Overview
Initiative type
Model of Care
Status
Deliver
Published
June 2026
Summary
The A_I_M Program is an interprofessional, mentored work integrated learning program that turns staff ideas into measurable improvemen - building capability, confidence, collaboration and sustainment
Dates: April 2024 - November 2025
Implementation sites: Cairns Hospital
Partnerships: University of Tasmania - A_I_M research & potential micro credential; QUT Design Lab -design sprints; Health Workforce Division & CLE - statewide A_I_M in planning; Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre - post program implementation coaching (in planning)
This project was presented as a Poster at CEQ Showcase 2026 (PDF 312B).
Aim
Build staff capability and confidence to lead evidence-based improvement and redesign using a structured, mentored, interprofessional, work-integrated learning program
Outcomes
Two-year pilot demonstrated measurable capability uplift (2024/2025): before to after gains in improvement methodology knowledge (+48% / +67%), confidence to lead healthcare improvement (+23% / +46%); interprofessional outcomes (networking, collaboration, contribution) up 40 - 97% / 63 - 77%.
Strong participation & session experience: completion = 2024 8/9 (89%), 2025 8/10 (80%); 2025 workshops consistently very high rated for satisfaction & relevance; most sessions 100% - 4/5.
Sustainment & system value: 17 improvement initiatives (e.g. GP direct-HITH); 2024 cohort preliminary follow up (~1 year; n=4): 75% on track, 25% some progress; mentors 100% willing to participate again, citing professional growth and broader perspectives - supporting ongoing spread and impact of participant initiatives.
Background
Healthcare staff routinely identify opportunities to improve care but often lack a structured, supported path (and governance) to translate ideas into action (1-3). Common barriers include uncertainty about next steps, variable confidence with improvement methods, and siloed collaboration across professions (4, 5). The Achieving Improvement Masterclass (A_I_M) program was locally developed to address these issues by embedding a mentored, work-integrated learning (WIL) journey grounded in Healthcare Redesign (5-7), improvement/implementation science and co-design principles.
The A_I_M Program provides a staged progression, planning 'diagnostics' solution design & implementation - evaluation & sustainment, supported by a workbook and tools, interprofessional workshops and guest speakers, design-thinking activities, a mentorship model, and milestone checkpoints (governance endorsed; problem/scope; diagnostics; co-design; action/evaluation plan). Governance and sponsorship are established up-front to authorise and resource projects, and to align efforts with organisational priorities.
Examples of participant led initiatives include a GP direct admission pathway to HITH, a dietitian led postpartum diabetes screening clinic, Residential Aged Care Facility In-Reach falls prevention, cognitive support plans, and service/process improvements. Together, the 2024 and 2025 evaluations show substantial before to after gains, high completion/satisfaction, and sustained progress at ~1 year for 2024 -supporting A_I_M as a scalable workforce innovation aligned to organisational goals.
Methods
Design and delivery.
A_I_M is an interprofessional, work integrated learning (8) program that applies the Healthcare Redesign framework and integrates improvement science, implementation science, co design, human factors and systems thinking. Delivery includes an introductory session, four core workshops, targeted check ins, a structured workbook and tools, mentor matching with local/state improvement leaders, interprofessional guest speakers, and milestone checkpoints. A capstone Showcase concludes each cohort.
Program rollout (what we did & how):
- Governance & endorsement. Pilot endorsed April 2024 and extended in 2025; project level governance and sponsorship were required for each participant initiative. From 2026, A_I_M is an embedded organisational program with ongoing governance and planned annual intakes.
- Recruitment & selection (multi cohort). Open calls in 2024 (9 commenced), 2025 (10 commenced), and 2026 in progress (~17 participants; 11 initiatives). Team applications were encouraged in 2026 to strengthen interprofessional delivery and spread. Applicants were scored by an interprofessional panel against criteria including strategic alignment, and technical/financial/operational feasibility and timeline.
- Delivery sequence differs by cohort due to iterative improvements applied during the pilot and adopted from 2025 onward.
- 2024 format: three-hour core workshops covering all content, with check ins and a Showcase.
- 2025 format (and 2026 forward): One to three-hour Introductory session, plus four-hour Core workshops with three, one-hour virtual check ins and a Showcase - providing more in session application time and clearer milestones (activities structured to checkpoints such as scope development, diagnostics planning, co design, and evaluation planning).
- Mentor match and touchpoints. Participants indicate mentor preferences; matches e-introduced by the program coordinator. Mentors received a concise orientation pack and were invited to the program's virtual check ins to support participant progress, and learning reflection.
- Iteration. 2024 participant and mentor feedback informed 2025 enhancements (expanded session time for applied group work, clearer milestones, and strengthened mentor involvement); this format continues in 2026.
Participants and projects. Staff apply with a real improvement opportunity aligned to organisational priorities (clinical, operational and corporate). Participants learn with/from other professions and apply methods directly in their workplace (“learning through doingâ€).
Evaluation and measures. Mixed methods evaluation aligned with Kirkpatrick levels (9, 10) included:
- Pre/post participant surveys (knowledge, experience, confidence; interprofessional networking/collaboration/contribution) reported as before to after Likert means and % increases for 2024 and 2025.
- Session satisfaction and content relevance: Program sessions (1–5 scales; mean and % rating 4–5).
- Mentor post program survey (preparation, goals understanding, coordination, compatibility, growth, overall program mentor satisfaction).
- Program completion rate (attendance, milestones, showcase).
- ~1 year follow up (2024 cohort): project progress and comments regarding program value/continuation. (capability follow up used descriptively due to small n).
Analysis. Descriptive statistics (means), change scores (% increase from before to after), and qualitative theming. Given small samples and self-report measures, results are interpreted as directional and triangulated across multiple indicators.
Discussion
Success factors (environment/context). Outcomes were enabled by: (A) executive sponsorship and governance to legitimise and resource projects; (B) a structured, evidence based framework (Healthcare Redesign (5, 6)) that builds shared problem understanding before solutions; (C) interprofessional learning (workshops and activities, mentors, guest speakers) that broadens perspectives and networks; (D) mentorship that translates learning into action; and (E) milestones and measurement to keep participants on track and to evidence progress and impact.
Lessons & iteration. 2024 participant and mentor feedback indicated a need for more in session application time and clearer milestones. In 2025, we expanded the format (Intro + four Core workshops) and increased structured group activities aligned to checkpoints (e.g., scope development, diagnostics plans), with mentor touchpoints to support progress between sessions. Session feedback in 2025 (means 4.25–5.0/5; most sessions 100% ≥4/5) affirmed these changes.
Mentor reflections. Across both cohorts, mentors reported interprofessional insight, personal growth, and a rewarding experience seeing participants develop. 2024 mentor feedback (e.g., orientation, templates, time for touchpoints) directly informed 2025 refinements (brief mentor orientation, earlier access to templates, and join the participant check ins which are aligned to milestones). Mentors described A_I_M as practical, well planned and organisationally valuable, reinforcing capability uplift for participants and mentors.
Sustainment & transferability. One year follow up for the 2024 indicate sustained progress (most on track) and strong support for continuation. The mentored, work integrated model is applicable across clinical, operational and corporate services; the resource efficient design supports scale and equitable access. Other HHS have expressed interest in the A_I_M Program.
Next steps. We are in early planning for statewide adoption with Centre for Leadership Excellence, Workforce Division. We are progressing a partnership with Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre to establish a post program implementation coaching pathway. We will continue to embed consumer integration in delivery (alongside project level co design), explore micro credential pathways, and maintain longitudinal tracking and research with the University of Tasmania.
References
1. Ben-Tovim DI, Dougherty ML, O'Connell TJ, McGrath KM. Patient journeys: the process of clinical redesign. The Medical journal of Australia. 2008;188(S6):S14-7.
2. Ackerly DC, Parekh A, Stein D. Perspective: A Framework for Career Paths in Health Systems Improvement. Academic Medicine. 2013;88(1).
3. Endalamaw A, Khatri RB, Mengistu TS, Erku D, Wolka E, Zewdie A, et al. A scoping review of continuous quality improvement in healthcare system: conceptualization, models and tools, barriers and facilitators, and impact. BMC Health Services Research. 2024;24(1):487.
4. Titler M. The Evidence for Evidence-Based Practice Implementation. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Apr. Chapter 7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2659/.
5. Prior SJ, Mather C, Miller A, Campbell S. An academic perspective of participation in healthcare redesign. Health research policy and systems. 2019;17(1):87.
6. Dwyer M, Prior SJ, Van Dam PJ, O'Brien L, Griffin P. Development and Evaluation of a Massive Open Online Course on Healthcare Redesign: A Novel Method for Engaging Healthcare Workers in Quality Improvement. Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy). 2022;12(4):850-60.
7. Bell D, McNaney N, Jones M. Improving health care through redesign. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2006;332(7553):1286-7.
8. Sachs J, Rowe A, Wilson M. 2017 Good Practice Report- Work Integrated Learning (WIL)- Macquarie University. 2017.
9. Rouse DN. Employing Kirkpatrick's evaluation framework to determine the effectiveness of health information management courses and programs. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2011;8(Spring):1c.
10. Smidt A, Balandin S, Sigafoos J, Reed VA. The Kirkpatrick model: A useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2009;34(3):266-74.
Key contact
Lisa Evans
Healthcare Redesign Clinical Nurse Consultant
Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service
Email: lisa.evans@health.qld.gov.au