Melbourne School of Health Sciences Collected Works - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/58621

Filters

2023 2
2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Francis, Jillian × Author: Lim, Wen × End date: 2024 × Start date: 2020 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    IMpleMenting Effective infection prevention and control in ReSidential aged carE (IMMERSE): protocol for a multi-level mixed methods implementation study
    Tropea, J ; Peters, S ; Francis, JJ ; Bennett, N ; Fetherstonhaugh, D ; Buising, K ; Lim, L-L ; Marshall, C ; Flynn, M ; Murray, M ; Yates, P ; Aboltins, C ; Johnson, D ; Kwong, J ; Long, K ; McCahon, J ; Lim, WK (BMC, 2023-02-23)
    BACKGROUND: Older people living in residential aged care facilities are at high risk of acquiring infections such as influenza, gastroenteritis, and more recently COVID-19. These infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among this cohort. Quality infection prevention and control practice in residential aged care is therefore imperative. Although appointment of a dedicated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead in every Australian residential aged care facility is now mandated, all people working in this setting have a role to play in IPC. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed inadequacies in IPC in this sector and highlighted the need for interventions to improve implementation of best practice. METHODS: Using mixed methods, this four-phase implementation study will use theory-informed approaches to: (1) assess residential aged care facilities' readiness for IPC practice change, (2) explore current practice using scenario-based assessments, (3) investigate barriers to best practice IPC, and (4) determine and evaluate feasible and locally tailored solutions to overcome the identified barriers. IPC leads will be upskilled and supported to operationalise the selected solutions. Staff working in residential aged care facilities, residents and their families will be recruited for participation in surveys and semi-structured interviews. Data will be analysed and triangulated at each phase, with findings informing the subsequent phases. Stakeholder groups at each facility and the IMMERSE project's Reference Group will contribute to the interpretation of findings at each phase of the project. DISCUSSION: This multi-site study will comprehensively explore infection prevention and control practices in residential aged care. It will inform and support locally appropriate evidence-based strategies for enhancing infection prevention and control practice.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Communities of practice in residential aged care: A rapid review
    Read, M ; Peters, S ; Bennett, N ; Francis, JJ ; Fetherstonhaugh, D ; Lim, WK ; Tropea, J (WILEY, 2023-09)
    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.