Lauren S Penney1,2,3, Barbara J Homoya4,5, Teresa M Damush4,5,6,7, Nicholas A Rattray4,5,6,7,8, Edward J Miech4,5,6,7, Laura J Myers4,5, Sean Baird4,5, Ariel Cheatham4,5, Dawn M Bravata4,5,6,7,9. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D), Precision Monitoring to Transform Care (PRISM) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Indianapolis, IN, USA. Penney@uthscsa.edu. 2. VA HSR&D Elizabeth Dole Center of Excellence for Veteran and Caregiver Research, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA. Penney@uthscsa.edu. 3. School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. Penney@uthscsa.edu. 4. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D), Precision Monitoring to Transform Care (PRISM) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication (CHIC), Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 6. Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 8. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 9. Department of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Community of Practice (CoP) model represents one approach to address knowledge management to support effective implementation of best practices. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify CoP developmental strategies within the context of a national quality improvement project focused on improving the quality for patients receiving acute transient ischemic attack (TIA) care. DESIGN: Stepped wedge trial. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary staff at six Veterans Affairs medical facilities. INTERVENTIONS: To encourage site implementation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention, the trial included strategies to improve the development of a CoP: site kickoff meetings, CoP conference calls, and an interactive website (the "Hub"). APPROACH: Mixed-methods evaluation included data collected through a CoP attendance log; semi-structured interviews with site participants at 6 months (n = 32) and 12 months (n = 30), and CoP call facilitators (n = 2); and 22 CoP call debriefings. KEY RESULTS: The critical seeding structures that supported the cultivation of the CoP were the kickoffs which fostered relationships (key to the community element of CoPs) and provided the evidence base relevant to TIA care (key to the domain element of CoPs). The Hub provided the forum for sharing quality improvement plans and other tools which were further highlighted during the CoP calls (key to the practice element of CoPs). CoP calls were curated to create a positive context around participants' work by recognizing team successes. In addition to improving care at their local facilities, the community created a shared set of tools which built on their collective knowledge and could be shared within and outside the group. CONCLUSIONS: The PREVENT CoP advanced the mission of the learning healthcare system by successfully providing a forum for shared learning. The CoP was grown through seeding structures that included kickoffs, CoP calls, and the Hub. A CoP expands upon the learning collaborative implementation strategy as an effective implementation practice.
BACKGROUND: The Community of Practice (CoP) model represents one approach to address knowledge management to support effective implementation of best practices. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify CoP developmental strategies within the context of a national quality improvement project focused on improving the quality for patients receiving acute transient ischemic attack (TIA) care. DESIGN: Stepped wedge trial. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary staff at six Veterans Affairs medical facilities. INTERVENTIONS: To encourage site implementation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention, the trial included strategies to improve the development of a CoP: site kickoff meetings, CoP conference calls, and an interactive website (the "Hub"). APPROACH: Mixed-methods evaluation included data collected through a CoP attendance log; semi-structured interviews with site participants at 6 months (n = 32) and 12 months (n = 30), and CoP call facilitators (n = 2); and 22 CoP call debriefings. KEY RESULTS: The critical seeding structures that supported the cultivation of the CoP were the kickoffs which fostered relationships (key to the community element of CoPs) and provided the evidence base relevant to TIA care (key to the domain element of CoPs). The Hub provided the forum for sharing quality improvement plans and other tools which were further highlighted during the CoP calls (key to the practice element of CoPs). CoP calls were curated to create a positive context around participants' work by recognizing team successes. In addition to improving care at their local facilities, the community created a shared set of tools which built on their collective knowledge and could be shared within and outside the group. CONCLUSIONS: The PREVENT CoP advanced the mission of the learning healthcare system by successfully providing a forum for shared learning. The CoP was grown through seeding structures that included kickoffs, CoP calls, and the Hub. A CoP expands upon the learning collaborative implementation strategy as an effective implementation practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Veterans Health Administration; cerebrovascular disease; community of practice; implementation science; learning healthcare system; situated learning
Authors: Stacie C Bennett; Neil Finer; Louis P Halamek; Nick Mickas; Mihoko V Bennett; Courtney C Nisbet; Paul J Sharek Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2016-08
Authors: R Neal Axon; Laura Cole; Aunyika Moonan; Richard Foster; Patrick Cawley; Laura Long; Christine B Turley Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: George L Jackson; Adam A Powell; Diana L Ordin; James E Schlosser; Jeffery Murawsky; Janis Hersh; George Ponte; Leah L Zullig; Fabiane Erb; Renee Parlier; David A Haggstrom; Nancy Koets; Peter D Mills; Joseph Francis; Michael J Kelley; Michael L Davies; Dawn Provenzale Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Charles Friedman; Joshua Rubin; Jeffrey Brown; Melinda Buntin; Milton Corn; Lynn Etheredge; Carl Gunter; Mark Musen; Richard Platt; William Stead; Kevin Sullivan; Douglas Van Houweling Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: D M Bravata; L J Myers; B Homoya; E J Miech; N A Rattray; A J Perkins; Y Zhang; J Ferguson; J Myers; A J Cheatham; L Murphy; B Giacherio; M Kumar; E Cheng; D A Levine; J J Sico; M J Ward; T M Damush Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Susan A Flocke; Deirdre Shires; Karen E Dyer; Michelle Schreiber; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Linda C Li; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Camilla Nielsen; Maria Judd; Peter C Coyte; Ian D Graham Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-05-17 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Teresa M Damush; Lauren S Penney; Edward J Miech; Nicholas A Rattray; Sean A Baird; Ariel J Cheatham; Charles Austin; Ali Sexson; Laura J Myers; Dawn M Bravata Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Dawn M Bravata; Edward J Miech; Laura J Myers; Anthony J Perkins; Ying Zhang; Nicholas A Rattray; Sean A Baird; Lauren S Penney; Curt Austin; Teresa M Damush Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Shari S Rogal; Vera Yakovchenko; Rachel Gonzalez; Angela Park; Lauren A Beste; Karine Rozenberg-Ben-Dror; Jasmohan S Bajaj; Dawn Scott; Heather McCurdy; Emily Comstock; Michael Sidorovic; Sandra Gibson; Carolyn Lamorte; Anna Nobbe; Maggie Chartier; David Ross; Jason A Dominitz; Timothy R Morgan Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 6.639