Page 112 - Demo

Chapter 4110This might be an indication for the differences in contexts between regular health care and this long-term care setting. First, in regular health care, implementation processes of new methods are often limited to the ward or clinic that provides a certain type of care for which the new method is suitable. While, in long-term intellectual disability care, professionals from multiple disciplines work together to provide care across multiple life domains. This increases the number of professionals who need to be involved in the implementation. Second, in regular health care, care professionals apply new methods to patients newly admitted to the ward or clinic. The patients, usually, have no experience with the old method and will therefore not notice any difference in their treatment. In long-term intellectual disability care, new methods are implemented in the care and support of clients who previously had to deal with the old method and therefore changes in care need to be discussed and justified not only among the professionals but also with the clients and their families. We think for this reason the Consensus Processes were prominent and initiated more social mechanisms of NPT, relative to what Johnson and May found. In the process of implementing MDET the most commonly used implementation interventions initiated Coherence, Cognitive Participation and Collective Action. These findings also differ from the findings of Johnson and May (2015): they found that more effective interventions tended to act across the social mechanisms of Collective Action and Reflexive Monitoring, less effective interventions tended to focus on Coherence and Cognitive Participation. This might be another indication of the differences between implementation processes in regular health care and long-term care for people with intellectual disabilities. Coherence, which is about sense-making and understanding the practice,throughout all layers of the organisation (from the Board to support staff providing daily care), might be more relevant in long-term intellectual disability care, because it fosters a broad and continuous support of all involved actors in changing their daily routines and behaviour. Agreement of management boards about which innovation makes sense for their care professionals in daily practice with clients may catalyse consensus