By Louise Baldwin and Chris Ward

Undertaking research within your own professional setting is often presented as a natural extension of practice, particularly for those working in complex systems like the NHS. Yet for many professional doctorate candidates, the reality quickly reveals itself to be far more demanding, requiring not only methodological confidence but also the ability to navigate layered ethical and governance processes that can feel opaque and, at times, overwhelming. This article by Louise Baldwin and Christian Ward reflects on the early experience of engaging with HRA, organisational R&D, and university ethics approval, offering a candid account of the challenges involved and practical insights to help practitioner–researchers move from initial uncertainty to informed, confident engagement with research governance.

Louise Baldwin is a clinical nurse specialist in liaison psychiatry in an acute hospital. She has practiced as an Approved Mental Health Professional within the meaning of Mental Health Act 1983 and is qualified to act as a Best Interest Assessor within the meaning of Mental Capacity Act 2005. She has postgraduate degrees in Advanced Mental Health Practice and in Mental Health Law. Her Professional Doctorate study is ongoing and relates to how clinicians use legal frameworks to inform their work. 

Christian Ward is Deputy Chief Nursing Officer and Chief Nursing Information Officer at Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, and a senior clinical leader in quality, safety and digital transformation across joint Walsall and Wolverhampton services. Christian holds a Postgraduate degree and qualifications in healthcare leadership and professional practice. He is currently undertaking a Professional Doctorate with Anglia Ruskin University, utilising a Critical Realist, Glaserian Grounded Theory approach to examine staff interaction, communication, and relationships within operating theatre environments. 

Introduction

A decision to undertake research in your own workplace sounds deceptively simple. As experienced practitioners in the NHS, accepting the reality of our own novice researcher status has been an uncomfortable but necessary mindset shift to navigate the complex ethical and governance systems which exist to protect participants and ensure rigour. These mysterious systems were unfamiliar territory which have formed an important part of our early development as practitioner-scholars. Our own trepidation at the realisation that our studies necessitated Human Research Authority (HRA), local organisational R&D, and university ethics approval was echoed in the faces of peers who shuddered at the prospect and opted for recruitment strategies that did not directly involve the NHS. The purpose of this article is to reflect on that experience and share advice to support other professional doctorate candidates to engage with the process to deliver their own practice-based research.

What is HRA approval?

The HRA provides a statutory, UK-wide, coordinated system for Health and Social Care Research in the UK. HRA approval is only granted when it is certain that the research proposed is safe for participants (patients, users, relatives and staff) within health and social care research in the UK.

Module learning outcomes offer solid preparation and groundwork for submitting an application for HRA approval in principle but the process can be underestimated in terms of time and effort required. This is in part due to the HRA approval system being geared toward multi-site clinical trials and research teams, so the user interface is complex for an individual first-time user. This means that a proclivity for perfectionism can be disabling. Reviews are timely, feedback is clear, and reviewers go above and beyond to help where needed. The best approach is to make a respectable effort and expect revisions. Do not expect that, organisationally, they share the same considerations as your university regarding format, legalities, or the content of the application.

What is organisational R&D approval?

The purpose of the local NHS research office (often known as R&D) is to review research proposals to confirm the Trust or Group has the capacity, capability and governance arrangements to support you to deliver the study. It shouldn’t judge scientific or ethical merit.

Don’t expect short cuts owing to your employment within the organisation. Try to engage relevant stakeholders within your organisation at an early stage, ideally before HRA notify them of your study. It pays dividends to involve yourself in your local research community to support wayfinding and familiarisation with process. Expect requests for amendments which are likely to necessitate ongoing amendments with HRA. Your study will evolve over time. Communicate your novice researcher status, people are keen to support you to get it right!

What is university ethics approval?

The university ethics committee reviews proposals to ensure that their students studies meet academic, methodological and ethical standards. Seeking to protect not only participants but also safeguard researchers, assess risk and ensure that study design aligns with disciplinary norms, supervisory oversight and institutional policies.

Reflections

The systems don’t communicate with each other. Your job is to facilitate engagement of all parties, so that all stakeholders approve the study. You will encounter points of order and organisational red lines that conflict with each party’s demands or expectations. When this happens, you need to navigate diplomatically to a solution that satisfies all parties. For example, my university had a particular wording for use in reference to GDPR  in relation to Patient Information Sheet (PIS) which was in conflict with the HRA’s own expectations in their own expected wording.

While neither of us would claim special expertise, having engaged with the process once, both of us would feel much more confident about doing so again. Staying in touch with each other  helped to share the highs and lows of the process. It’s a valuable research skill and the feedback received from all stakeholders strengthens the study, protects participants and ensures rigour.  Knowledge gained has been used to support practice based colleagues undertaking their own MSc projects.

Key Takeaways

Useful starting points:

https://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/

https://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/ethics/

• Seeking clarity in terms of demanded revision stops wasted effort and time.
• Find peers who are at a similar stage of their applications and share learning and tips to successfully navigate the process.
• Remember to feed your knowledge forward. In the spirit of collegiality, support other practitioner scholars to understand and engage with the process themselves.