JCPSLP Vol 23 Issue 2 2021

inevitably not reach the full depth and breadth of research published within a given month. Although the clinical- academic has an in-depth understanding and broad experience across the local SLP team, there is potential for selection bias when determining the research papers to be added to the resource as a result of the clinical-academic’s networks, knowledge, clinical area of practice, and interests. Clinicians are therefore advised of this limitation when accessing the resource. Furthermore, if clinicians are investigating a focused clinical question, a systematic search of the evidence is recommended. The current model of the CCRR is reliant on one clinical- academic SLP updating the resource; therefore, a limitation is the long-term sustainability and maintenance of the initiative if the funding of the clinical-academic’s post is not continued or the individual changes role. The CCRR and OneNote platform is capable of allowing collaborative contributions to the resource from multiple persons. To address the potential limitations of sustainability, in future it would be anticipated that, through the formation of a collective, all SLPs within the local team would have the opportunity and ability to contribute to the resource, with a lead SLP for each area of practice taking responsibility for maintaining each section of the resource. Changing any behaviour of an individual or team involves changing: capability, opportunity, and motivation relating to the behaviours that compete with or support it (Michie et al., 2011) and therefore should also be a key consideration for future sustainability and maintenance of the CCRR. Conclusions The CCRR was developed in response to a local need to frequently highlight relevant research evidence specific to the clinical areas of the local SLP team. The resource was intended to provide quick access to evidence and establish a program which was collaborative, searchable, and facilitated SLPs to engage with the evidence to support clinical decision-making. Informal evaluation suggests that the resource is used by clinicians to keep abreast of research in their clinical field in an easy and accessible way, and supports collaborative research activities such as critical appraisal. Formal evaluation methods are required for future development, including exploration of clinicians’ motivation, ability, and prompts to maximise potential for collaborative and shared ownership of the resource. To enable full integration of the CCRR, further exploration into the factors to maximise its usability, access, and facilitation of implementation of research findings into practice is needed. References Chalmers, S. (2020). Launching a collective clinical research resource for a local SLT team. 1. https://youtu.be/ t5Z2XMP8JWI Glasgow, R. E., Harden, S. M., Gaglio, B., Rabin, B., Smith, M. L., Porter, G. C., Ory, M. G., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2019). RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Frontiers in Public Health , 7 , 64. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064 Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science , 7 (1), 50. https://doi. org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-50 Joffe, V., & Pagnamenta, E. (2014, May). Disseminating your research messages. Bulletin , 22–23.

that colleagues are motivated to contribute to the resource in future by adding research evidence they had found themselves, thus demonstrating a shared responsibility and engagement with research. Throughout the COVID19 pandemic, the resource has been used to facilitate team critical appraisals of the latest literature, and document the process and outcomes. The link of the chosen paper was inserted into a specific page within the CCRR named Journal Club. The most appropriate critical appraisal tool was inserted into the OneNote document, and this document was edited, annotated, and highlighted as discussions within the group progressed, including the inclusion of a summary, key learning points, and forward plan. The Journal Club page provided a record of the critical appraisal process and subsequent outcomes, and provided opportunity for other colleagues to collaborate on the document. This example of using the OneNote CCRR will be used again in future Journal Clubs and team critical appraisal activities. Features such as inserting pictures, video files, and audio files could support the interactive element of the resource. Ongoing challenges with local health care information technology presents a barrier to utilising the full expanse of features that OneNote has to offer in terms of sharing the Notebook as a “live” document. As such, the means of accessing the OneNote document may be difficult as at present this requires computer access, access to the shared drive, and a wired internet connection. This presents challenges when accessing the resource on portable devices such as iPads which are increasingly used within the health care setting. It must be recognised that the CCRR was launched during a global pandemic and at this time non-clinical activities were stopped. Therefore, such activities may take some time to be reinstated across individual, team, and organisational levels. It could be suggested that following the initial launch of the CCRR, an implementation plan which explores the motivations, abilities, and prompts that enable or hinder use of the resource should be made. Ongoing evaluation of the CCRR and the impact on SLPs practice and clinical outcomes is warranted, which may involve formal analysis of clinician feedback via questionnaire, and evaluation using existing frameworks such as the RE-AIM framework (Glasgow et al., 2019) which would enable the examination of research, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the CCRR. Limitations It is recognised that the development of this locally driven SLP research resource has limitations. Although some published works included in the resource have been critically appraised by other sources—for example speechBITE includes a quality appraisal for research papers using PEDRO-P and RoBiN-T scales—such works included have not been assessed for quality. It is therefore encouraged that individual clinicians or teams accessing this repository of research should critically appraise individual articles to judge the quality of the research using an appropriate critical appraisal tool. Titles and abstracts are gathered, by the clinical- academic researcher leading the project, from a range of locations including journal alerts, database searches, social media, and other SLP related initiatives such as speechBITE and the RCSLT research newsletters. As such, these methods of gathering research for the resource will

68

JCPSLP Volume 23, Number 2 2021

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology