Communities of practice in residential aged care: A rapid review

Sanne Peters · Noleen J. Bennett · Jill Francis · Deirdre Fetherstonhaugh · Wen Kwang Lim · Joanne Tropea

9 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Older People Nursing

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Innovative Education and Learning Practices Innovations in Medical Education Health Sciences Research and Education

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Situated Learning 1998Communities of Practice 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 2002Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge 2018The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers 2002Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge 2006Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels 2011Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review

Cited by

2024How do care workers learn to care for people with dementia living in care homes? A model of informal learning 2024Reflexive Views of Virtual Communities of Practice among Informal and Formal Caregivers of People with a Dementia Disease

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.