Introduction The Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care. They aimed to encourage ‘research-informed commissioning’ and ‘commissioning-informed research’. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact. Methods Data sources from brokers included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation. Results Stable, solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, ‘buddying up’, team leadership, brokers’ interpersonal skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other’s ‘insider’ knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefited most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more successful in fostering ‘commissioning-informed research’ with co-produced research grants than ‘research-informed commissioning’. Conclusion Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change. key messages An embedded two-way collective team makes brokering easier. It provides a safe space for brokers to be vulnerable, share learning and navigate problems. Team-brokering models collaborative behaviour and creates a critical mass. But many brokering challenges still exist.

中文翻译：

---

集体知识中介：嵌入式团队的模型和影响

简介 布里斯托尔知识动员 (KM) 团队是一个不同寻常的集体中介模式，由四名经理和三名学者组成的多专业团队组成，他们同时参与当地医疗保健政策制定（又名委托）和学术初级保健。他们旨在鼓励“研究型委托”和“委托型研究”。本文涵盖了背景、结构、流程、优势、挑战和影响。方法 经纪人的数据来源包括个人日志、反思性文章、离职面谈和团队研讨会。使用常数比较对这些进行归纳分析。为了获得临界距离，使用访谈、观察和记录进行了三项外部评估。结果 稳定、有偿付能力的组织；具有良好跨专业关系的高级参与；资金安全；东道组织中的参与盟友网络支持经纪人。基本要素是双向嵌入、“搭档”、团队领导力、经纪人的人际交往能力以及两年的兼职合同。通过共同工作，经纪人促进了跨社区互动并模拟了协作行为，借鉴了彼此的“内部人员”知识、网络和经验。挑战包括太多的监工、不切实际的期望和工作超负荷。然而，团队合作为脆弱、分享学习和建立信心提供了一个安全的空间。由于东道组织从嵌入式经纪人中受益最多，两个社区都注意到态度、知识、技能和信心的变化。与“研究知情委托”相比，该团队在通过联合研究资助促进“委托知情研究”方面更为成功。结论 尽管仍然困难重重，但嵌入的、双向的、多专业团队的集体支持和同志情谊使鼓励互动，从而更容易进行中介。团队方法模拟了协作行为，并创造了影响文化变革的临界质量。关键信息 嵌入式双向集体团队使中介变得更容易。它为经纪人提供了一个安全的空间，让他们免受攻击、分享学习和解决问题。团队经纪模型协作行为并创建临界质量。但许多经纪挑战仍然存在。多专业团队使鼓励性的互动变得更容易，从而使中介变得更容易。团队方法模拟了协作行为，并创造了影响文化变革的临界质量。关键信息 嵌入式双向集体团队使中介变得更容易。它为经纪人提供了一个安全的空间，让他们免受攻击、分享学习和解决问题。团队经纪模型协作行为并创建临界质量。但许多经纪挑战仍然存在。多专业团队使鼓励性的互动变得更容易，从而使中介变得更容易。团队方法模拟了协作行为，并创造了影响文化变革的临界质量。关键信息 嵌入式双向集体团队使中介变得更容易。它为经纪人提供了一个安全的空间，让他们免受攻击、分享学习和解决问题。团队经纪模型协作行为并创建临界质量。但许多经纪挑战仍然存在。团队经纪模型协作行为并创建临界质量。但许多经纪挑战仍然存在。团队经纪模型协作行为并创建临界质量。但许多经纪挑战仍然存在。