Jennifer Plumb

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

BackgroundHealthcare 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?MethodsThe 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.DiscussionRealist 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.

The development, design, testing, refinement, simulation and application of an evaluation framework for communities of practice and social-professional networks

BackgroundCommunities of practice and social-professional networks are generally considered to enhance workplace experience and enable organizational success. However, despite the remarkable growth in interest in the role of collaborating structures in a range of industries, there is a paucity of empirical research to support this view. Nor is there a convincing model for their systematic evaluation, despite the significant potential benefits in answering the core question: how well do groups of professionals work together and how could they be organised to work together more effectively? This research project will produce a rigorous evaluation methodology and deliver supporting tools for the benefit of researchers, policymakers, practitioners and consumers within the health system and other sectors. Given the prevalence and importance of communities of practice and social networks, and the extent of investments in them, this project represents a scientific innovation of national and international significance.Methods and designWorking in four conceptual phases the project will employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to develop, design, field-test, refine and finalise an evaluation framework. Once available the framework will be used to evaluate simulated, and then later existing, health care communities of practice and social-professional networks to assess their effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. Peak stakeholder groups have agreed to involve a wide range of members and participant organisations, and will facilitate access to various policy, managerial and clinical networks.DiscussionGiven its scope and size, the project represents a valuable opportunity to achieve breakthroughs at two levels; firstly, by introducing novel and innovative aims and methods into the social research process and, secondly, through the resulting evaluation framework and tools. We anticipate valuable outcomes in the improved understanding of organisational performance and delivery of care. The projects wider appeal lies in transferring this understanding to other health jurisdictions and to other industries and sectors, both nationally and internationally. This means not merely publishing the results, but contextually interpreting them, and translating them to advance the knowledge base and enable widespread institutional and organisational application.

Health system frameworks and performance indicators in eight countries: A comparative international analysis:

Objectives: Performance indicators are a popular mechanism for measuring the quality of healthcare to facilitate both quality improvement and systems management. Few studies make comparative assessments of different countries’ performance indicator frameworks. This study identifies and compares frameworks and performance indicators used in selected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development health systems to measure and report on the performance of healthcare organisations and local health systems. Countries involved are Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Scotland and the United States. Methods: Identification of comparable international indicators and analyses of their characteristics and of their broader national frameworks and contexts were undertaken. Two dimensions of indicators – that they are nationally consistent (used across the country rather than just regionally) and locally relevant (measured and reported publicly at a local level, for example, a health service) – were deemed important. Results: The most commonly used domains in performance frameworks were safety, effectiveness and access. The search found 401 indicators that fulfilled the ‘nationally consistent and locally relevant’ criteria. Of these, 45 indicators are reported in more than one country. Cardiovascular, surgery and mental health were the most frequently reported disease groups. Conclusion: These comparative data inform researchers and policymakers internationally when designing health performance frameworks and indicator sets.

Improving teamwork and patient outcomes with daily structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds: a multi method evaluation

BACKGROUND Previous research has shown that interdisciplinary ward rounds have the potential to improve team functioning and patient outcomes. DESIGN A convergent parallel multimethod approach to evaluate a hospital interdisciplinary ward round intervention and ward restructure. SETTING An acute medical unit in a large tertiary care hospital in regional Australia. PARTICIPANTS Thirty-two clinicians and inpatients aged 15 years and above, with acute episode of care, discharged during the year prior and the year of the intervention. INTERVENTION A daily structured interdisciplinary bedside round combined with a ward restructure. MEASUREMENTS Qualitative measures included contextual factors and measures of change and experiences of clinicians. Quantitative measures included length of stay (LOS), monthly “calls for clinical review,’” and cost of care delivery. RESULTS Clinicians reported improved teamwork, communication, and understanding between and within the clinical professions, and between clinicians and patients, after the intervention implementation. There was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control wards in the change in LOS over time (Wald &khgr;2 = 1.05; degrees of freedom [df] = 1; P = .31), but a statistically significant interaction for cost of stay, with a drop in cost over time, was observed in the intervention group, and an increase was observed in the control wards (Wald &khgr;2 = 6.34; df = 1; P = .012). The medical wards and control wards differed significantly in how the number of monthly “calls for clinical review” changed from prestructured interdisciplinary bedside round (SIBR) to during SIBR (F (1,44) = 12.18; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS Multimethod evaluations are necessary to provide insight into the contextual factors that contribute to a successful intervention and improved clinical outcomes.