Affiliation:
1. Department of Medicine – Royal Melbourne Hospital University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia
2. School of Health Sciences University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia
3. Victorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre Melbourne Victoria Australia
4. Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia
5. Centre for Implementation Research Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ottawa Ontario Canada
6. Australian Centre for Evidence Based Aged Care (ACEBAC) AIPCA, La Trobe University Bundoora Victoria Australia
7. Department of Aged Care Royal Melbourne Hospital Parkville Victoria Australia
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundCommunities of practice (CoPs) have the potential to help address the residential aged care system's need for continuing education and quality improvement. CoPs have been used in healthcare to improve clinical practice; however, little is known about their application to the unique residential aged care context.ObjectivesThis rapid review of CoPs for residential aged care was conducted to summarise the features of CoPs, how they are developed and maintained, and assess their effectiveness.MethodsMEDLINE and CINAHL databases were searched for studies published from January 1991 to November 2022 about CoPs in residential aged care. Data were extracted regarding the CoPs' three key features of ‘domain’, ‘community’ and ‘practice’ as described by Wenger and colleagues. Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation (members' reactions, learning, behaviour and results) was used to examine studies on the effectiveness of CoPs. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality appraisal.ResultsNineteen articles reported on 13 residential aged care CoPs. Most CoPs aimed to improve care quality (n = 9, 69%) while others aimed to educate members (n = 3, 23%). Membership was often multidisciplinary (n = 8, 62%), and interactions were in‐person (n = 6, 46%), online (n = 3, 23%) or both (n = 4, 31%). Some CoPs were developed with the aid of a planning group (n = 4, 31%) or as part of a larger collaborative (n = 4, 31%), and were maintained using a facilitator (n = 7, 54%) or adapted to member feedback (n = 2, 15%). Thirteen (81%) studies evaluated members' reactions, and three (24%) studies assessed members' behaviour. The heterogeneity of studies and levels of reporting made it difficult to synthesise findings.ConclusionsThis review revealed the variation in why, and how, CoPs have been used in residential aged care, which is consistent with previous reviews of CoPs in healthcare. While these findings can inform the development of CoPs in this context, further research is needed to understand how CoPs, including the membership makeup, delivery mode, facilitator type and frequency of meetings, impact quality of care.
Reference45 articles.
1. Australian Government Department of Health. (2020).2020 Aged Care Workforce Census Report.https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/2020‐aged‐care‐workforce‐census?language=en
2. Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. (2023).Infection prevention and control leads. Retrieved June 22 2023 fromhttps://www.health.gov.au/our‐work/infection‐prevention‐and‐control‐leads
3. Using action research to construct national evidence-based nursing care guidance for gerontological nursing
4. The Seniors Health Research Transfer Network Knowledge Network Model: System-Wide Implementation for Health and Healthcare of Seniors
5. A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献