Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

HEE/NIHR ICA Advanced Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship (ACAF) Scheme Round 1 Chair's Report

Contents

Published: 16 February 2023

Version: 1.0

Print this document

Introduction

The HEE/NIHR ICA Advanced Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship (ACAF) scheme supports post-doctoral researchers to develop their academic career whilst developing their health or care career. The scheme is open to post-doctoral researchers from the health and care professions (excluding doctors and dentists) who are committed to a clinical academic or practitioner academic career.

The ACAF scheme provides salaried time to undertake both a funded research project and a funded programme of academic training and development.

The numbers of applications received, and awards made for the latest (Round 1) competition are detailed in the table below.

Stage

Total

Applied

12

Interviewed

6

Recommended

4

Success rate

33%

ACAF Round 1 Competition (2022)

The first round of the ACAF scheme competition launched on 7th April 2022 and closed on 9th June 2022. The numbers of applications received, and awards recommended for funding are detailed in Annex A at the end of this document along with some analysis of applications and awards recommended.

Observations and Advice for Prospective Applicants

The Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Selection Committee have made observations of the general strengths and weaknesses of the Round 1 applications and discussed areas that future applicants should consider to strengthen their applications. These are summarised below.

Public Health and Social Care applicants

The ICA Programme welcomes applications from professionals working in public health and social care settings.

Academic Mentoring

Applicants are required to include individuals in their application who will provide research support (mentorship) during the Fellowship. The Selection Committee noted that the quality of academic mentoring support included in a number of applications had been disappointing.

Common issues noted:

  • The appropriateness and availability of academic mentors to provide coaching and support.
  • A lack of breadth in selection of academic mentors, ie the inclusion of both senior and peer support.
  • Insufficient support to help applicants balance the challenges of clinical and academic commitments.

Applicants are encouraged to be mindful of the one to one support necessary to enable them to succeed. Mentors do not need to be based at the same institution as the applicant.

Methodological Considerations

The ICA Programme welcomes applications utilising any scientific methodologies, but these must always be justified and evidenced as those most appropriate to answer the research questions posed. The Selection Committee expect applicants to possess sufficient understanding of the proposed methodologies to justify and defend their choice.

The Selection Committee noted that several applicants were not accessing the support available to them through their methodological stakeholders who should be included in the application writing process. The NIHR Research Design Service (RDS) are also well placed to provide advice and helpful feedback on applications prior to submission.

Training and Development

Prospective applicants are reminded that the award represents an opportunity to undertake training and development that will further both their career as a practitioner academic and the service they afford their patients/service users. The principal purpose of the proposed training and development plan should be to provide the fellow with the focussed skills needed to successfully undertake the Fellowship by linking training and development plans to the proposed objectives and research.

The Selection Committee also highlighted the need for applicants to carefully consider the timing of when may be most appropriate to undertake a course, considering all available options and taking a creative and strategic approach with choices.

The need to be ambitious whilst remaining realistic

When formulating the scope of the research proposal, prospective applicants need to ensure that the research project can be completed within the period of the award, predominantly by themselves with a view to maximising their personal development. The Selection Committee noted the importance of applicants giving consideration to the balance of an ambitious project plan that is also definitive, pragmatic and deliverable. Applicants should also ensure plans are in place for contingencies. Early identification of, and guidance from, experienced mentors will be invaluable to achieving this.

Plain English Summaries

The Plain English summary submitted as part of the application is assessed by the Selection Committee. Feedback from the previous round (under the CL/SCL schemes) highlighted areas for improvement, and the Selection Committee noted an improvement in the Plain English Summaries submitted to the Round 1 ACAF competition.

Patient and Public Involvement

The PPI element of applications continues to improve steadily as the processes bed in across the sector. The Selection Committee were disappointed however, to observe very poor PPI costing in a number of applications.

Applicants are reminded that the NIHR takes PPI very seriously. PPI is one of the assessment criteria used by the Selection Committee when reviewing all applications and PPI members sit on the interview committees.

Applicants are referred to the comprehensive resource available from the NIHR website, which includes guidance on writing Plain English summaries and budgeting for PPI involvement.

Useful Resource for Prospective Applicants

  • The Round 2 (2022) ACAF Applicant Guidance Notes are available from the ICA webpage. These provide details of the ACAF scheme, including the eligibility requirements, the funding available, the required employment arrangements and the assessment criteria used by the ACAF Selection Committee when reviewing applications. The Applicant Guidance Notes should be read in full before starting an application.
    Please note – Updated Guidance Notes will be published with the launch of the Round 3 competition. Applicants must ensure that they are referring to the most recent Applicant Guidance Notes when making an application.
  • The NIHR website includes guidance on writing Plain English summaries and budgeting for PPI involvement.
  • The NIHR Research Design Service (RDS) are able to provide advice and helpful feedback on applications prior to submission.

Annex A

ACAF Application and Awards Summary

Competition Round

Applied: CL

Applied: SCL

Recommended: CL

Recommended: SCL

CL/SCL Round 1

21

7

7

3

CL/SCL Round 2

25

5

6

1

CL/SCL Round 3

23

4

9

0

CL/SCL Round 4

26

6

9

3

CL/SCL Round 5

14

5

6

1

CL/SCL Round 6

15

6

8

1

CL/SCL Round 7

12

1

5

0

ACAF Round 1

12

4

Round 1 ACAF Applications and Success Rate by Region

Region

Applied

Recommended

East Midlands

3

1

East of England

0

0

London

5

2

North East

0

0

North West

1

0

South Central

0

0

South East Coast

0

0

South West

3

1

West Midlands

0

0

Yorkshire and the Humber

0

0

Round 1 ACAF Applications and Success rate by Sex

 Sex

Applied

Recommended

Female

7

2

Male

5

2

Prefer not to say

0

0

Round 1 ACAF Applications and Success rate by Profession

Profession

Applied

Recommended

Dental Therapist

0

0

Dietitian

1

0

Drama Therapist

0

0

Healthcare Scientist

1

0

Midwife

0

0

Nurse

2

1

Occupational Therapist

1

0

Paramedic

1

1

Pharmacist

0

0

Physiotherapist

5

2

Practitioner Psychologist

1

0

Radiographer (Diagnostic)

0

0

Social Worker

0

0

Speech and Language Therapist

0

0