Article

A realist evaluation of the role of communities of practice in changing healthcare practice.

Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. .
Implementation Science (Impact Factor: 3.47). 01/2011; 6:49. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-49
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Healthcare organisations seeking to manage knowledge and improve organisational performance are increasingly investing in communities of practice (CoPs). Such investments are being made in the absence of empirical evidence demonstrating the impact of CoPs in improving the delivery of healthcare. A realist evaluation is proposed to address this knowledge gap. Underpinned by the principle that outcomes are determined by the context in which an intervention is implemented, a realist evaluation is well suited to understand the role of CoPs in improving healthcare practice. By applying a realist approach, this study will explore the following questions: What outcomes do CoPs achieve in healthcare? Do these outcomes translate into improved practice in healthcare? What are the contexts and mechanisms by which CoPs improve healthcare?
The realist evaluation will be conducted by developing, testing, and refining theories on how, why, and when CoPs improve healthcare practice. When collecting data, context will be defined as the setting in which the CoP operates; mechanisms will be the factors and resources that the community offers to influence a change in behaviour or action; and outcomes will be defined as a change in behaviour or work practice that occurs as a result of accessing resources provided by the CoP.
Realist evaluation is being used increasingly to study social interventions where context plays an important role in determining outcomes. This study further enhances the value of realist evaluations by incorporating a social network analysis component to quantify the structural context associated with CoPs. By identifying key mechanisms and contexts that optimise the effectiveness of CoPs, this study will contribute to creating a framework that will guide future establishment and evaluation of CoPs in healthcare.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
163 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Communities of Practice (CoPs) are increasingly considered a part of ecohealth and other sectors such as health care, education, and business. However, there is little agreement on approaches to evaluate the influence and effectiveness of CoPs. The purpose of this review was to understand what frameworks and methods have been proposed or used to evaluate CoPs and/or knowledge networks. The review searched electronic databases in interdisciplinary, health, education, and business fields, and further collected references and forward citations from relevant articles. Nineteen articles with 16 frameworks were included in the synthesis. The purposes of the evaluation frameworks varied; while some focused on assessing the performance of CoPs, several frameworks sought to learn about CoPs and their critical success factors. Nine of the frameworks had been applied or tested in some way, most frequently to guide a case study. With limited applications of the frameworks, strong claims about generalizability could not be made. The review results can inform the development of tailored frameworks. However, there is a need for more detailed and targeted CoP evaluation frameworks, as many imperative CoP evaluation needs would be unmet by the available frameworks.
    EcoHealth 07/2014; · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In knowledge translation, complex interventions may be implemented in the attempt to improve uptake of research-based knowledge in practice. Traditional evaluation efforts that focus on aggregate effectiveness represent an oversimplification of both the environment and the interventions themselves. However, theory-based approaches to evaluation, such as realist evaluation (RE), may be better-suited to examination of complex knowledge translation interventions with a view to understanding what works, for whom, and under what conditions. It is the aim of the present state-of-the-art review to examine current literature with regard to the use of RE in the assessment of knowledge translation interventions implemented within healthcare environments.Methods Multiple online databases were searched from 1997 through June 2013. Primary studies examining the application or implementation of knowledge translation interventions within healthcare settings and using RE were selected for inclusion. Varying applications of RE across studies were examined in terms of a) reporting of core elements of RE, and b) potential feasibility of this evaluation method.ResultsA total of 14 studies (6 study protocols), published between 2007 and 2013, were identified for inclusion. Projects were initiated in a variety of healthcare settings and represented a range of interventions. While a majority of authors mentioned context (C), mechanism (M) and outcome (O), a minority reported the development of C-M-O configurations or testable hypotheses based on these configurations. Four completed studies reported results that included refinement of proposed C-M-O configurations and offered explanations within the RE framework. In the few studies offering insight regarding challenges associated with the use of RE, difficulties were expressed regarding the definition of both mechanisms and contextual factors. Overall, RE was perceived as time-consuming and resource intensive.Conclusions The use of RE in knowledge translation is relatively new; however, theory-building approaches to the examination of complex interventions in this area may be increasing as researchers attempt to identify what works, for whom and under what circumstances. Completion of the RE cycle may be challenging, particularly in the development of C-M-O configurations; however, as researchers approach challenges and explore innovations in its application, rich and detailed accounts may improve feasibility.
    Implementation Science 09/2014; 9(1):115. · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to explore how a community of practice promoted the creation and sharing of new knowledge in evidence-based manual therapy using Wenger's constructs of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire as a theoretical framework.Methods We used a qualitative approach to analyze the discussion board contributions of the 19 physiotherapists who participated in the 10-week online continuing education course in evidence-based practice (EBP) in manual therapy. The course was founded on community of practice, constructivism, social, and situated learning principles.ResultsThe 1436 postings on 9 active discussion boards revealed that the community of practice was a social learning environment that supported strong participation and mutual engagement. Design features such as consistent facilitation, weekly guiding questions, and collaborative assignments promoted the creation and sharing of knowledge. Participants applied research evidence to the contexts in which they worked through reflective comparison of what they were reading to its applicability in their everyday practice. Participants’ shared goals contributed to the common ground established in developing collective knowledge about different study designs, how to answer research questions, and the difficulties of conducting sound research.DiscussionAn online longitudinal community of practice utilized as a continuing education approach to deliver an online course based on constructivist and social learning principles allowed geographically dispersed physiotherapists to be mutually engaged in a joint enterprise in evidence-based manual therapy. Advantages included opportunity for reflection, modeling, and collaboration. Future studies should examine the impact of participation on clinical practice.
    Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 10/2014; 34(4). · 1.32 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
59 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014