Implementation of pain best practices as part of the spinal cord injury knowledge mobilization network

Savoie, JoAnne; McCullum, Shane; Wolfe, Dalton; Slayter, Jeremy; O’Connell, Colleen

doi:10.1080/10790268.2019.1654191

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most common frequent country that the studies were published in was Canada with 12 studies [ 7 , 16 , 19 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 54 , 56 ], followed closely by the USA with 10 studies [ 9 , 10 , 14 , 17 , 23 – 25 , 48 , 51 , 55 ], and the UK with 8 studies [ 8 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 18 , 22 , 31 , 37 ]. Other notable contributions came from Australia with 6 studies [ 26 , 29 , 33 , 34 , 44 , 50 ] and Spain with 4 studies [ 20 , 27 , 39 , 42 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This included disease related factors such as reducing central line infections [ 9 ], improving glucose control in critically ill patients [ 40 ], and increasing viral suppression rates in HIV [ 51 ]. This theme also included many aspects of improving clinical services and workflows such as improving rehabilitation for patients with AF [ 49 ], improve pain practices for spinal cord injury patients [ 43 ], and improve the falls prevention care for care-home residents [ 34 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The biggest barrier to engagement was time constraints, reported in nine of the studies. Lack of space to meet up [ 18 ], or to access the vCOP [ 42 ] was reported in two of the studies, and lack of funding [ 43 ] or resource constraints [ 12 ] as a barrier was reported in two studies. Difficulty accessing the COP platform via usual workstations [ 39 ] or operating systems [ 42 ] was listed as a barrier in two of the studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review

Noar,

Jeffery,

Subbiah Ponniah

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communities of practice (CoPs) are defined as "groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis". They are an effective form of knowledge management that have been successfully used in the business sector and increasingly so in healthcare. In May 2023 the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for primary research studies on CoPs published between 1st January 1950 and 31st December 2022. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The following search terms were used: community/communities of practice AND (healthcare OR medicine OR patient/s). The database search picked up 2009 studies for screening. Of these, 50 papers met the inclusion criteria. The most common aim of CoPs was to directly improve a clinical outcome, with 19 studies aiming to achieve this. In terms of outcomes, qualitative outcomes were the most common measure used in 21 studies. Only 11 of the studies with a quantitative element had the appropriate statistical methodology to report significance. Of the 9 studies that showed a statistically significant effect, 5 showed improvements in hospital-based provision of services such as discharge planning or rehabilitation services. 2 of the studies showed improvements in primary-care, such as management of hepatitis C, and 2 studies showed improvements in direct clinical outcomes, such as central line infections. CoPs in healthcare are aimed at improving clinical outcomes and have been shown to be effective. There is still progress to be made and a need for further studies with more rigorous methodologies, such as RCTs, to provide further support of the causality of CoPs on outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review

Noar,

Jeffery,

Subbiah Ponniah

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The implementation studies targeted a range of health professionals including physicians [ 41 ], surgeons [ 42 – 44 ], anaesthesiologists [ 43 , 44 ], medical staff [ 45 – 52 ], nurses [ 41 – 45 , 47 – 62 ], nurse assistants [ 47 , 48 , 57 , 61 ], dietitians [ 42 , 48 , 52 , 61 ], physical therapists [ 47 , 50 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 64 ], occupational therapists [ 50 , 59 , 61 ], psychologists [ 50 ], multidisciplinary teams [ 42 , 47 , 50 , 52 , 61 , 65 , 66 ], as well as support services team members including food service staff, [ 49 ] and biomedical and sterile processing technicians. [ 43 ] Studies targeting more than one professional group or multidisciplinary teams more often used a determinant framework or a combination of more than one framework (Supplemental Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective application of theoretical implementation frameworks to improve health care in hospitals — a systematic review

Barnden

Snowdon

Lannin

et al. 2023

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health Service implementation projects are often guided by theoretical implementation frameworks. Little is known about the effectiveness of these frameworks to facilitate change in processes of care and patient outcomes within the inpatient setting. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of theoretical implementation frameworks in inpatient healthcare settings to change processes of care and associated patient outcomes. Method We conducted a search in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EMCARE and Cochrane Library databases from 1st January 1995 to 15th June 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to potentially eligible studies. Eligible studies: implemented evidence-based care into an in-patient setting using a theoretical implementation framework applied prospectively; used a prospective study design; presented process of care or patient outcomes; and were published in English. We extracted theoretical implementation frameworks and study design against the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Checklist and implementation strategies mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. We summarised all interventions using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. We appraised study quality using the Item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for cluster randomised trials. We extracted process of care and patient outcomes and described descriptively. We conducted meta-analysis for process of care and patient outcomes with reference to framework category. Results Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one used a pre-post (no comparison), two a pre-post with a comparison, and two a cluster randomised trial design. Eleven theoretical implementation frameworks were prospectively applied: six process models; five determinant frameworks; and one classic theory. Four studies used two theoretical implementation frameworks. No authors reported their justification for selecting a particular framework and implementation strategies were generally poorly described. No consensus was reached for a preferred framework or subset of frameworks based on meta-analysis results. Conclusions Rather than the ongoing development of new implementation frameworks, a more consistent approach to framework selection and strengthening of existing approaches is recommended to further develop the implementation evidence base. Trial registration CRD42019119429.

show abstract

“…Prior experience from the Spinal Cord Injury Knowledge Mobilization Network (SCI KMN), which was active from 2011 to 2017 and consisted of 7 participating SCI/D rehabilitation sites across Canada, demonstrated that while a QIC can address quality gaps and build implementation science capacity in SCI/D rehabilitation, it did little to improve the speed of change, did not evaluate the sustainability of best practice implementation, and was vulnerable to funding discontinuation. 11–13 Consequently, an Ontario-specific QIC, the Spinal Cord Injury Implementation and Evaluation Quality Care Consortium (SCI IEQCC – https://SCIConsortium.ca ) was established in January 2019 to expand on the SCI KMN’s efforts to build networks and implementation science capacity and further implementation of best practices within SCI/D rehabilitation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving practice through collaboration: Early experiences from the multi-site Spinal Cord Injury Implementation and Evaluation Quality Care Consortium

Bateman

Sreenivasan

Farahani

et al. 2021

The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Dedicated implementation efforts are critical to bridging the gaps between current practices and best practices. A quality improvement collaborative (QIC), the Spinal Cord Injury Implementation and Evaluation Quality Care Consortium (SCI IEQCC), was established to meet this need, bringing together a network of clinicians and administrators to systematically improve the quality and equity of tertiary spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) rehabilitation care in Ontario, Canada. Methods Clinicians and leaders from five tertiary SCI/D rehabilitation centers and two not-for-profit SCI/D advocacy groups comprised a network dedicated to supporting implementation of the SCI-High quality indicators in prioritized domains of SCI rehabilitation and related best practices by: (1) building capacity through implementation science education of frontline clinicians; (2) providing resources and support to empower frontline clinicians to lead quality improvement efforts within their institutions; (3) promoting wider learning through a network for sharing ideas, efforts, and experiences; and (4) collecting indicator data to facilitate provincial evaluation of goal attainment. Results Network members and sites collaborated to implement best practices within six priority domains; in 18 months, significant progress has been made in emotional wellbeing, sexual health, walking, and wheeled mobility despite disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These efforts encompass heterogeneous challenges and strategies, ranging from developing clinical skills programs, to streamlining processes, to manipulating physical space. Conclusion A QIC targeting SCI/D rehabilitation demonstrates promise for advancing the implementation of best practices, building implementation science capacity across multiple sites, and for promoting collaboration amongst SCI/D rehabilitation centers and organizational partners.

show abstract

Implementation of pain best practices as part of the spinal cord injury knowledge mobilization network

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review

The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review

Prospective application of theoretical implementation frameworks to improve health care in hospitals — a systematic review

Improving practice through collaboration: Early experiences from the multi-site Spinal Cord Injury Implementation and Evaluation Quality Care Consortium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About