Reconstructing successes and failures in implementing multidisciplinary delivery of expert consultation for restrictive measures

Baukje Schippers, Esther Bisschops*, J. Clasien de Schipper, Brenda J.M. Frederiks, Carlo Schuengel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to ConferenceAbstractAcademic

Abstract

Introduction: A trial to implement a new mode of delivery of MultiDisciplinary Expert Team (MDET) consultation to reduce restrictive measures (RM) was conducted. MDET includes consultation, registration and monitoring of RM, and team and individual level interventions. Accelerated reduction of RM was observed in units randomised to receive MDET. This study seeks to reconstruct successes and failures of the approach by comparing units differing in the rate of RM reduction. The used frameworks were derived from emerging models for effective implementation from Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).

Methods: Process notes and MDET plans for 21 units and residents were used for content analyses by encoding on mentioning EPOC interventions and NPT constructs. This information is associated with the degree of elimination of RM (111 RM, 40%).

Results: Results show a distribution of implementation methods across units with least to most success concerning the reduction of RM.

Implications: The relevance of findings will be discussed for deliver the MDET model within and across settings. EPOC and NPT are useful for understanding implementation as a social process.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 7 Aug 2019
EventIASSIDD - SECC, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Duration: 6 Aug 20199 Aug 2019
http://www.iassidd2019.com/

Conference

ConferenceIASSIDD
CountryUnited Kingdom
CityGlasgow
Period6/08/199/08/19
Internet address

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reconstructing successes and failures in implementing multidisciplinary delivery of expert consultation for restrictive measures'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this