Page 190 - Demo

Chapter 7188potentially had led to a situation where no actual changes in care delivery were made. A third limitation is that the findings in this study do not give insight into the extent of over- or under-recording of involuntary care measures. Although the care organisation in which the data was collected had put extensive effort into educating care professionals regarding the CCA and the importance of correctly recording involuntary care, the study in Chapter 6 underscored that it is not known how care professionals do this in practice and which determinants may be of influence in these recording processes. Although Schippers and colleagues (2018) examined over- and under-recordings of coercive measures under the old Special Admission Act (BOPZ, 1994), future studies could examine both minor and major involuntary care recordings more closely, by diving into the specific forms of involuntary care that were reduced and by monitoring recordings of these measures. Moreover, future studies could also include administrative data of several organisations to increase generalisability. Concerning the second study described in Chapter 3, not all relevant implementation topics that might be important in intellectual disability care were covered in exchanging tacit knowledge and experiences in the CoP. Due to the limited experience of these care professionals and expertsby-experience with implementation, especially regarding methods that reduce involuntary care, specific hindering or facilitating determinants and strategies to overcome these may not have surfaced. Also certain topics such as scaling out and sustaining innovations were not discussed. Future studies that address implementing evidence-based innovations in intellectual disability care organisations might explore these topics further. Another limitation concerned the empirical question of collective learning processes by thinking together on implementation in the CoP. A secondary qualitative analyses was conducted based on the same dataset. Participants were not asked directly about their experiences with thinking together. The findings were a reflection on these collective learning processes based on the data. However, because these reflections in Chapter 3 were already insightful, as were the experiences with collaborative learning in a CoP described in Chapter 5, it is recommended that future research might pursue this perspective further.