Academic-clinical partnerships have been defined as arrangements to advance mutual interests, particularly research collaborations.1-3 Expectations for research and scholarship at the university level and in clinical practice have steadily grown, particularly with the increasing requirements of Magnet^(R) organizations.4 Partnerships between academics and clinicians can provide benefits to more easily meet these requirements. Academics can provide access to library systems, staff with research expertise in study design, grant development, and data and statistical support.1 Clinicians can provide up-to-date clinical knowledge and expertise as well as access to medical records and databases with clinical patient quality and safety data and nurse outcome data important to leadership research studies.1 Working together, academics and clinicians can increase their research productivity. In this article, the authors discuss a 10-year partnership between a nurse academic at a southeast university and a clinician nurse scientist at a health system in the southeast United States, reflections on meeting the criterion standard in research pursuits, and lessons learned.

Commitment to ideal practices in research, referred to as the criterion standard, is an important shared value in a successful academic-practice research partnership. This is particularly important in an age of dwindling resources and shrinking research funding. "Doing it right the first time" has been an important component of our success because otherwise there will not be enough resources to accomplish targeted research aims. Meeting the criterion standard has required several important foundational steps including building a relationship with shared values, establishing trust, having clear role expectations, staying true to the research process, and having a commitment to "real-world" field research.

The key in the partnership described here is that it has been built together over the last decade. The leaders started small with several unfunded research projects and were able to build on the process and structure of the relationship. Early leaders from both practice and academia had frank conversations about roles and responsibilities and the mutual values of adhering to the criterion standard. These conversations included respect for one another's strengths and different perspectives. To illustrate, in this column, the authors will discuss the most recent research project funded from 2019 to 2021 supporting an innovative staffing mechanism, workload intensity (WI).5,6

When the team wrote the grant for the WI study, members had worked together for 6 years and partnered on several research projects. We were able to quickly work through issues because members had learned to anticipate our thoughts and perspectives. The team designed the study to support the identified criterion standard including mandatory training sessions for nurses on the WI initiative where both, the academic and the clinician, attended every session for 5 nursing units and 144 nurses. This was built into the funding because it was felt that it was critical that the team be visible and available to the staff and that each session be conducted in the same manner to maximize study rigor. Researchers planned every detail to maximize the joint involvement and also play to identified strengths. For example, the team built in time for the clinician to be on the nursing units checking in with staff as they learned the WI system and after they implemented it. Simultaneously, researchers built in ongoing sessions for the academic to review study data and confer with the clinician and statistician for the duration of the study.

Having these standards built into the study became critically important when COVID-19 hit near the end of WI implementation. Researchers were able to quickly mobilize and make revisions to the study protocol to remain true to the criterion standard and finish implementation to the last study unit, the ICU. When most all other research projects in the health system were halted, this project was able to continue. The academic was able to attend most training sessions virtually, whereas the clinician attended in-person. This was only made possible because of the strong relationship between the academic and clinician partners.

Building the academic-clinical research relationship took time and effort and succeeded because both sides were committed to the similar criterion standard ideal. In the beginning of the academic-clinical research partnership, the team struggled to get funding for this work. Researchers persevered unfunded in a number of projects because it was believed that this research was important and it was recognized that this relationship was important to building a shared vision. Key lessons learned included being true to a vision and not straying from the criterion standard no matter the obstacles. Leaders took time to deal with issues and problems when they happened. Leaders committed to having open, clear communication and working together. The importance of the alignment of personal values and approach to criterion standard research cannot be overstated. Leaders in this initiative truly think alike and, as such, were easily able to achieve alignment of thought. Making time for one another was a commitment as well as following up and talking about issues. Leaders quickly learned that these combined efforts are richer and stronger than individual efforts. Leveraging different roles, skill sets, and strengths was important to supporting the criterion standard in this partnership and the research initiatives. Authors urge academic researchers to consider reaching out to nurse leader clinicians to form research partnerships. Starting with small projects is a great way to build relationships and advance nursing science, which will benefit the nursing profession.

References