Weaving Evidence into Action for Veterans with dementia (WEAVE): Codesigning the implementation of nonpharmacological interventions for programme fidelity and sustainability.

Rationale: Challenges associated with translating evidence into practice are well recognised and calls for effective strategies to reduce the time lag and successfully embed evidence‐based practices into usual care are loud and clear. While a plethora of nonpharmacological interventions for people with dementia exist; few are based on strong evidence and there is little consideration for programme operationalisation in the complex environment of long‐term care. Aims and Objectives: This paper describes the preparation for the implementation of the Weaving Evidence into Action for Veterans with dementia project, incorporating the codesign of delivery of four evidence‐based, nonpharmacological interventions. Method: Implementation preparation for this type 2 hybrid effectiveness‐implementation project was underpinned by the Implementation Framework for Aged Care (IFAC). A sociocultural–political contextual scan was undertaken, and reflection on the IFAC question 'why change?' with key stakeholders. Delivery of the four interventions of music therapy, exercise, reminiscence therapy and sensory modulation was explored using codesign methodology. Preparation of both intervention delivery personnel and recipients was via training, establishment of a change team and promotional/awareness‐raising strategies. Results: The contextual scan revealed Australian government reforms and organisational imperatives facing long‐term care services, while reflections on 'why change' flagged best practice dementia care at the local care home level. Several codesign sessions involved veterans with dementia, family members, care home staff members and volunteers to ensure programme alignment with needs and preferences, accounting for existing activities. Training was designed and delivered before programme commencement. A change team was established and strategies to support behaviour change instigated. Implementation evaluation is reported elsewhere. Conclusion: The extended preparatory period for implementation, afforded by the COVID‐19 pandemic on programme commencement, enabled time for widespread understanding of the programme and necessary upskill of staff. Comprehensive codesign with all stakeholders of programme components identified core and flexible elements necessary for fidelity of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]