Is transferring an educational innovation actually a process of transformation?

Recent debates question the extent to which adopting an educational innovation requires compromise between the innovation's original design and the adoption site's context. Through compromises, the innovation's fundamental principles may be transferred, transformed, or abandoned. This paper analyzes such compromises during the piloting of Team-Based Learning (TBL). We ask: When is the process of transferring an innovation actually a process of transformation? This study is an autoethnography of our research team's implementation process. Autoethnographies are personalized accounts where authors draw on their own experiences to extend understanding of a particular topic. To conduct this autoethnography, we used an in-depth, interactive interview with the piloting clinician educator. In the analysis of TBL's fundamental principles, some aspects of the principles transferred easily, while others were transformed. Analysis raised concerns that the transformations threatened the foundational principles of TBL. While an educational innovation's techniques may seem to be surface structures, they are realizations of deeper fundamental principles. The fundamental principles are themselves realizations of the innovation's foundational philosophy. When techniques and/or principles are modified to a context, it is important to analyze if the modifications continue to uphold the innovation's philosophy.

Family physicians and dementia in Canada: Part 1. Clinical practice guidelines: awareness, attitudes, and opinions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess Canadian family physicians' awareness of, attitudes toward, and use of the 1999 Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia (CCCD) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); to explore the barriers and enablers to implementing dementia CPGs in clinical practice; and to identify more effective strategies for future dementia guideline development and dissemination. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING: Academic family practice clinics in Calgary, Alta, Ottawa, Ont, and Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen family physicians. METHODS: Using a semistructured interview guide, we conducted 4 qualitative focus groups of 4 to 6 family physicians whose practices we had audited in a previous study. Transcripts were coded using an inductive data analytic strategy, and categories and themes were identified and described using the principles of thematic analysis. MAIN FINDINGS: Four major themes emerged from the focus group discussions. Family physicians 1) were minimally aware of the existence and the detailed contents of the CCCD guidelines; 2) had strong views about the purposes of guidelines in general; 3) expressed strong concerns about the role of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of such guidelines; and 4) had many ideas to improve future dementia guidelines and CPGs in general. CONCLUSION: Family physicians were minimally aware of the 1999 CCCD CPGs. They acknowledged, however, the potential of future CPGs to assist them in patient care and offered many strategies to improve the development and dissemination of future dementia guidelines. Future guidelines should more accurately reflect the day-to-day practice experiences and challenges of family physicians, and guideline developers should also be cognizant of family physicians' perceptions that pharmaceutical companies' funding of CPGs undermines the objectivity and credibility of those guidelines.

Family physicians and dementia in Canada: Part 2. Understanding the challenges of dementia care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the challenges Canadian family physicians face in providing dementia care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING: Academic family practice clinics in Calgary, Alta, Ottawa, Ont, and Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen family physicians. METHODS: We conducted 4 qualitative focus groups of 4 to 6 family physicians whose practices we had audited in a previous study. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis. MAIN FINDINGS: Five major themes related to the provision of dementia care by family physicians emerged: 1) diagnostic uncertainty; 2) the complexity of dementia; 3) time as a paradox in the provision of dementia care; 4) the importance of patients' families; 5) and familiarity with patients. Participants expressed uncertainty about diagnosing dementia and a strong need for expert verification of diagnoses owing to the complexity of dementia. Time, patients' family members, and familiarity with patients were seen as both barriers and enablers in the provision of dementia care. CONCLUSION: Family physicians face many challenges in providing dementia care. The results of this study and the views of family physicians should be considered in the development and dissemination of future dementia guidelines, as well as by specialist colleagues, policy makers, and those involved in developing continuing physician education about dementia.

Management of dementia by family physicians in academic settings.

OBJECTIVE: To determine what proportion of patients with dementia seen by family physicians are assessed and managed according to the recommendations of the Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia (CCCD). DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. SETTING: Outpatient services in university-affiliated family practice clinics in Calgary, Alta; Ottawa, Ont; and Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty patients who were diagnosed with dementia between January 1, 2000, and June 1, 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); collateral history; physical examination maneuvers; initial laboratory tests; diagnostic imaging; caregiver identification, assessment, and referral; driving assessment; specialist referral patterns; and other recommendations of the CCCD. RESULTS: The average age of patients assessed was 83 years; most patients (66.3%) were female. More than half (54.1%) were diagnosed with Alzheimer disease or vascular dementia. More than 25% of patients were not given a specific diagnosis: 13.1% were labeled as "dementia," and 12.5% as "not yet diagnosed." For most patients (69.6%) a collateral history was obtained and a primary caregiver identified (79.4%). Few physicians, however, assessed caregiver stress (33.1%) or referred caregivers for support (12.5%). Most patients (80.6%) seen by their family physicians for cognitive changes underwent at least one MMSE. The average score on the first MMSE was 23.5 (of 30) points. Most physicians ordered appropriate "basic" blood tests as part of their assessment. Forty percent of patients had computed tomographic examinations within 3 months of reporting symptoms of cognitive difficulties to their family physicians. Of these, 25% met the criteria for computed tomographic scan as recommended by the guidelines. Only 36.5% were asked about driving status or safety concerns and had this inquiry documented. Of those, 15.5% were referred for driving evaluations and 12.5% were reported to the Ministry of Transportation. CONCLUSION: There is fair to good compliance with recommendations of the 1999 CCCD guidelines. There is, however, little assessment of caregiver coping and referral of caregivers for support. Similarly, there is little assessment of driver safety and referral for formal driving evaluations. Computed tomographic imaging as part of the evaluation of dementia is overused.