

·       Total annual costs for the local authority research package were £14.5k from DMU, £14.5k from the City Council, and £29k from HR contractors. The Local Authority Research Practitioner post was funded from this money.

·       The funds from the Public Health budget would provide a starting point to build skills and capacity for ethical and effective research. Work had been carried out on running research clinics and best evaluation methods. There had been a large uptake from Public Health.

·       Officers were satisfied with the workforce survey uptake whilst some members felt that it was low.

·       Learning from COVID-19 highlighted that Leicester’s communities required communication approaches that differed from national messaging.

·       Programmes would include young people to gain an oversight of service users.

·       The team was six months into the two-year funding period.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted and the recommendations to Scrutiny be supported.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account.