Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33990392›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2021

How, why and under what circumstances does a quality improvement collaborative build knowledge and skills in clinicians working with people with dementia? A realist informed process evaluation.

Lenore de la Perrelle, Monica Cations, Gaery Barbery, Gorjana Radisic, Billingsley Kaambwa, Maria Crotty, Janna Anneke Fitzgerald, Susan Kurrle, Ian Cameron, Craig Whitehead and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

12 authors.

Lenore de la PerrelleCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia lenore.delaperrelle@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9239-0728
Monica CationsCollege of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Gaery BarberyHealth Services Management School of Medicine, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Gorjana RadisicCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Billingsley KaambwaCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Maria CrottyCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Janna Anneke FitzgeraldBusiness Strategy and Innovation, Griffith University Faculty of Health, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Susan KurrleMedicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ian CameronRehabilitation Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Craig WhiteheadCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jane ThompsonNNIDR Consumer Involvement Reference Group, NHMRC CDPC, Hornsby, New South Wales, Australia.
Kate LaverCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In increasingly constrained health and aged care services, strategies are needed to improve quality and translate evidence into practice. In dementia care, recent failures in quality and safety have led the WHO to prioritise the translation of known evidence into practice. While quality improvement collaboratives have been widely used in healthcare, there are few examples in dementia care.We describe a recent quality improvement collaborative to improve dementia care across Australia and assess the implementation outcomes of acceptability and feasibility of this strategy to translate known evidence into practice. A realist-informed process evaluation was used to analyse how, why and under what circumstances a quality improvement collaborative built knowledge and skills in clinicians working in dementia care.This realist-informed process evaluation developed, tested and refined the programme theory of a quality improvement collaborative. Data were collected pre-intervention and post-intervention using surveys and interviews with participants (n=28). A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process integrated three frameworks to examine the context and mechanisms of knowledge and skill building in participant clinicians.A refined program theory showed how and why clinicians built knowledge and skills in quality improvement in dementia care. Six mechanisms were identified: motivation, accountability, identity, collective learning, credibility and reflective practice. These mechanisms, in combination, operated to overcome constraints, role boundaries and pessimism about improved practice in dementia care.A quality improvement collaborative designed for clinicians in different contexts and roles was acceptable and feasible in building knowledge, skills and confidence of clinicians to improve dementia care. Supportive reflective practice and a credible, flexible and collaborative process optimised quality improvement knowledge and skills in clinicians working with people with dementia.

Indexed as

DementiaQuality ImprovementAgedDelivery of Health CareHumansMotivationSurveys and Questionnairesbreakthrough groupscollaborativedementiaevaluation methodologyhealthcare quality improvement

Identifiers

PMID33990392
PMCPMC8127967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.