NHS staff from across north-west London have graduated from a programme that supports them to pursue research careers.
Clinical academics are healthcare professionals whose roles combine research and practice. They work in health and social care while conducting research to improve patient care. Traditionally, clinical academics tend to be doctors rather than other healthcare professionals such as nurses. However, recent reports have shown that the numbers of medically trained research staff in the UK have fallen by six per cent. National efforts are focused on increasing the number of clinical academics of all professions.
The Imperial College Academic Health Science Centre (AHSC) Starting out in Research Course is aimed at nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, healthcare scientists, pharmacists and psychologists (NMAHPPs) across Imperial College AHSC.
It aims to equip participants with the knowledge, skills and networks to pursue a research career.
Professor Mary Wells, NIHR Imperial BRC Deputy Director of Nursing Research at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and a Professor of Practice in Cancer Nursing at Imperial College London, leads the course. She said:
“The Starting out in Research Course is a very important activity for Imperial College AHSC. It provides a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of undertaking research in a healthcare setting. We aim to nurture and expand the numbers of NMAHPPs doing research across the AHSC to invest in the clinical academics of the future. We know that research improves patient outcomes and experiences. Gaining skills and confidence in research through doing this course can help advance clinical practice and enrich the careers of those who take part.”
Research skills
The course was designed and delivered by NMAHPPs and clinical academics from Imperial and its NHS partners at Imperial’s White City campus from March – April 2025.
“Gaining skills and confidence in research through doing this course can help advance clinical practice and enrich the careers of those who take part.”Professor Mary WellsDeputy Director of Nursing Research at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and a Professor of Practice in Cancer Nursing at Imperial College London,
Participants learned about topics such as identifying a research question, choosing a study design and how to involve patients and the public in research. They also heard from a range of clinical, research and academic staff on their experiences of undertaking research and developing their clinical academic careers.
Participants were put into groups and allocated coaches to explore how they can incorporate their learnings into their clinical work. The coaches are clinicians from across the AHSC partnership who are conducting research, including current PhD and post-doctoral fellows. Some of the coaches are graduates of the Starting Out in Research course.
Professor Mary Wells, added:
“Running this course is a real highlight of my role. I really enjoy encouraging and supporting others to develop their research careers and it’s been great to see the impact of this course on our staff over the years. We have had a very diverse group of healthcare professionals this year and I am excited to see where they go with the new knowledge and skills they have gained.
Participants’ experience
Maxine Myers caught up with some of the participants from the course.
Elizabeth Olanloye, Radiographer at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, said:
“I’ve always been curious about research and how it can be used to improve patient care and clinical practice.
While I’m still at the early stages of my research journey, I’ve had some exposure through my academic studies and professional experiences, which sparked my interest further.
I joined the Starting Out in Research Course to deepen my understanding and build confidence in developing research ideas. It’s been really encouraging to see how research can make a real difference in healthcare, and I’m looking forward to gradually building my skills and contributing more in this area over time.
My long-term goal is to become a clinical academic, combining research with practice to help improve outcomes for patients and support evidence-based healthcare.
One of the biggest highlights of the course has been learning about the practical aspects of designing and conducting research, from identifying a strong research question to navigating regulatory requirements and securing funding.
The opportunity to hear from experienced researchers about their journeys has been inspiring and has reinforced my motivation to pursue research in my field.
The course has provided me with valuable tools and knowledge to advance my research career.”
Atsuko Campbell, Midwife at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, said:
“Through day-to-day clinical practice as a midwife, I have seen how research evidence impacts and changes the care we provide, improving women’s and families’ experiences and choices. Because of this I’ve always had an interest in research but my experience has been limited and I was overwhelmed by where to start. The opportunity to participate in the Starting Out in Research Course came up and I thought I should try.
The programme made it clear that there’s so many resources and organisations that I can contact if I want to discover and learn more about research.
It also provided a great opportunity to connect with people working at the same trust as me and more widely in north-west London.
I enjoyed learning from the panel of speakers who have such a wide range of experience and expertise. I briefly worked with one of the speakers who has just completed her PhD. It was inspiring to see her career progression.
The course has enriched my knowledge of research and I am now thinking about doing a Master of Research degree.”
Ross McGrath, Dietician at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, said:
“I joined the course because I wanted to find out how I could potentially get involved in research and how could I do this alongside my clinical work.
My interest in research has grown over time as I’ve seen how it directly shapes clinical guidelines and patient care. Through my own experiences as someone who has lived with Inflammatory Bowel Disease – a chronic autoimmune condition, which can cause debilitating symptoms such as severe stomach pain and impact quality of life – I’ve become increasingly aware of gaps in patient care. That realisation sparked my curiosity and drive to explore research to contribute to solutions.
The highlight of the course was getting to meet other clinicians at similar stages, all passionate about different areas of research and hearing about their ideas.
I cannot speak highly enough about all the speakers on the course that gave their time and energy to sharing their research experience to us. They were fantastic and their passion and energy for research was infectious. I genuinely left each day feeling inspired and motivated to begin a career in research, and this was all down to them.
The course has given me a solid foundation – both practically and mentally. I now feel more confident in approaching potential supervisors or collaborators, and I understand the next steps I need to develop a proposal or apply for funding.”
The course is coordinated by the Clinical Academic Training Office on behalf of Imperial College AHSC.
A key aim of Imperial College London and its NHS partners – Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, The Institute of Cancer Research and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – is to develop a network of clinicians at all levels and professions across the AHSC partnership who are engaging in clinical research.
An Imperial-led study could help shape international colonoscopy guidelines, potentially easing pressure on healthcare systems and patients.
A new study from the Surgery and Cancer Theme has provided crucial insights into who needs ongoing monitoring for bowel cancer by colonoscopy after initial polyp removal (known as ‘post-polypectomy surveillance’) – findings that could refine global bowel cancer surveillance practices.
“These findings could reduce the number of unnecessary colonoscopies, lessening the burden on healthcare systems and sparing patients from invasive procedures they may not need.” Professor Amanda Cross Surgery & Cancer Theme Co-Lead
Published in GUT, the study titled “Colorectal cancer incidence after the first surveillance colonoscopy and the need for ongoing surveillance: a retrospective, cohort analysis” was led by Imperial’s Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group. The research addresses a major evidence gap in bowel cancer prevention, namely, which patients need to continue having post-polypectomy surveillance beyond their first surveillance colonoscopy.
Bowel cancer develops from polyps – small growths in the bowel that can turn cancerous over time. While removing polyps via colonoscopy significantly reduces bowel cancer risk, current guidance varies internationally on how long patients should continue to undergo post-polypectomy surveillance.
“For people entering post-polypectomy surveillance, there is a lack of data to identify those needing a second surveillance colonoscopy,” said first author, Miss Emma Robbins. “This study provides much-needed evidence on this topic, which will be valuable in informing recommendations for ongoing post-polypectomy surveillance in future iterations of the UK, European, and US post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines.”
The research team analysed data from over 10,500 patients and found that:
- Patients with high-risk polyp findings at both their initial (baseline) and first surveillance colonoscopy had a significantly higher risk of developing bowel cancer than the general population. The researchers report that these patients should have a second surveillance colonoscopy.
- Patients with low-risk findings at their first surveillance colonoscopy – regardless of whether they had low-risk or high-risk findings at their baseline colonoscopy – were not at increased risk of bowel cancer compared to the general population. The researchers report that these patients can safely return to routine non-invasive bowel cancer screening, avoiding unnecessary further colonoscopies.
Impact on guidelines and patient care
The findings strongly support the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines, which recommend stopping surveillance in patients with low-risk findings at the first surveillance colonoscopy. However, the study challenges more conservative approaches in the current European post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines, which recommend that patients continue surveillance until they have two consecutive surveillance colonoscopies at which low-risk findings are detected.
Speaking about the findings, Professor Amanda Cross, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology and last author, said: “These findings could reduce the number of unnecessary colonoscopies, lessening the burden on healthcare systems and sparing patients from invasive procedures they may not need.”
For patients, the study provides reassurance. Those with low-risk findings at their first surveillance colonoscopy, even if they had high-risk findings at their baseline colonoscopy, can be reassured that they are not at increased risk and can safely return to standard bowel cancer screening protocols.
Next steps
While the findings are promising, the authors note that the study’s ability to assess long-term surveillance needs in certain high-risk subgroups was limited by a small number of cancer cases. They suggest that future studies drawing on data from national screening programmes would help further refine recommendations.
The study not only supports current UK policy but offers a case for revisiting surveillance recommendations elsewhere in the world—potentially leading to a more evidence-based approach to bowel cancer prevention.
GP Dr David Wingfield has been appointed as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre’s (BRC) Primary Care Lead. This pivotal role will help grow and develop research in primary care, as well as enhance research opportunities to improve patient and community outcomes in north west London.
Dr Wingfield will be responsible for overseeing a number of partnerships with GP surgeries across north west London, where research activities will be supported by NIHR Imperial BRC infrastructure and funding.
These networks of GP partnerships will be led by host GP surgeries and support early-stage experimental medicine and public health research. Through partnerships with acute NHS trusts, academia and industry, they will provide the infrastructure needed for bringing opportunities to participate in research, as well as the impact from its findings, to patients in the community. These networks will also provide support to NHS staff in primary care to get more involved in research and better understand the opportunities available for patients.
Three sites have already commenced, hosted by GP practices in Hammersmith and Fulham (Hammersmith and Fulham Partnership), Hounslow (Hounslow Medical Centre) and Westminster (Healthcare Central London) with plans to expand to two additional sites over the next year.
Commenting on his appointment, Dr Wingfield said: “For many people, their family GP is the main route by which they have contact with the NHS. By bringing research into the GP surgery, we can work with our communities to ensure research studies answer the most pressing questions and lead to evidence that has the potential to really improve health and wellbeing. I look forward to working more with our partners across north west London and significantly widening access to research for both patients and staff.”
In his new role, Dr Wingfield will work closely with key research and clinical partners, including Imperial College London, NIHR Regional Research Delivery Networks (RRDNs) and the Health Innovation Network (HIN), as well as GP practices across north west London. He will also represent primary care research in north west London nationally and regionally to ensure their activities align with broader national research priorities.
Commenting on Dr Wingfield’s appointment, Professor Mark Thursz, director of the NIHR Imperial BRC said: “David’s leadership will be instrumental in identifying new research opportunities in primary care that link to our BRC research themes and marks a significant step forward in the Trust’s efforts to deliver impactful health innovations to the communities it serves.”
The ‘ZeDTech’ dementia network – developing zero-burden and sustainable technologies to support independent living with dementia –will bring together teams of researchers, developers, engineers and health and social care professionals.
It is one of four new Dementia Networks announced today across the UK, funded by a total investment of £6 million from the UKRI Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Each network will focus on a different challenge facing people living with dementia.
There are currently around one million people in the UK with dementia, a figure that is projected to rise to 1.4 million people by 2040. According to a survey by Alzheimer’s Society, which is a partner in the Dementia Networks initiative, 85% of people would want to stay at home for as long as possible if diagnosed with the syndrome.
The ZeDTech network aims to develop technologies to advance independent living for people with dementia and to support their families and carers. The researchers are planning to develop, validate, and deploy wearable and contactless sensors to gather more data from patients with minimal disruption to daily life. One example is remote sensing with radar to observe people’s health and well-being.
The researchers also want to explore issues around care inequalities and digital exclusion, with the help of machine learning. They aim to develop affordable technologies that can be easily implemented across the UK.
Professor David Sharp from Imperial’s Department of Brain Sciences, who is also the Director of Care Research & Technology Centre at the UK Dementia Research Institute and NIHR Imperial BRC Brain Sciences Theme Co-lead, is leading the network. He said: “This is a really exciting opportunity that will bring together UK scientists and partners from health and social care, industry, third sector and lived experience, to develop new technologies that will help people affected by dementia to live independently for as long as possible.”
Professor Tim Constandinou, from Imperial’s Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, co-leads the ZeDTech team. He says: “Individuals with dementia are often vulnerable, with cognitive impairments that limit their ability to engage with technologies that become burdensome. So they need to be at the heart of future technology development. Our network will assemble multidisciplinary teams to develop, validate and integrate new technologies with existing dementia care, with the aim of improving the quality of life of those affected.”
The other networks being announced include teams at the University of Sheffield, Northumbria University, and Heriot-Watt University.
EPSRC Executive Chair Professor Charlotte Deane said: “Dementia is a major challenge in the UK and globally. As people are living longer, the number of people living with dementia is increasing. With most people wishing to remain at home, we are investing in research that could lead to new technologies and innovations that will help keep people safe and independent.”
Minister of State for Health, Karin Smyth MP, said: ““Moving care out of hospitals and into communities isn’t just smart healthcare – it’s about giving people independence. Backing these groundbreaking technologies won’t just help people with dementia – it’ll transform their lives, giving people the freedom to stay in their own homes, around the people they love.”
Follow the ZeDTech network as it grows.
Dr Kirsten Bell is a senior research fellow in anthropology at the Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC). In this blog, she explores the crucial role of public engagement in shaping impactful research and what motivates people to get involved in research. We also hear first-hand from a research participant!
How has the Airwave study evolved over time?
Launched in 2004, the Airwave study is the largest cohort of police employees worldwide. It was initially designed to explore the health impacts of the TETRA radio system, however, in 2013, the wider value of the Airwave cohort, data and samples was recognised and the scope was broadened to consider other health issues. It is now a tissue bank used by researchers to explore a variety of questions relating to police health.
In 2023, the Airwave team decided to create an Airwave Participant Advisory Group. A call for expressions of interest received an overwhelming and unprecedented response, with 348 participants submitting applications. We could see that this provided an opportunity to learn more about participant experiences of and views on the study, why they took part and remained part of the study for so long and to ensure that their voices were heard.
Why were participants motivated to take part in the study?
Based on a survey of advisory group participants, most had joined because of a desire to improve the health and safety of police officers and staff. The free health checks provided as part of the study were also a clear motivation for joining. This came across particularly strongly in the interviews, where a lot of people said things like, ‘If I’m being honest, I joined because of the health check’. Surprisingly, although some participants were very clearly concerned about the potential health effects of the TETRA communication system, this was not a primary motivation for many people.
This gave us a really interesting insight into the motivations for joining a study and showed that it’s not always about the study itself or the potential findings, but the benefit to the participants.
Were there any other surprising findings?
How unmemorable participants found the results of the study and general study communications! A notable number of survey respondents and interviewees claimed they had never seen our newsletter or website, despite having engaged with both to apply for the advisory group.
This highlights a recurring challenge in research communication: the gap between what is intended in study communications and how they are actually received and provides us with lots of things to think about when it comes to communicating with study participants. It also shows that you can’t always take survey responses at face value!
What are the implications of these findings?
Researchers need to rethink how they communicate their work. Lots of participants I interviewed talked about ‘academese’ and how inaccessible academic communications are – communications that are designed to be ‘lay’ (plain English) summaries! Most don’t care about what you did and why – they want to know the key takeaways from the study, and how the findings might impact them personally.
Why is it important to involve patients and the public in research?
If researchers decide on everything, then it is not representative or democratic – it is vital that research actually represents the communities it aims to benefit. Ultimately, it improves the quality and impact of the research. I think there’s something intrinsically valuable about conversations between researchers and the public, whenever they happen. We sometimes get overly caught up in the distinction between ‘involving’ the public in research and the public ‘engaging’ with research, but bringing researchers and the public together helps to build relationships and a degree of trust and mutual respect.
How can patients and the public get involved in research?
There are plenty of opportunities for patients and members of the public to get more actively involved in research as advisors. If you want to learn more about these opportunities to become a public advisor or partner in research, you can sign up for the PERC mailing list or email the team at publicinvolvement@imperial.ac.uk.
A patient’s perspective
Hadeya Zaman is a participant in the Airwave study and a member of the advisory group. She shares her experience with us:
“It’s been a very good experience to hear the research results and to ask questions for clarity or to provide suggestions for the presentation of the results so it’s easier to interpret/digest. The communication from the team has always been timely, friendly and kept us engaged and eager to join the next session.
“The study continues to provide findings that are helpful for my own health awareness and ensure that I eat healthy and stay active. It’s always interesting to hear about the health of police employees in general too.
“I wanted to give something back and help provide a different perspective which is why I joined the advisory group. I’d encourage others to get involved as we all interpret data in different ways, so it’s useful to come together to ensure the study messages have as much impact as possible.”
