Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 2014, Vol. 37, No. 4, 336 –338
© 2014 American Psychological Association 1095-158X/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/prj0000081
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Education and Training Column: Communities of Practice Patricia B. Nemec
Stephen LaMaster
Nemec Consulting, Warner, New Hampshire
Vinfen Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Topic: This column describes the key components of a community of practice, with examples from the experience of 1 such group. Purpose: A community of practice is a potentially useful model for developing and disseminating knowledge about psychiatric rehabilitation and to supplement the shortterm training sessions that typically constitute psychiatric rehabilitation workforce development. Sources Used: This description draws from published material on communities of practice and the authors’ experience. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Communities of practice are receiving increased attention for workforce development, and guidelines do exist for making these communities effective in achieving their aims. The development of such learning communities provides members with a chance for professional development, but also the opportunity to develop greater overall capacity of the mental health system by sharing knowledge and expertise across organizational lines. Keywords: staff training, best practices, psychiatric rehabilitation
tice” part of the term. The group can be relatively small, just within a local agency; have a geographic boundary, such as being statewide; or be open to interested practitioners within an entire field. A CoP might be time-limited related to a very specific practice issue, or ongoing with focus areas that evolve and change over time.
Not only is there a rapid expansion of knowledge in psychiatric rehabilitation, but there are many things we do not yet know about how best to deliver quality services. A community of practice is one way of sharing, developing, implementing, and adapting knowledge and practice. Different models exist, such as the “plando-study-act” learning collaborative (Becker et al., 2011; Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2003), the local learning community (Mathewson, 2014), the Veteran’s Administration evidence-based practice training programs (Karlin & Cross, 2014), and state-wide practice improvement groups, such as Massachusetts’ Community Based Flexible Supports Rehabilitation Option Workgroup, described later in this article. A community of practice builds a subculture or learning team within or across organizations that is focused on improving practice in some particular area (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2003). A community of practice (CoP) is not just a team meeting, a network of connections, or a group supervision session. By joining a community of practice, each member makes a commitment to increase his or her competence. Members need not be experts, but they do work together to gain and share knowledge and expertise. Some sort of formal arrangement makes a CoP effective, as “a fully spontaneous community of practice around the water cooler or coffee pot cannot always be relied upon to do the job. Meeting times, conversational protocols, and other aspects may be needed to support a rich exchange of craft” (Perkins, 2009, p. 185). A CoP develops its group identity through a shared domain of interest or focus where improvement is needed—that’s the “prac-
Factors for a Successful CoP Critical success factors for a community of practice rely on a number of core principles (McDermott, 2001), summarized here as focus, leadership, input, commitment, and open forums. Examples for each factor describe the Consortium of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Educators (CPRE), a community of practice dedicated to the improvement and expansion of academic instruction in psychiatric rehabilitation (Barrett, 2004). Examples of other CoPs abound.
Focus The selection of topic areas for the group, its values, and clear strategic goals provide both direction and boundaries to a CoP. Focus topics need to be important to the community members and relevant to the work itself (the “practice”). For example, CPRE focuses on such topics as academic curriculum development, instructional technology, and student evaluation. In 2008, CPRE developed a mission statement and goals that set a boundary distinguishing this group of academic educators from field-based trainers, even though the two groups share common tasks and draw from many common best practices. Other mental health related CoPs have focused on such diverse areas as prevention (AndersonCarpenter, Watson-Thompson, Jones, & Chaney, 2014), use of seclusion (Abma, 2007), rural services (Cassidy, 2011), mental health services for bilingual schools (Harris, Steensen, Klotz, Skalski, & Bieber, 2012), and assessment in children’s mental health (Barwick et al., 2009).
Patricia B. Nemec, PsyD, Nemec Consulting, Warner, New Hampshire; Stephen LaMaster, MS, Director of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Vinfen Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia B. Nemec, PsyD, CRC, CPRP, 696 Kearsarge Mountain Road, Warner, NH 03278. E-mail: [email protected] 336
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Leadership McDermott (2001) recommends finding a well-respected community member to coordinate the CoP, and most successful communities of practice have community coordination assigned to the leader as part of his or her regular work load (Wenger et al., 2002). The leader’s role is central to facilitating personal relationships among community members that build commitment, promote collaboration, and facilitate comfort with exchanging and debating ideas, including outright disagreeing—a sign of an effective team (Lencioni, 2002). For CPRE, a small group of dedicated members have fulfilled the leadership function, as has rotating hosts and the location for the annual Fall Symposium. As academic educators, CPRE leaders have some flexibility in their workload and duties, and often have a job requirement of service to the professional community. Other CoPs have drawn leaders from experts in evaluation (Abma, 2007) and technical assistance consultants (Barwick et al., 2009). Finding and funding a leader of a CoP for psychiatric rehabilitation service providers might present a challenge, given limited resources and the broad scope that defines the field.
Input If the purpose of a CoP is to share and develop knowledge for quality improvements in an area of practice, fresh inputs are needed. Inviting external experts and diverse stakeholders, whether as short-term guests or permanent members, can be an effective way to expand knowledge and stay abreast of new ideas (Abma, 2007; Anderson-Carpenter et al., 2014). CPRE has often invited speakers who specialize in certain topic areas related to psychiatric rehabilitation or in innovative educational initiatives, such as teaching creativity. Finding and involving outside experts takes time, effort, and, occasionally, funding.
Commitment An active and passionate core group helps sustain a CoP. Members need to have time, motivation, and encouragement to participate. The core members need to self-select, as assigning members to be the passionate core simply will not work (Senge, 2006). Ideally, a CoP includes opportunities to participate within regular work schedules and at a variety of levels (Wenger et al., 2003). CPRE members generally participate in various ways. A core group takes significant responsibility for planning events, sharing information, collaborating on projects, and maintaining the CPRE website (www.psychrehab.net). A larger group of active members regularly attends the annual gatherings. The more peripheral members, often known as lurkers in a CoP, read updates, access shared information, and occasionally attend events. “Rather than force participation, successful communities ‘build benches’ for those on the sidelines” (Wenger et al., 2003, p. 57).
Open Forums To be meaningful, a CoP needs real dialogue about what McDermott (2001) calls cutting edge issues, recognizing that the community’s purpose is to help their area of practice evolve and improve. The group needs to identify the issues that are at the cutting edge, whether or not there is a specific desired outcome for discussion. To promote exchange of ideas, a CoP needs a variety
337
of modalities for collaboration. For CPRE, the twice-yearly gatherings, the website, and a Facebook page provide opportunities for sharing information and resources. The website includes a password-protected section for ensuring that access to posted information is restricted to members. Virtual connections can benefit a CoP, especially in areas or fields where practitioners are isolated from one another (Cassidy, 2011). CPRE has been less successful in establishing a virtual discussion space that is both appealing and accessible—an important consideration for a CoP. Members need to find it easy to contribute the community’s knowledge and practices, in spite of their competing responsibilities and interests. Preexisting demands on their time may make it difficult to check in regularly. Finding a “rhythm” for a CoP requires a balance between too fast, where “the community feels breathless,” and too slow, where “the community feels sluggish” (Wenger et al., 2003, pp. 62– 63). As might be expected, CPRE has a natural rhythm tied to academic semesters and its annual gatherings, but is still working to find the right pace and methods for more regular connections.
Establishing a CoP Communities of practice might initially include study groups or quality circles who evaluate some component of psychiatric rehabilitation services (e.g., increasing participation and choice), who read articles together and discuss (Mathewson, 2014), or who work to achieve some objective (e.g., passing the CPRP exam). A CoP can be an effective mechanism for technical assistance for implementing a new method or model of care (Anderson-Carpenter et al., 2014), whether through a large centralized process and/or through smaller local groups (Karlin & Cross, 2014). A CoP could offer more or less guidance or instruction, such as starting out fairly structured with an appointed leader/mentor who fades over time as self-selected leaders emerge and as the focus of the CoP becomes better defined or shifts to a new focus area. The Massachusetts mental health system, which instituted a massive overhaul of a service sector, now called Community Based Flexible Support services (CBFS), has made use of a process that mirrors a CoP, with good success. Service delivery contracts procured by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH) for delivering services like PACT, Clubhouse, and CBFS now use a common documentation protocol and performance-based feedback on core outcomes, such as competitive employment and education rates, community integration, wellness self-management, and community housing. These commonalities provide an opportunity to share and address implementation challenges within as well as across organizational boundaries. A CBFS Rehab Option Workgroup, formed in the fall of 2009 after CBFS rolled out, was designed to address adherence issues to the newly mandated documentation requirements, and brought together representatives from the DMH with representatives from each CBFS provider. Working together, the group developed consensus and guidance regarding many commonly identified needs, such as incorporation of person-centered planning, the use of shared approaches to managing safety and risk, and clarification of how to meet medical necessity funding guidelines. In addition, workgroup members have reported enhanced trust between service providers and DMH staff, greater clarity of expectations across
NEMEC AND LAMASTER
338
multiple aspects of service implementation, and high satisfaction with the interpersonal climate within the group.
Summary
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Communities of practice are receiving increased attention for workforce development, and guidelines do exist for making these communities effective in achieving their aims. The development of learning communities provides members with a chance for professional development, but also the opportunity to develop greater overall capacity of the mental health system by sharing knowledge and expertise across organizational lines.
References Abma, T. A. (2007). Situated learning in communities of practice: Evaluation of coercion in psychiatry as a case. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 13, 32– 47. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1356389007073680 Anderson-Carpenter, K. D., Watson-Thomas, J., Jones, M., & Chaney, L. (2014). Using communities of practice to support implementation of evidence-based prevention strategies. Journal of Community Practice, 22(1–2), 176 –188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2014.901268 Barrett, N. (2004). The Psychiatric Rehabilitation Educators’ Group. Recovery & Rehabilitation, 3, 1– 4. Retrieved from http://www.psychrehab .net/uploads/2/6/4/3/2643339/psychiatric-rehabilitation-educators-group .pdf Barwick, M. A., Peters, J., & Boydell, K. (2009). Getting to uptake: Do communities of practice support the implementation of evidence-based practice? Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 18, 16 –29. Becker, D. R., Drake, R. E., Bond, G. R., Nawaz, S., Haslett, W. R., & Martinez, R. A. (2011). Best practices: A national mental health learning collaborative on supported employment. Psychiatric Services, 62, 704 – 706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.62.7.704
Cassidy, L. (2011). Online communities of practice to support collaborative mental health practice in rural areas. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32, 98 –107. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2010.535648 Harris, B., Steensen, B., Klotz, M. B., Skalski, A., & Bieber, B. (2012). Communities of practice: Creating the Bilingual School Mental Health Network in Colorado. NASP Communiqué, 40, 22–23. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/40/6/communities-ofpractice.aspx Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2003). The Breakthrough Series: IHI’s collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.ihi.org/knowledge/Pages/ IHIWhitePapers/TheBreakthroughSeriesIHIsCollaborativeModelfor AchievingBreakthroughImprovement.aspx Karlin, B. E., & Cross, G. (2014). From the laboratory to the therapy room: National dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. American Psychologist, 69, 19 –33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0033888 Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mathewson, K. (2014). Creating a learning culture. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 37, 71–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/prj0000056 McDermott, R. (2001). Knowing in community: 10 critical success factors in building communities of practice. Retrieved from http://www.co-i-l .com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/knowing.shtml Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Received March 19, 2014 Accepted April 15, 2014 䡲
© 2014 American Psychological Association 1095-158X/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/prj0000081
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Education and Training Column: Communities of Practice Patricia B. Nemec
Stephen LaMaster
Nemec Consulting, Warner, New Hampshire
Vinfen Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Topic: This column describes the key components of a community of practice, with examples from the experience of 1 such group. Purpose: A community of practice is a potentially useful model for developing and disseminating knowledge about psychiatric rehabilitation and to supplement the shortterm training sessions that typically constitute psychiatric rehabilitation workforce development. Sources Used: This description draws from published material on communities of practice and the authors’ experience. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Communities of practice are receiving increased attention for workforce development, and guidelines do exist for making these communities effective in achieving their aims. The development of such learning communities provides members with a chance for professional development, but also the opportunity to develop greater overall capacity of the mental health system by sharing knowledge and expertise across organizational lines. Keywords: staff training, best practices, psychiatric rehabilitation
tice” part of the term. The group can be relatively small, just within a local agency; have a geographic boundary, such as being statewide; or be open to interested practitioners within an entire field. A CoP might be time-limited related to a very specific practice issue, or ongoing with focus areas that evolve and change over time.
Not only is there a rapid expansion of knowledge in psychiatric rehabilitation, but there are many things we do not yet know about how best to deliver quality services. A community of practice is one way of sharing, developing, implementing, and adapting knowledge and practice. Different models exist, such as the “plando-study-act” learning collaborative (Becker et al., 2011; Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2003), the local learning community (Mathewson, 2014), the Veteran’s Administration evidence-based practice training programs (Karlin & Cross, 2014), and state-wide practice improvement groups, such as Massachusetts’ Community Based Flexible Supports Rehabilitation Option Workgroup, described later in this article. A community of practice builds a subculture or learning team within or across organizations that is focused on improving practice in some particular area (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2003). A community of practice (CoP) is not just a team meeting, a network of connections, or a group supervision session. By joining a community of practice, each member makes a commitment to increase his or her competence. Members need not be experts, but they do work together to gain and share knowledge and expertise. Some sort of formal arrangement makes a CoP effective, as “a fully spontaneous community of practice around the water cooler or coffee pot cannot always be relied upon to do the job. Meeting times, conversational protocols, and other aspects may be needed to support a rich exchange of craft” (Perkins, 2009, p. 185). A CoP develops its group identity through a shared domain of interest or focus where improvement is needed—that’s the “prac-
Factors for a Successful CoP Critical success factors for a community of practice rely on a number of core principles (McDermott, 2001), summarized here as focus, leadership, input, commitment, and open forums. Examples for each factor describe the Consortium of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Educators (CPRE), a community of practice dedicated to the improvement and expansion of academic instruction in psychiatric rehabilitation (Barrett, 2004). Examples of other CoPs abound.
Focus The selection of topic areas for the group, its values, and clear strategic goals provide both direction and boundaries to a CoP. Focus topics need to be important to the community members and relevant to the work itself (the “practice”). For example, CPRE focuses on such topics as academic curriculum development, instructional technology, and student evaluation. In 2008, CPRE developed a mission statement and goals that set a boundary distinguishing this group of academic educators from field-based trainers, even though the two groups share common tasks and draw from many common best practices. Other mental health related CoPs have focused on such diverse areas as prevention (AndersonCarpenter, Watson-Thompson, Jones, & Chaney, 2014), use of seclusion (Abma, 2007), rural services (Cassidy, 2011), mental health services for bilingual schools (Harris, Steensen, Klotz, Skalski, & Bieber, 2012), and assessment in children’s mental health (Barwick et al., 2009).
Patricia B. Nemec, PsyD, Nemec Consulting, Warner, New Hampshire; Stephen LaMaster, MS, Director of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Vinfen Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia B. Nemec, PsyD, CRC, CPRP, 696 Kearsarge Mountain Road, Warner, NH 03278. E-mail: [email protected] 336
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Leadership McDermott (2001) recommends finding a well-respected community member to coordinate the CoP, and most successful communities of practice have community coordination assigned to the leader as part of his or her regular work load (Wenger et al., 2002). The leader’s role is central to facilitating personal relationships among community members that build commitment, promote collaboration, and facilitate comfort with exchanging and debating ideas, including outright disagreeing—a sign of an effective team (Lencioni, 2002). For CPRE, a small group of dedicated members have fulfilled the leadership function, as has rotating hosts and the location for the annual Fall Symposium. As academic educators, CPRE leaders have some flexibility in their workload and duties, and often have a job requirement of service to the professional community. Other CoPs have drawn leaders from experts in evaluation (Abma, 2007) and technical assistance consultants (Barwick et al., 2009). Finding and funding a leader of a CoP for psychiatric rehabilitation service providers might present a challenge, given limited resources and the broad scope that defines the field.
Input If the purpose of a CoP is to share and develop knowledge for quality improvements in an area of practice, fresh inputs are needed. Inviting external experts and diverse stakeholders, whether as short-term guests or permanent members, can be an effective way to expand knowledge and stay abreast of new ideas (Abma, 2007; Anderson-Carpenter et al., 2014). CPRE has often invited speakers who specialize in certain topic areas related to psychiatric rehabilitation or in innovative educational initiatives, such as teaching creativity. Finding and involving outside experts takes time, effort, and, occasionally, funding.
Commitment An active and passionate core group helps sustain a CoP. Members need to have time, motivation, and encouragement to participate. The core members need to self-select, as assigning members to be the passionate core simply will not work (Senge, 2006). Ideally, a CoP includes opportunities to participate within regular work schedules and at a variety of levels (Wenger et al., 2003). CPRE members generally participate in various ways. A core group takes significant responsibility for planning events, sharing information, collaborating on projects, and maintaining the CPRE website (www.psychrehab.net). A larger group of active members regularly attends the annual gatherings. The more peripheral members, often known as lurkers in a CoP, read updates, access shared information, and occasionally attend events. “Rather than force participation, successful communities ‘build benches’ for those on the sidelines” (Wenger et al., 2003, p. 57).
Open Forums To be meaningful, a CoP needs real dialogue about what McDermott (2001) calls cutting edge issues, recognizing that the community’s purpose is to help their area of practice evolve and improve. The group needs to identify the issues that are at the cutting edge, whether or not there is a specific desired outcome for discussion. To promote exchange of ideas, a CoP needs a variety
337
of modalities for collaboration. For CPRE, the twice-yearly gatherings, the website, and a Facebook page provide opportunities for sharing information and resources. The website includes a password-protected section for ensuring that access to posted information is restricted to members. Virtual connections can benefit a CoP, especially in areas or fields where practitioners are isolated from one another (Cassidy, 2011). CPRE has been less successful in establishing a virtual discussion space that is both appealing and accessible—an important consideration for a CoP. Members need to find it easy to contribute the community’s knowledge and practices, in spite of their competing responsibilities and interests. Preexisting demands on their time may make it difficult to check in regularly. Finding a “rhythm” for a CoP requires a balance between too fast, where “the community feels breathless,” and too slow, where “the community feels sluggish” (Wenger et al., 2003, pp. 62– 63). As might be expected, CPRE has a natural rhythm tied to academic semesters and its annual gatherings, but is still working to find the right pace and methods for more regular connections.
Establishing a CoP Communities of practice might initially include study groups or quality circles who evaluate some component of psychiatric rehabilitation services (e.g., increasing participation and choice), who read articles together and discuss (Mathewson, 2014), or who work to achieve some objective (e.g., passing the CPRP exam). A CoP can be an effective mechanism for technical assistance for implementing a new method or model of care (Anderson-Carpenter et al., 2014), whether through a large centralized process and/or through smaller local groups (Karlin & Cross, 2014). A CoP could offer more or less guidance or instruction, such as starting out fairly structured with an appointed leader/mentor who fades over time as self-selected leaders emerge and as the focus of the CoP becomes better defined or shifts to a new focus area. The Massachusetts mental health system, which instituted a massive overhaul of a service sector, now called Community Based Flexible Support services (CBFS), has made use of a process that mirrors a CoP, with good success. Service delivery contracts procured by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH) for delivering services like PACT, Clubhouse, and CBFS now use a common documentation protocol and performance-based feedback on core outcomes, such as competitive employment and education rates, community integration, wellness self-management, and community housing. These commonalities provide an opportunity to share and address implementation challenges within as well as across organizational boundaries. A CBFS Rehab Option Workgroup, formed in the fall of 2009 after CBFS rolled out, was designed to address adherence issues to the newly mandated documentation requirements, and brought together representatives from the DMH with representatives from each CBFS provider. Working together, the group developed consensus and guidance regarding many commonly identified needs, such as incorporation of person-centered planning, the use of shared approaches to managing safety and risk, and clarification of how to meet medical necessity funding guidelines. In addition, workgroup members have reported enhanced trust between service providers and DMH staff, greater clarity of expectations across
NEMEC AND LAMASTER
338
multiple aspects of service implementation, and high satisfaction with the interpersonal climate within the group.
Summary
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Communities of practice are receiving increased attention for workforce development, and guidelines do exist for making these communities effective in achieving their aims. The development of learning communities provides members with a chance for professional development, but also the opportunity to develop greater overall capacity of the mental health system by sharing knowledge and expertise across organizational lines.
References Abma, T. A. (2007). Situated learning in communities of practice: Evaluation of coercion in psychiatry as a case. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 13, 32– 47. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1356389007073680 Anderson-Carpenter, K. D., Watson-Thomas, J., Jones, M., & Chaney, L. (2014). Using communities of practice to support implementation of evidence-based prevention strategies. Journal of Community Practice, 22(1–2), 176 –188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2014.901268 Barrett, N. (2004). The Psychiatric Rehabilitation Educators’ Group. Recovery & Rehabilitation, 3, 1– 4. Retrieved from http://www.psychrehab .net/uploads/2/6/4/3/2643339/psychiatric-rehabilitation-educators-group .pdf Barwick, M. A., Peters, J., & Boydell, K. (2009). Getting to uptake: Do communities of practice support the implementation of evidence-based practice? Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 18, 16 –29. Becker, D. R., Drake, R. E., Bond, G. R., Nawaz, S., Haslett, W. R., & Martinez, R. A. (2011). Best practices: A national mental health learning collaborative on supported employment. Psychiatric Services, 62, 704 – 706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.62.7.704
Cassidy, L. (2011). Online communities of practice to support collaborative mental health practice in rural areas. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32, 98 –107. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2010.535648 Harris, B., Steensen, B., Klotz, M. B., Skalski, A., & Bieber, B. (2012). Communities of practice: Creating the Bilingual School Mental Health Network in Colorado. NASP Communiqué, 40, 22–23. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/40/6/communities-ofpractice.aspx Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2003). The Breakthrough Series: IHI’s collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.ihi.org/knowledge/Pages/ IHIWhitePapers/TheBreakthroughSeriesIHIsCollaborativeModelfor AchievingBreakthroughImprovement.aspx Karlin, B. E., & Cross, G. (2014). From the laboratory to the therapy room: National dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. American Psychologist, 69, 19 –33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0033888 Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mathewson, K. (2014). Creating a learning culture. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 37, 71–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/prj0000056 McDermott, R. (2001). Knowing in community: 10 critical success factors in building communities of practice. Retrieved from http://www.co-i-l .com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/knowing.shtml Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Received March 19, 2014 Accepted April 15, 2014 䡲
