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 World Health Organisation 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 program theory of a quality improvement collaborative. Data were collected pre-and post-intervention using surveys and interviews with participants (n=24). 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. Seven mechanisms were identified: motivation, accountability, identity, collective learning, credibility, and reflective practice. Each of these mechanisms operated differently according to context.
A quality improvement collaborative designed for clinicians in different contexts and roles was acceptable and feasible in building knowledge and skills of clinicians to improve dementia care. A supportive setting and a credible, flexible, and collaborative process optimises quality improvement knowledge and skills in clinicians working with people with dementia.
Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 21 February 2018 (ACTRN 12618000268246)
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; MCa has been paid to collect data in Alzheimer's disease drug trials by Janssen and Merck; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Clinical Trial
ACTRN 12618000268246
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partner-ship Centre on Dealing with Cognitive and Related Functional Decline in Older People (grant no. GNT9100000).
Ian Cameron is supported by an Australian Health and Medical Research Council Senior Practitioner Fellow-ship. Kate Laver is supported by an Australian Health and Medical Research Council Dementia Research Development Fellowship.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Com-mittee (HREC/17/SAC/88)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Consent for making individual data available was not sought. aggregated and de-identified data may be available on reasonable request.
