Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21999305›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2011

How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature.

Geetha Ranmuthugala, Jennifer J Plumb, Frances C Cunningham, Andrew Georgiou, Johanna I Westbrook, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02410941 (Improving the Stewardship of Diagnostic Imaging Resources in Alberta Emergency Departments), which is not on this map. Cited by 145 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
145citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02410941 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Improving the Stewardship of Diagnostic Imaging Resources in Alberta Emergency Departments

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2016 to 2017Enrolled52,058ConditionsBrain Injuries, Pulmonary EmbolismArmsClinical decision support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

145 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Co-Design of a Community of Practice for People With Personal and Professional Expertise or Interest in Dementia in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

85 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Geetha RanmuthugalaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. g.ranmuthugala@unsw.edu.au
Jennifer J Plumb
Frances C Cunningham
Andrew Georgiou
Johanna I Westbrook
Jeffrey Braithwaite

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunities of Practice (CoPs) are promoted in the healthcare sector as a means of generating and sharing knowledge and improving organisational performance. However CoPs vary considerably in the way they are structured and operate in the sector. If CoPs are to be cultivated to benefit healthcare organisations, there is a need to examine and understand their application to date. To this end, a systematic review of the literature on CoPs was conducted, to examine how and why CoPs have been established and whether they have been shown to improve healthcare practice.

methodsPeer-reviewed empirical research papers on CoPs in the healthcare sector were identified by searching electronic health-databases. Information on the purpose of establishing CoPs, their composition, methods by which members communicate and share information or knowledge, and research methods used to examine effectiveness was extracted and reviewed. Also examined was evidence of whether or not CoPs led to a change in healthcare practice.

resultsThirty-one primary research papers and two systematic reviews were identified and reviewed in detail. There was a trend from descriptive to evaluative research. The focus of CoPs in earlier publications was on learning and exchanging information and knowledge, whereas in more recently published research, CoPs were used more as a tool to improve clinical practice and to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practice. Means by which members communicated with each other varied, but in none of the primary research studies was the method of communication examined in terms of the CoP achieving its objectives. Researchers are increasing their efforts to assess the effectiveness of CoPs in healthcare, however the interventions have been complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to directly attribute the change to the CoP.

conclusionsIn keeping with Wenger and colleagues' description, CoPs in the healthcare sector vary in form and purpose. While researchers are increasing their efforts to examine the impact of CoPs in healthcare, cultivating CoPs to improve healthcare performance requires a greater understanding of how to establish and support CoPs to maximise their potential to improve healthcare.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsEfficiency, OrganizationalHealth Care SectorHumansInformation DisseminationKnowledgeQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID21999305
PMCPMC3219728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.