Objective: While Trauma-informed care (TIC) has the potential to improve the quality of aged and dementia care, the challenge remains in translating the principles of TIC into practice. This study aimed to characterise what trauma-informed aged care looks like in practice, by learning from an aged care service acknowledged as delivering trauma-informed aged care effectively. Method:We conducted an appreciative inquiry study within a residential aged care service catering for veterans and others with trauma histories. Observation of care behaviours, interviews with staff and residents, and organisational policy mapping were used to identify elements that maximised care safety and accessibility for trauma survivors. Data were analysed and triangulated using a framework analysis approach. Results:The aged care provider embedded the principles of TIC into its staff training (i) to promote understanding of how trauma may affect experiences in care, and (ii) to adapt care when appropriate to promote safety. The service promoted a calm atmosphere where residents could make choices and felt safe. Uniforms and signage provided consistency, clarity, and transparency for residents. Staff behaviours demonstrated respect, fostered trust, and anticipated needs without unnecessarily imposing care. Staff consistently offered choices, used residents' names, sought permission before providing care, and offered reassurance. Staff reported high morale with a commitment to delivering high quality care, and feedback to management. Effective communication promoted information sharing and trust among staff. Conclusion:Trauma-informed practice was facilitated through organisational policy, a dignified environment, and thoughtful staff behaviour creating safety, choice, and control for residents. K E Y W O R D Saged care, mental health, organisational change, psychological trauma, trauma-informed care Key points� Trauma-informed care (TIC) is poorly characterised in aged care and staff require guidance in how to amend everyday practice to meet the needs of trauma survivors.

Background: In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare. Methods: Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute 'three by three dominance matrix tool' to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases. Results: Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself. Conclusions: Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs.

Background Non-pharmacological interventions including physical activity programmes, occupational therapy and caregiver education programmes have been shown to lead to better outcomes for people with dementia and their care partners. Yet, there are gaps between what is recommended in guidelines and what happens in practice. The aim of this study was to bring together clinicians working in dementia care and establish a quality improvement collaborative. The aim of the quality improvement collaborative was to increase self-reported guideline adherence to three guideline recommendations. Methods Interrupted time series. We recruited health professionals from community, hospital and aged care settings across Australia to join the collaborative. Members of the collaborative participated in a start-up meeting, completed an online learning course with clinical and quality improvement content, formed a quality improvement plan which was reviewed by a team of experts, received feedback following an audit of their current practice and were able to share experiences with their peers. The primary outcome was self-reported adherence to their guideline recommendation of interest which was measured using checklists. Data were collected monthly over a period of 18 months, and the study used an interrupted time series design and multilevel Poisson regression analysis to evaluate changes in self-reported adherence. Results A total of 45 health professionals (78% therapists) from different sites joined the collaborative and 28 completed all requirements. Data from 1717 checklists were included in the analyses. Over the duration of the project, there was a significant increase in clinician self-reported adherence to guideline recommendations with a 42.1% immediate increase in adherence (incidence rate ratio = 1.42; 95% confidence interval = 1.08–1.87; p = 0.012). Conclusion Health professionals working with people with dementia are interested in and willing to join a quality improvement collaborative with the goal of improving non-pharmacological aspects of care. Participation in the collaborative improved the quality of care for people with dementia as measured through self-reported adherence to guideline recommendations. Although there are challenges in implementation of guideline recommendations within dementia care, the quality improvement collaborative method was considered successful. A strength was that it equipped and empowered clinicians to lead improvement activities and allowed for heterogeneity in terms of service and setting. Trial registration ACTRN12618000268246