Page 99 - Demo
P. 99


                                    Implementation interventions through the lens of Normalisation Process Theory974and written comments, questions and tips by the coordinating researcher. Information letters sent at the beginning of the implementation process of MDET contained information about restrictive measures and the need for reducing these measures. The letters also informed participants about the MDET method and asked their permission to be included in the trial effectiveness study. Consultation plans were written by the coordinating researcher and experts of the Multi-Disciplinary Expertise Team. These consultation plans described the group home and each individual client, and in particular the restrictive measures applied. Each consultation plan contained hypotheses on the origins and persistence of the restrictive measures and a report of the expert%u2019s consultation with care professionals of the group home. Finally, the consultation plan contained a treatment plan in which interventions were proposed to reduce restrictive measures. Notes of discussions, phone-calls and e-mails were mostly written by the expert. In a few cases these were written by a professional working at the group home where MDET was implemented. Comments, questions and tips were written by the coordinating researcher. EthicsThe trial of Schippers et al. (2019) was approved by the Ethics Committee of the faculty of Behavioural and Movement Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam vcw.1310.009. Participants gave their informed consent, which included qualitative analysis of written materials regarding the implementation of the method collected during this trial.Data analysis and procedure A research assistant of the care organisation anonymised all data of 19 group homes and organised the data along a timeline of actions and events. We started with directed qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) and used the overview of professional implementation interventions of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (EPOC, 2002) as a coding scheme.
                                
   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103