Page 66 - Demo

Chapter 364perceived risks for their own and clients%u2019 safety. Support staff reported that they use involuntary care to avert aggression, reduce imminent danger, or calm a client. They evaluated restrictive measures as necessary and even potentially helpful in fostering their clients%u2019 development (D%u00f6renberg et al., 2018). A lack of readiness for change might potentially complicate the implementation of methods that seek to reduce involuntary care. To enhance the chances for successful implementation, Communities of Practice (CoP) may be considered. CoP facilitate exchange of knowledge and experiences (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). Participants who are tasked with developing implementation plans may engage with other implementers, deepen their knowledge, and learn from each other. This process could accelerate future implementation of innovations and stimulate quality improvement. A systematic review by Barbour et al. (2018) concluded that CoP are found to improve competencies of participants, enhance problem-solving and reflective practice, and support changes to organisations, programmes and policies. Although studies on the effectiveness of CoP are still limited, and to our knowledge, no study investigated the proliferation of CoP in long-term intellectual disability care just yet, CoP have been promoted as a useful strategy in sharing, promoting, and implementing evidence-based practices in general healthcare (Ranmuthugala et al., 2011). A CoP is believed to be a strategy in which tacit and experiential knowledge and perspectives of professionals working in healthcare are being exchanged and combined with explicit knowledge and scientific evidence (Kothari et al., 2011). According to Polanyi (1966), tacit knowledge refers to individual knowledge, deeply rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a specific context (Nonaka, 1994; Polanyi, 1966). Tacit and experiential knowledge are usually exchanged through informal channels and personal interactions, which require personal contact and trust (Kothari et al., 2011; McDermott, 2000). A CoP might be a way to create a safe environment for such learning, experimenting, and working towards a shared goal (Wenger et al., 2002). According to Wenger (1998), participants have their own individual, often incomplete, memories of previous efforts, and their unique way of bringing in their version of these efforts. Through participation in the CoP, participants are mutually engaged in a collective learning process of which