3 research outputs found

    Communities of practice in residential aged care: A rapid review

    No full text
    Background: Communities 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. Objectives: This 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. Methods: MEDLINE 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. Results: Nineteen 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. Conclusions: This 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.</p

    Assessing infection prevention and control programs in residential aged care in Australia: A multi‐methods cross‐sectional study

    No full text
    Aim: To assess infection prevention and control programs in residential aged care facilities. Methods: A cross-sectional survey and structured interviews from 10 residential aged care facilities in Victoria, Australia, were used. Infection prevention and control nurse leads from each facility completed a purpose-built survey based on best practice infection prevention control program core components, including staff training, policies and procedures, governance, and surveillance. Follow-up interviews with residential aged care staff, residents and family visitors were carried out to elaborate and verify survey data. Results: Surveys from all 10 facilities were received and 75 interviews carried out. All facilities had an infection prevention and control lead nurse who had undergone additional training, and 60% of facilities had an infection prevention and control lead position description. All facilities had a committee to oversee their infection prevention and control program, and all had policies and procedures for standard and transmission-based precautions. One facility did not have a policy on healthcare-associated infection surveillance, and two facilities did not have an antimicrobial stewardship policy. All facilities provided staff training in hand hygiene and personal protective equipment use, but not all routinely assessed competency in these. Conclusions: The residential aged care facilities' infection prevention and control programs were generally in a strong position, although there were some areas that require improvement. Further assessment of the quality of infection prevention and control program components, such as content of education and training, and policies and procedures, and ongoing evaluation of programs is recommended. </p
    corecore