2 of 10

Restart, Managed Recovery, Reset

Reasons for studies not being delivered include

Study was never feasible to deliver
Environment has changed and the study is no longer feasible to deliver

Current services

Commercial

Early feedback service - 6% across 3/12 period

Non-commercial

Early contact and engagement service - negligible for deliverability assistance

Eligibility criteria may include feasibility - funder responsibility

DHSC project

3 of 10

NIHR EME and HTA*

Agree:

A form of pre-funding feasibility assessment is needed
Applicants understand deliverability will be externally peer-reviewed
NIHR CRN researchers are a valuable resource for this review
Reviews should take place at stage 2

Understand:

Challenging studies drive innovation
Cannot set-up a separate process
Significant number of applications

*With thanks to Danny McAuley and Andrew Farmer

4 of 10

Advisory and Design Group membership

CC: Medical Directorate cluster offices
CC: Business Development and Marketing Directorate feasibility and start-up teams
CC: Research Delivery Directorate non-commercial initiatives and research leads
CC: Business Intelligence team
NETSCC Research programmes team
NETSCC Applications and funding team
LCRNs: East of England, Greater Manchester, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, North Thames, Thames Valley and South Midlands, West Midlands, West of England
All DAs
Multiple specialties

5 of 10

Principles

Confidentiality
Conflicts of interest
Anonymity
Multiple reviewers
Reducing bureaucracy
Timeliness
Scalability - HTA/EME ~150 applications/year
The NIHR funding panel makes the final decision

6 of 10

Design summary

Process

All studies complete SoECAT

Complete study set-up and delivery tool (SSUDT) at the same time

Nominate Specialty reviewer

Specialty reviewer contacted via usual NIHR processes (REALMS)

Reviews only the SSUDT
Two external clinical reviewers also review SSUDT

8 of 10

The Question

Is it feasible to deliver the proposed research in the current environment of the NHS and social care?

Please provide comments to support your score and explain your decision. If applicable, please also include comments as to how the study could be amended to increase its likelihood of being delivered.

Scoring scale:

6 = Excellent: The proposed research will be feasible to deliver

5 = Good: The proposed research will be feasible to deliver with minor changes

4 = Good Potential: There is much merit in the proposal but it would only be feasible to

deliver after substantial changes

3 = Some Merits: There are significant weaknesses in the proposed delivery this study,

but these could in principle be addressed

2 = Poor: This is a weak application, unlikely to be feasible to deliver

1 = Extremely Poor: This is an unsupportable application, unable to be delivered

9 of 10

Timeline

January 2023 Convene Task and Finish Group

February/March 2023 Design process

April 2023 Test aspects of the process

Draft final process for pilot

May 2023 Sign-off on process from HTA, EME and CRN

Soft Pilot: Stage 2: May 26th for July submission

Commissioned calls so more controllable for pilot

i) 22/150 Intravesical treatments for recurrent urinary tract infection (rUTI) in women

ii) 22/157 Interventions to reduce hospital-based medication administration errors

Comms: CRN Ops, Leaders, Local Specialty Leads, bulletins

1 of 10