Encouraging Best Practice in Residential Aged Care Program: Final Evaluation Report
4.8 - Unintended consequences
- Key Messages
- Executive Summary
- About This Report
1 - Introduction- 2 - Evidence, Changes in Practice and the EBPRAC Program
- 3 - Program Delivery/Implementation
4 - Program Impact- 5 - Capacity Building
- 6 - Generalisability
- 7 - Sustainability
- 8 - Dissemination
- 9 - Appropriateness
- 10 - Cost Implications for Government and Aged Care Providers
- 11 - Perceptions of High-Level Stakeholders
- 12 - Discussion and Conclusions
- 13 - Recommendations
- References
- Appendices 1 to 6
- Appendices 7 to 12
- Appendices 13 to 17
There were no adverse unintended consequences. Some variations to project scope and the pace of project implementation resulted in minor delays (see Section 3.2)
An unintended, but very positive, consequence of the EBPRAC program is that the program has helped to bridge the gap between those who create evidence (researchers) and those who use evidence (practitioners). It was not a requirement that researchers lead projects but that is what happened. Eight of the 13 projects were led by university-based researchers and two of the other projects were led by organisations with strong track records in research. The only lead organisations without such a background were the three divisions of general practice but each of the divisions involved university researchers as a key partner in their consortium. In many cases the project provided an opportunity to build on existing relationships between a research/project lead and one or more participating facilities. In such instances, additional facilities were recruited which had no prior engagement with the research/project leads.
Top of page