La Trobe

How Frontline Staff Manage Paperwork in Group Homes for People with Intellectual Disability: Implications for Practice

journal contribution
posted on 2025-10-22, 23:04 authored by Claire QuilliamClaire Quilliam, Christine BigbyChristine Bigby, Jacinta DouglasJacinta Douglas
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd <div><br></div><div>Background: Paperwork is a key tool that transforms organizational intentions into actions in group homes, although prescriptive procedures may limit how frontline staff use it in practice. The aim of this study was to explore how frontline staff use paperwork in group homes for people with intellectual disability and identify practice implications. Method: Constructivist grounded theory methodology guided the research. Data collection included semi-structured interviews and participant observations. Coding, comparison and sorting methods were adopted to analyse how staff used paperwork. Results: Staff followed organizational paperwork rules when they aligned with their resident-focused approach to work. When they perceived rules to misalign with this approach, they managed paperwork by adjusting the time and place of completion, managing content, creating alternative tools and refusing completion. Conclusions: Staff purposefully managed paperwork rather than simply following procedures. Disability service organizations could develop flexible paperwork procedures and include frontline perspectives in paperwork development.</div>

Funding

La Trobe University

Graduate Women Victoria bursary

History

Publication Date

2018-05-08

Journal

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Volume

31

Issue

5

Pagination

10p. (p. 905-914)

Publisher

Wiley

ISSN

1360-2322

Rights Statement

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Quilliam C; Bigby C & Douglas J (2018). How Frontline Staff Manage Paperwork in Group Homes for People with Intellectual Disability: Implications for Practice. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(5), 905-914, which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12450. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited.