Q. What criteria do you look at when considering the named applicants on the bid?

Skill mix and balance, along with the importance of multidisciplinary teams. For example if a project is looking at nursing then they should have a nurse on the team.

Reputation of the Principal Investigator - the panel looks at how their track record may enhance the proposal.

Q. How does the panel assess if the costs on the application are realistic?

There is good expertise on the panel to help assess if costs on applications are suitable. We also look at missing skill mix and cost how much it would be to add these to the project. We'd then look to see if the project still falls within the budget.

It's strongly advisable to start costing your project out early on in the development as it takes a long time.

Q. One of the things RfPB won’t fund is service development, can you define what this entails as service development often leads to patient benefit.

Provision of service is something RfPB doesn't fund this covers for example admin costs or funding of a post.

Evaluating a service is different.

Q. The panel is very experienced but there is some concern that the panel is too experienced and setting the bar too high?

The panel has members with different levels of experience. The panel sees 17/18 applications at each round. The members are all compassionate, all want bids to succeed and for the region to progress, but we have to ensure that they meet the criteria of the programme.

The panel is fit for purpose. It's a fair process, and we would love to see more applications succeed.

Q. Quality assurance of peer reviews - do you ever exclude a reviewers comments if they didn’t understand the review.

If they did a poor review we would probably not use them again.

Q. Perception of panel is negative and is putting people off applying and needs to be more positive.

The panel sees itself as custodians of public money and won't fund research that they see as flawed. There is currently a lot of money available to do research and it would be a shame if people didn't bid for it.

Q. What happens to the money that is not spent?

If money is not spent it is lost, it doesn’t carry over.

Q. Out comes - is patient benefit at the end of the project measured by the NIHR?

The next step is currently being developed and therefore is uncertain as yet!

Q. Will final reports be available on the website?

This is something we are currently deciding.

Q. How important or realistic is the perfect study?

If you have a diverse group of people looking at a study you will always have disagreement. We are responsible for the spending of tax payer’s money and ensuring what is spent will benefit patients. Projects need to be scientifically valid, be in scope and protect patients whilst not wasting money. Those applications that do not get through are mainly due to bad methodological flaws in the project.

Q. How many do you consider at each round?

12 last time, usually 16/17, we only fund projects which score above 5. The panel very sensitive to potential ethical issues.

Q.  Jim mentioned how important methodology is, so does the panel always have a qualitative and quantitative member present?

If we didn’t have the relevant expert for the particular project present then would defer considering the project to the next round.

Photography by Nick Osborne www.osbornephotography.co.uk
(07739 035923)