https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2180-9792
Figures
Abstract
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.
Citation: Noar AP, Jeffery HE, Subbiah Ponniah H, Jaffer U (2023) The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 18(10): e0292343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292343
Editor: Tadashi Ito, Aichi Prefectural Mikawa Aoitori Medical and Rehabilitation Center for Developmental Disabilities, JAPAN
Received: June 7, 2023; Accepted: September 18, 2023; Published: October 10, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Noar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: Usman Jaffer is co-founder and CEO of health-shared.com an online platform that hosts communities of practice. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
Medical knowledge is estimated to double every 73 days [1], leaving both physicians and patients with a seemingly insurmountable amount of information to stay on top of. This essentially means those involved in healthcare have to become skilled at knowledge management, defined as ‘the collection of methods related to creating, sharing, using, and managing the knowledge and information of an organisation’ [2].
One knowledge management strategy that has received significant attention is the theory of communities of practice (CoPs). 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" [3]. CoPs have a domain of interest, a community of individuals who all share that interest, and a practice consisting of the shared knowledge and skills built up by the community.
Initially described in the business sector, they have been particularly effective as a mechanism for the sharing of tacit knowledge [4]. First described by Polanyi, the Hungarian-British philosopher in 1966 [5], tacit knowledge, in comparison to explicit knowledge, is very difficult to directly codify and share in guidelines. It is best communicated through direct observation and imitation as well as through conversations, stories, and metaphors. The medical profession is a clear example of one where tacit knowledge is constantly used, exemplified by the ‘mindlines’ (rather than guidelines) that practitioners tend to follow [6].
There has been an evolution of the concept, when initially described by Wenger and Lave, they were highly location specific, to a certain office or workspace, where individuals working together would interact, bouncing ideas off each other and helping newer members become fully integrated into the working environment. Over time, the description altered to include those who were not working together in the same physical place, but still shared the same domain of interest and were working on the same set of problems. This opened up the opportunity for virtual CoPs (vCoPs) to be included in the definition, where communities from all over the world interact digitally, producing the same tacit sharing effects as those working in the same physical space.
This review looks to elucidate the aims and effectiveness of CoPs in healthcare as well as communication methods used in these CoPs. We will also show what barriers and facilitators CoPs find when they are implemented in healthcare settings.
Material and methods
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 search was limited to research on human subjects and papers published in the English language. There was no restriction on geographical location.
This review was limited to original research with a focus on CoPs in the healthcare sector. Only papers published in peer- reviewed journals were included. Exclusion criteria were as follows:
- Studies reporting on CoPs in sectors other than healthcare.
- Studies reporting on medical education.
- Studies reporting on multiple interventions
- Case studies.
- Records with no abstracts.
- Study protocols
- Review articles
- News-style or opinion articles, theses and dissertations, and abstracts of conference proceedings without full peer-reviewed papers.
The search was completed using Ovid, and the reference list was uploaded to Covidence. Two authors (APN and HSP) independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, checking against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant papers were marked for retrieval of full text and detailed review. When decisions differed, a final decision was made after discussion between the two reviewers. One author (APN) reviewed and extracted using a standardised template. Reference lists of included studies were also screened. When relevance of the paper was uncertain, or the findings were difficult to extract, APN discussed the paper with UJ. PRISMA flow diagram can be seen in Fig 1.
The following data were extracted: study details (author name, year of publication, country, sample size, study design, study type, data collection method, data analysis method, outcomes measured, barriers/facilitators, and limitations) and description of the CoP (including population, why it was established, how it was established, method of communication, and content shared).
Bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Microsoft Excel was used to build tables of the studies included in this review. This review was not registered and a protocol was not prepared. Template data collection forms and data extracted from included studies is available upon request.
Results
Results
The database search picked up 2009 studies for screening, of which 94 studies were eligible for full-text review. Of these 50 papers met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The most frequent reason for exclusion at this stage was that the study included multiple interventions of which only one was a CoP. Total participants in CoPs across the studies were 12,400, with an average of 282 participants per study (6 studies did not report participant number).
Country and year of publication
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]. All other countries had 2 or less studies. As for year of publication, there was an overall trend of an increasing number of publications in more recent years. 2021 and 2015 had the largest number of studies with 7. 2019, 2018, 2016, and 2014 all have 4 studies. Only 2013, 2005, and 2007 had no studies published in those years.
The aims of the CoPs
There were a number of themes that emerged from the aims of the CoPs examined in this study (Table 1). The most common by far was to directly improve a clinical outcome, with 19 studies aiming to achieve this. 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].
Developing skills was also a common reason for setting up a CoP with 8 studies in this theme. This included building research skills [29, 32] and developing self-care techniques [48]. There were also 7 studies whose aim was to share best-practice. This included the direct sharing of evidence-based practice [12, 50] as well as trying to decrease variation in practice over geographically spread out areas by providing clinicians in the same speciality a means of communication [11, 41, 44].
Sharing specialist knowledge was the aim of 6 studies. Of these, 4 were aimed at connecting primary care physicians with hospital-based specialists [14, 27, 39, 45] for example providing rural primary care physicians the knowledge to manage patients with chronic hepatitis C infection [14]. Another 3 studies brought clinicians together with researchers with the aim to stimulate research ideas and activity [8, 36, 46].
Other notable CoPs were set up with the specific aim to complete a specific task, such as develop a set of standards for genetic counselling in Europe [15], or to co-design a smartphone application with patients for schizophrenia care [33].
Effectiveness of the CoPs
The effectiveness of the CoPs was measured in a variety of ways (Table 1). 30 studies were qualitative research, 20 studies used a non-randomised experimental design, and 1 study was a randomised controlled trial [25]. In terms of outcomes, qualitative outcomes were the most common measure used in 21 studies, a mix of both qualitative and quantitative outcomes were used in 20 studies, and solely quantitative outcomes were used in 9 studies. Only 11 of the studies with a quantitative element had the appropriate statistical methodology to report significance. All except 1 study [40] reported a positive significant effect when implementing a CoP. Outcomes varied across geographical location with North American countries such as Canada (91.7%) and USA (80%) having a higher percentage of studies with a quantitative element to their outcomes, in comparison to the UK (12.5%) or Australia (50%).
Of the 9 studies that showed a statistically significant effect, 5 showed improvements in hospital-based provision of services [12, 25, 35, 47, 49, 55]. These studies included implementing patient orientated discharge summaries leading to an 7% increase (p = 0.026) of family involvement during discharge [47], as well as another study improving rehabilitation services for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) which demonstrated an increase in patients’ knowledge about AF (p = 0.02) [49]. 2 of the studies showed improvements in primary-care. Arora et al. showed how bringing primary care providers together with hospital specialists improved primary care knowledge about the management of hepatitis C infection (p<0.0001). Diaz-Chao et al. showed how bringing primary care physicians together with specialists led to fewer hospital referrals (p<0.05). Finally, 2 studies showed improvements in direct clinical outcomes. One study showed a reduction in central line infections by 50% (p<0.05) (9) and another showed an increase in HIV viral suppression rates from 79.2% to 82.3% (p<0.05) [51].
Communication
Table 2 describes the methods of communication utilised by each of the communities of practice described in the 50 studies included in this review. Of the communities of practice 23 communicated virtually, 12 communicated face-to-face, and 13 used both face to face and virtual methods of communication. In two of the studies [26, 41], it is unclear whether the communication was virtual, face-to-face or both. 23 of the communities of practice held meetings for the members, 10 utilised workshops, 8 described seminars, and 1 described tutorials [42]. 25 studies communicated using web-based systems and blogs and 10 communicated via email. 18 of the studies described other methods of communication, which included video consultation [49], telephone-based catch-ups [14, 18] and case based presentations/discussions [14, 19, 23, 51]. The average year for face-to-face only communication was 2014.25 (SD 4.94) and 2015.78 (SD 5.56) for virtual only communication, which was not significantly different (p = 0.43).
Barriers and facilitators
Barriers to engagement were reported in 15 of the studies; examples are given in Table 3. 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. A lack of understanding of the concept of the COP was reported as a barrier in one study [10]; two studies cited fear of judgement as barriers to engagement [11, 53]. One study noted that those who were encouraged to join the COP by peers had lower engagement than those who self-selected [29], whilst another found that lack of participation by peripheral members caused frustration among core members [21].
Facilitators were reported in 24 of the studies; examples are given in Table 4. The most commonly highlighted facilitators were involvement of key members of the team. Primarily these were clinical, with studies citing strong clinical leadership [26, 39], support from health [16] or hospital [9] leadership, clinical champions [11, 24], experts [34, 38], and involving PCPs in the early stages of development [45]. Non-clinical roles were also highlighted, with two of the studies listed having a group facilitator important for engagement [21, 42], and one highlighting the importance of funding for an administrative coordinator [36]. One study found that a mentoring scheme helped to distribute expertise [36], whilst another found the opportunity for new members to learn through passive participation to be a facilitator [8]. Regular face to face meetings were listed by three of the studies as facilitators [36, 38, 49], with one study noting that using face-to-face and virtual activities supported different learning styles [35]. Use of social networks and ICT technologies in professional practice were found to be facilitators in one of the studies [36]. Alignment with existing practices, in particular with quality improvement methodology, was noted to be a facilitator in two of the studies [24, 29].
Discussion
This systematic review has elucidated the aims and effectiveness of CoPs established in a healthcare setting. As described above, there were a variety of aims for the CoPs, with the majority relating to improving clinical outcomes and knowledge. Although encouraging to see the focus of these CoPs on clinically relevant issues, there were only 3 studies [9, 40, 51] where the outcome measurement was a patient related clinical outcome with the suitable statistical methodology to determine a significant effect.
Furthermore, only 1 study [25] had a randomised control trial (RCT) design and therefore the ability to establish causality. In this study, 122 veterans affairs (VA) hospitals were randomised to have enrolment into a new initiative facilitated either by a CoP or through usual means—the standard national announcements that all hospitals receive for new initiatives. The initiative was the national hospital to home (H2H) project, and uptake to the programme was the primary outcome measure. H2H aimed to help inpatients with heart disease transition back to their place of residence through measures such as early follow up and patient education to recognise early signs of deterioration. The CoP was an already existing entity that had been set up previously to connect VA hospitals to improve the quality of care for patients with heart disease. The primary means of communication of the CoP was via email and they also had bimonthly teleconferences. 54% of the hospitals randomised to CoP facilitated arm enrolled in the H2H initiative whereas only 10% of those not facilitated by the CoP enrolled (p < 0.001). This is clear evidence of the effectiveness of utilising CoPs, albeit indirectly, for changing clinical practice. However, the ultimate goal of the H2H was to reduce 30-day readmission rates by 20%, and this study did not measure and compare this, which would have provided a more clinically meaningful endpoint.
Although not formally described as CoPs, and therefore were not picked up in the systematic search of this review, there are other RCTs published in the literature that provide support for the effectiveness of CoPs directly on clinical outcomes. Described as peer-mentoring schemes or online communities, lifestyle interventions that bring patients together who share the same set of problems, such as poor glucose control or low activity levels, have been highly effective at motivating patients to alter their behaviour [57, 58]. Richardson et al. conducted an RCT that provided the intervention arm with means of communication with their fellow patients during an online intervention to increase physical activity. Those able to communicate with their fellow participants, through posting and reading messages on a web-based blog, had a significantly reduced attrition rate than those who had no means of communication (79% v 56%, p = 0.02).
As the most common outcome of the CoPs was a change in practice, it is clear that as well as being a knowledge management strategy, CoPs are also behaviour change interventions. The capability, opportunity, and motivation model of behaviour change (COM-B) is a systematic way of framing the different facets required for an individual to change their behaviour [59]. Capability is defined as the psychological and physical requirements to perform the task. Opportunity represents the physical and social factors outside of the individual that make the behaviour possible, and motivation is defined as both the reflective and automatic brain activity that energises and directs behaviour. Through the community and shared problem solving that CoPs offer, it is clear that they provide individuals with the psychological capability, social opportunity, and motivation they need for behaviour change through the learning resources and peer support available.
The main barrier to engagement was time constraints, which are to be expected in an overwhelmed healthcare environment that is busier than ever [60]. Funding constraints were also noted, which once again is not a surprise as healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest in a decade [61]. It is, however, encouraging to see that there were no barriers relating to a lack of digital skills, despite many individuals known to struggle [62]. With the digital revolution taking place in healthcare, strong digital skills in the workforce will be necessary to control spiralling costs. Such skills will be necessary for vCoPs to be taken up in a meaningful way across the healthcare ecosystem.
The main facilitator for engagement was strong leadership, including support from institutional leaders, which represents an alteration from the original vision for CoPs as self-organising entities with a lack of centralised leadership. This shows the specific healthcare related factors that many interventions face in the highly regulated and controlled environment. Future CoP endeavours should bear this in mind and make sure support and buy in is gained from the relevant clinical and administrative leaders. This will also help alleviate the main barrier to engagement by providing support or even specific protected time for the CoP.
CoPs differ from other knowledge management strategies such as work groups or knowledge networks. In work groups goals are pre-determined by a manager and members are usually assigned or selected by a leader. CoPs on the other hand goals are negotiated by members and membership is self-selecting, by identifying with the domain of knowledge of the CoP. Knowledge networks are at the other end of the spectrum to work groups and are an informal set of relationships which are primarily concerned with passing on knowledge, rather than the full range of knowledge management. In comparison, CoPs have a shared mission and desire in its members to work together to deepen their knowledge. CoPs also focus on the creation, storage, and utilisation of knowledge.
This review had a number of limitations. Only studies that directly had mention of a community of practice in the title, abstract, or full text were included. This meant that the diverse array of names used to refer to the concept of CoPs, such as situated learning, learning network, or even just community, were not included potentially excluding valuable studies. However, these phrases are used too ubiquitously in the field of healthcare, and as such, so broad a search was not feasible and so the search was focussed solely on the term community/ies of practice. Studies regarding medical education were also excluded, as has similarly been done in previous reviews [63], as these participants wouldn’t necessarily be involved in providing healthcare directly. However, these studies may still have provided insights into the barriers and facilitators of engagement with healthcare themed CoPs. This review also did not employ a snowballing technique to examine the full list of references in each included study to broaden the search methodology. It was also not technically possible to carry out a logistic regression looking for the factors that were associated with effective CoPs as only 1 study reported a negative result.
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. As healthcare systems continue through their digital transformation journeys and healthcare workers have to manage an ever-mounting amount of knowledge, vCoPs in particular offer a method for improving outcomes and sharing vital information across an ever more complex healthcare landscape.
References
- 1. Densen P. Challenges and opportunities facing medical education. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association. 2011;122:48. pmid:21686208
- 2. Girard J, Girard J. Defining knowledge management: Toward an applied compendium. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management. 2015 Jan;3(1):1–20.
- 3.
Wenger E., McDermott R. A., & Snyder W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard business press.
- 4. Lesser EL, Storck J. Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM systems journal. 2001;40(4):831–41.
- 5. Polanyi M. The Tacit dimension, knowledge in organizations. Prusak L., Ed. 1966:135–46.
- 6. Gabbay J, le May A. Mindlines: making sense of evidence in practice. British Journal of General Practice. 2016 Aug 1;66(649):402–3. pmid:27481961
- 7. Gagliardi A, Smith A, Goel V, DePetrillo D. Feasibility study of multidisciplinary oncology rounds by videoconference for surgeons in remote locales. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2003 Dec;3:1–7.
- 8. Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Boynton P, Rigby M. Soft networks for bridging the gap between research and practice: illuminative evaluation of CHAIN. Bmj. 2004 May 13;328(7449):1174. pmid:15142924
- 9. Render ML, Brungs S, Kotagal U, Nicholson M, Burns P, Ellis D et al. Evidence-based practice to reduce central line infections. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2006 May 1;32(5):253–60. pmid:16761789
- 10. White D, Suter E, Parboosingh IJ, Taylor E. Communities of practice: Creating opportunities to enhance quality of care and safe practices. Healthcare Quarterly. 2008 Mar 15;11(3):80–4. pmid:18382166
- 11. Falkman G, Gustafsson M, Jontell M, Torgersson O. SOMWeb: a semantic web-based system for supporting collaboration of distributed medical communities of practice. Journal of medical Internet research. 2008 Aug 26;10(3):e1059. pmid:18725355
- 12. Tolson D, Booth J, Lowndes A. Achieving evidence‐based nursing practice: impact of the Caledonian Development Model. Journal of nursing management. 2008 Sep;16(6):682–91. pmid:18808462
- 13. Griffiths P. A community of practice: the nurses’ role on a medical assessment unit. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2011 Jan;20(1‐2):247–54. pmid:20626529
- 14. Arora S, Kalishman S, Thornton K, Dion D, Murata G, Deming P et al. Expanding access to hepatitis C virus treatment—Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) project: disruptive innovation in specialty care. Hepatology. 2010 Sep;52(3):1124–33. pmid:20607688
- 15. Skirton H, Patch C, Voelckel MA. Using a community of practice to develop standards of practice and education for genetic counsellors in Europe. Journal of Community Genetics. 2010 Dec;1:169–73. pmid:22460299
- 16. Burgess J, Sawchenko L. Community of practice: a nurse practitioner collaborative model. Nursing Leadership (Toronto, Ont.). 2011 Jun 1;24(2):99–112. pmid:21730772
- 17. Massett HA, Parreco LK, Padberg RM, Richmond ES, Rienzo ME, Leonard CE et al. AccrualNet: Addressing low accrual via a knowledge-based, community of practice platform. Journal of oncology practice. 2011 Nov;7(6):e32–9. pmid:22379429
- 18. Adams M, Robert G, Maben J. ‘Catching up’: The significance of occupational communities for the delivery of high quality home care by community nurses. Health:. 2013 Jul;17(4):422–38. pmid:23079580
- 19. Fung-Kee-Fung M, Boushey RP, Watters J, Morash R, Smylie J, Morash C et al. Piloting a regional collaborative in cancer surgery using a “community of practice” model. Current oncology. 2014 Feb;21(1):27–34. pmid:24523602
- 20. Díaz-Chao Á, Torrent-Sellens J, Lacasta-Tintorer D, Saigí-Rubió F. Improving integrated care: modelling the performance of an online community of practice. International journal of integrated care. 2014 Jan;14. pmid:24648835
- 21. Bindels J, Cox K, Widdershoven G, van Schayck CP, Abma TA. Stimulating program implementation via a Community of Practice: a responsive evaluation of care programs for frail older people in the Netherlands. Evaluation and Program planning. 2014 Oct 1;46:115–21. pmid:24974372
- 22. Carolan I, Smith T, Hall A, Swallow VM. Emerging communities of child-healthcare practice in the management of long-term conditions such as chronic kidney disease: qualitative study of parents’ accounts. BMC Health Services Research. 2014 Dec;14:1–9.
- 23. Meins AR, Doorenbos AZ, Eaton L, Gordon D, Theodore B, Tauben D. TelePain: A community of practice for pain management. Journal of pain & relief. 2015 Mar 3;4(2). pmid:25964869
- 24. Shaikh U, Romano P, Paterniti DA. Organizing for quality improvement in health care: an example from childhood obesity prevention. Quality management in health care. 2015 Jul 1;24(3):121–8. pmid:26115059
- 25. Heidenreich PA, Sahay A, Mittman BS, Oliva N, Gholami P, Rumsfeld JS et al. Facilitation of a multihospital community of practice to increase enrollment in the hospital to home national quality improvement initiative. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2015 Aug 1;41(8):361–9. pmid:26215525
- 26. Jefford M, Kinnane N, Howell P, Nolte L, Galetakis S, Bruce Mann G et al. Implementing novel models of posttreatment care for cancer survivors: enablers, challenges and recommendations. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015 Dec;11(4):319–27. pmid:26245952
- 27. Lacasta Tintorer D, Flayeh Beneyto S, Manresa JM, Torán-Monserrat P, Jiménez-Zarco A, Torrent-Sellens J et al. Understanding the discriminant factors that influence the adoption and use of clinical communities of practice: the ECOPIH case. BMC Health Services Research. 2015 Jun;15(1):1–0. pmid:26358037
- 28. Dong C, Cheema M, Samarasekera D, Rajaratnam V. Using LinkedIn for continuing community of practice among hand surgeons worldwide. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2015 Jul;35(3):185–91. pmid:26378424
- 29. Gullick JG, West SH. Building research capacity and productivity among advanced practice nurses: an evaluation of the Community of Practice model. Journal of advanced nursing. 2016 Mar;72(3):605–19. pmid:26537181
- 30. McCreesh K, Larkin L, Lewis J. Shouldering the burden of evidence-based practice: the experiences of physiotherapists partaking in a Community of Practice. Rehabilitation Research and Practice. 2016 Jan 24;2016.
- 31. Wallis SK, Jehan K, Woodhead M, Cleary P, Dee K, Farrow S et al. Health professionals’ experiences of tuberculosis cohort audit in the North West of England: a qualitative study. BMJ open. 2016 Mar 1;6(3):e010536. pmid:26983949
- 32. Becerril-Montekio V, Alcalde-Rabanal J, Darney BG, Orozco-Nuñez E. Using systematized tacit knowledge to prioritize implementation challenges in existing maternal health programs: implications for the post MDG era. Health policy and planning. 2016 Oct 1;31(8):1031–8. pmid:27060787
- 33. Terp M, Laursen BS, Jørgensen R, Mainz J, Bjørnes CD. A room for design: Through participatory design young adults with schizophrenia become strong collaborators. International journal of mental health nursing. 2016 Dec;25(6):496–506. pmid:27293176
- 34. Francis-Coad J, Etherton-Beer C, Bulsara C, Nobre D, Hill AM. Using a community of practice to evaluate falls prevention activity in a residential aged care organisation: a clinical audit. Australian health review. 2016 Mar 17;41(1):13–8.
- 35. Camden C, Rivard LM, Hurtubise K, Héguy L, Berbari J. Can a community of practice improve physical therapists’ self-perceived practice in developmental coordination disorder?. Physical Therapy. 2017 Jul 1;97(7):746–55. pmid:28444245
- 36. Cheng A, Auerbach M, Calhoun A, Mackinnon R, Chang TP, Nadkarni V et al. Building a community of practice for researchers: the international network for simulation-based pediatric innovation, research and education. Simulation in Healthcare. 2018 Jun 1;13(3S):S28–34.
- 37. Wieringa S, Engebretsen E, Heggen K, Greenhalgh T. How knowledge is constructed and exchanged in virtual communities of physicians: qualitative study of mindlines online. Journal of medical Internet research. 2018 Feb 2;20(2):e34. pmid:29396385
- 38. Fingrut W, Beck LA, Lo D. Building an oncology community of practice to improve cancer care. Current Oncology. 2018 Dec;25(6):371–7. pmid:30607111
- 39. Lacasta Tintorer D, Manresa Domínguez JM, Pujol-Rivera E, Flayeh Beneyto S, Mundet Tuduri X, Saigí-Rubió F. Keys to success of a community of clinical practice in primary care: a qualitative evaluation of the ECOPIH project. BMC family practice. 2018 Dec;19:1–3.
- 40. Dodek P, McKeown S, Young E, Dhingra V. Development of a provincial initiative to improve glucose control in critically ill patients. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2019 Feb 1;31(1):49–56. pmid:29757412
- 41. Glicksman R, Ang M, Murray E, Simniceanu C, Lockhart E, Gilbert J et al. Improving quality of radiation therapy care across Ontario using a community-of-practice approach. Practical radiation oncology. 2019 Mar 1;9(2):e242–8. pmid:30447404
- 42. Bermejo-Caja CJ, Koatz D, Orrego C, Perestelo-Pérez L, González-González AI, Ballester M et al. Acceptability and feasibility of a virtual community of practice to primary care professionals regarding patient empowerment: a qualitative pilot study. BMC Health Services Research. 2019 Dec;19(1):1–0.
- 43. Savoie J, McCullum S, Wolfe DL, Slayter J, O’Connell C. Implementation of pain best practices as part of the spinal cord injury knowledge mobilization network. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine. 2019 Sep 30;42(sup1):226–32. pmid:31573455
- 44. Rolls KD, Hansen MM, Jackson D, Elliott D. Intensive care nurses on social media: An exploration of knowledge exchange on an intensive care virtual community of practice. Journal of clinical nursing. 2020 Apr;29(7–8):1381–97. pmid:31856353
- 45. Pariser P, Gush H, Ivers N, Pomedli S. Building a Primary Care Community of Practice: SCOPE as a Platform for Care Integration and System Transformation. Healthcare Quarterly (Toronto, Ont.). 2020 Jul 1;23(2):44–9. pmid:32762820
- 46. McCurtin A O’Connor A. Building a collaborative research community of practice and supporting research engagement in speech-language pathology: identification of stakeholder priorities. JBI Evidence Implementation. 2020 Dec 1;18(4):368–75. pmid:33570320
- 47. Hahn-Goldberg S, Huynh T, Chaput A, Krahn M, Rac V, Tomlinson G et al. Implementation, spread and impact of the Patient Oriented Discharge Summary (PODS) across Ontario hospitals: a mixed methods evaluation. BMC Health Services Research. 2021 Dec;21(1):1–4.
- 48. Katzman JG, Tomedi LE, Everly G, Greenwood-Ericksen M, Romero E, Rosenbaum N et al. First responder resiliency echo: innovative telementoring during the covid-19 pandemic. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021 May 4;18(9):4900. pmid:34064501
- 49. Dinesen B, Dam Gade J, Skov Schacksen C, Spindler H, Eie Albertsen A, Dittmann L et al. The Danish Future Patient Telerehabilitation Program for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Design and Pilot Study in Collaboration With Patients and Their Spouses. JMIR cardio. 2021 Jul 19;5(2):e27321. pmid:34279239
- 50. Keir A, Bamat N, Hennebry B, King B, Patel R, Wright C et al. Building a community of practice through social media using the hashtag# neoEBM. Plos one. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0252472. pmid:34048469
- 51. Steinbock CM, Chung R, Lee JE, Leung SY, Kolesar C, Tesoriero J. Reducing Disparities: A Virtual Quality Improvement Collaborative Resulted in Better Health Outcomes for 4 Target Populations Disproportionately Affected by HIV. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2022 Mar 1;28(2):162–9. pmid:33938485
- 52. Gerritsen S, Van Melle AL, Zomer LJ, Widdershoven GA, Voskes Y. Communities of Practice in Acute and Forensic Psychiatry: Lessons Learned and Perceived Effects. Psychiatric Quarterly. 2021 Dec;92(4):1581–94. pmid:34109492
- 53. Montali L, Zulato E, Frigerio A, Frangi E, Camussi E. Mirroring, monitoring, modelling, belonging, and distancing: Psychosocial processes in an online support group of breast cancer patients. Journal of Community Psychology. 2022 Mar;50(2):992–1007. pmid:34428308
- 54. Dames S, Kryskow P, Watler C. A cohort-based case report: The impact of ketamine-assisted therapy embedded in a community of practice framework for healthcare providers with PTSD and depression. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2022:2391.
- 55. Rushanan SG, Nilsen DM, Grajo L, Caroll K. Assessing and Building Clinical Competence in Occupational Therapists Treating Patients with Neurodegenerative Disease: A Community of Practice Study. Occupational Therapy In Health Care. 2022 Aug 3:1–21. pmid:35943279
- 56. Sibbald SL, Burnet ML, Callery B, Mitchell JI. Building a virtual community of practice: experience from the Canadian foundation for healthcare improvement’s policy circle. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2022 Sep 1;20(1):95. pmid:36050686
- 57. Long JA, Jahnle EC, Richardson DM, Loewenstein G, Volpp KG. Peer mentoring and financial incentives to improve glucose control in African American veterans: a randomized trial. Annals of internal medicine. 2012 Mar 20;156(6):416–24. pmid:22431674
- 58. Richardson CR, Buis LR, Janney AW, Goodrich DE, Sen A, Hess ML et al. An online community improves adherence in an internet-mediated walking program. Part 1: results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 2010 Dec 17;12(4):e1338.
- 59. Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation science. 2011 Dec;6(1):1–2. pmid:21513547
- 60.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/12/busiest-november-ever-as-new-figures-show-pressures-on-nhs-staff/
- 61.
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/health-spending-as-a-share-of-gdp-remains-at-lowest-level-in
- 62.
https://www.lloydsbank.com/banking-with-us/whats-happening/consumer-digital-index/essential-digital-skills.html
- 63. Ranmuthugala G, Plumb JJ, Cunningham FC, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J. How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature. BMC health services research. 2011 Dec;11(1):1–6.