4.0 Article

Communities of practice for implementing methods to reduce involuntary care in intellectual disability care: Insights from tacit and experiential knowledge exchange

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2023.2275225

关键词

Implementation; tacit knowledge; intellectual disability; community of practice; involuntary care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents the insights gained from sharing tacit and experiential implementation knowledge in Communities of Practice (CoP) in improving the quality of care for clients with intellectual disabilities. The findings reveal the impact of implementing methods that reduce involuntary care on care professionals, management, and organisations, and emphasize the importance of collective learning in CoP.
BackgroundIntellectual disability organisations in the Netherlands are seeking to improve clients' quality of care by implementing methods that reduce involuntary care. This study described insights gained from sharing tacit and experiential implementation knowledge in Communities of Practice (CoP).MethodIn a participatory research, managers, policymakers, experts-by-experience, support staff, and researchers participated in two CoP. Transcripts of the first meetings, focusing on tacit implementation knowledge and experiences in intellectual disability care, were analysed qualitatively.ResultsSix themes and nine subthemes were found. One related to implementing methods in line with the Care and Coercion Act. Other themes were the quality of care dilemma, implementation determinants, organisational context, change in organisational culture, and implementation plans and strategies.DiscussionsFindings reveal insights regarding the impact of implementing methods that reduce involuntary care on care professionals, management, and organisations. Through thinking together, CoP participants collectively learned about implementing methods in intellectual disability care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据