Dataset Information

Validity and usefulness of members reports of implementation progress in a quality improvement initiative: findings from the Team Check-up Tool (TCT).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Team-based interventions are effective for improving safety and quality of healthcare. However, contextual factors, such as team functioning, leadership, and organizational support, can vary significantly across teams and affect the level of implementation success. Yet, the science for measuring context is immature. The goal of this study is to validate measures from a short instrument tailored to track dynamic context and progress for a team-based quality improvement (QI) intervention.

Methods

Design

Secondary cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of data from a clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a team-based quality improvement intervention to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in intensive care units (ICUs).

Setting

Forty-six ICUs located within 35 faith-based, not-for-profit community hospitals across 12 states in the U.S.

Population

Team members participating in an ICU-based QI intervention.

Measures

The primary measure is the Team Check-up Tool (TCT), an original instrument that assesses context and progress of a team-based QI intervention. The TCT is administered monthly. Validation measures include CLABSI rate, Team Functioning Survey (TFS) and Practice Environment Scale (PES) from the Nursing Work Index.

Analysis

Temporal stability, responsiveness and validity of the TCT.

Results

We found evidence supporting the temporal stability, construct validity, and responsiveness of TCT measures of intervention activities, perceived group-level behaviors, and barriers to team progress.

Conclusions

The TCT demonstrates good measurement reliability, validity, and responsiveness. By having more validated measures on implementation context, researchers can more readily conduct rigorous studies to identify contextual variables linked to key intervention and patient outcomes and strengthen the evidence base on successful spread of efficacious team-based interventions. QI teams participating in an intervention should also find data from a validated tool useful for identifying opportunities to improve their own implementation.

SUBMITTER: Chan KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3205035 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validity and usefulness of members reports of implementation progress in a quality improvement initiative: findings from the Team Check-up Tool (TCT).

Chan Kitty S KS Hsu Yea-Jen YJ Lubomski Lisa H LH Marsteller Jill A JA

Implementation science : IS 20111003

<h4>Background</h4>Team-based interventions are effective for improving safety and quality of healthcare. However, contextual factors, such as team functioning, leadership, and organizational support, can vary significantly across teams and affect the level of implementation success. Yet, the science for measuring context is immature. The goal of this study is to validate measures from a short instrument tailored to track dynamic context and progress for a team-based quality improvement (QI) int ...[more]

PMID: 21967862

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesInadequate self-efficacy of resuscitation team members may impair team performance, but high self-efficacy does not guarantee competence. We evaluated the relationship between individual self-efficacy and resuscitation team competence.DesignSecondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.SettingHigh-fidelity in situ in-hospital cardiac arrest simulations at seven hospitals in Utah.SubjectsMultidisciplinary cardiac arrest resuscitation team members.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsResuscitation team members completed surveys evaluating resuscitation self-efficacy (confidence in resuscitation role, difficulty thinking clearly, and concerns about committing errors) after each simulation. The primary outcome was event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Secondary outcomes included other measures of resuscitation quality, advanced cardiac life support protocol adherence, and nontechnical team performance. Analyses employed the Datta-Satten rank-sum method to account for response clustering within simulation events. Of 923 participants in 76 analyzable simulations, 612 (66%) submitted complete surveys and 33 (43%) resuscitation teams achieved hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75% versus less than or equal to 75% was not associated with the percentage of resuscitation team members reporting confidence in their team role (n = 213 [74%] vs. n = 251 [77%], respectively, p = 0.18), lack of difficulty thinking clearly (n = 186 [65%] vs. n = 214 [66%], p = 0.92), or lack of worry about making errors (n = 155 [54%] vs. n = 180 [55%], p = 0.41). Team members' confidence was also not associated with secondary outcomes, except that teams with confident members had better values for composite (3.55 [interquartile range, IQR 3.00-3.82] vs. 3.18 [IQR 2.57-3.64], p = 0.024) and global (8 [7-9] vs. 8 [6-8], p = 0.029) scales measuring nontechnical team performance.ConclusionsTeam members' self-efficacy was not associated with most team-level competence metrics during simulated cardiac arrest resuscitation. These data suggest that self-efficacy should have a limited role for evaluation of resuscitation training programs and for initial certification and monitoring of individual resuscitation team members' competence.

Project description:BackgroundLow and middle-income countries have growing older populations and could benefit from the use of multi-domain geriatric assessments in overcoming the challenge of providing quality health services to older persons. This paper reports on the outcomes of a study carried out in Cape Town, South Africa on the validity of the interRAI Check-Up Self-Report instrument, a multi-domain assessment instrument designed to screen older persons in primary health settings. This is the first criterion validity study of the instrument. The instrument is designed to identify specific health problems and needs, including psychosocial or cognition problems and issues related to functional decline. The interRAI Check-Up Self-Report is designed to be compatible with the clinician administered instruments in the interRAI suite of assessments, but the validity of the instrument against clinician ratings has not yet been established. We therefore sought to establish whether community health workers, rather than trained healthcare professionals could reliably administer the self-report instrument to older persons.MethodsWe evaluated the criterion validity of the self-report instrument through comparison to assessments completed by a clinician assessor. A total of 112 participants, aged 60 or older were recruited from 7 seniors clubs in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Each participant was assessed by one of two previously untrained, non-healthcare personnel using the Check-Up Self-report version and again by a trained assessor using the clinician version of the interRAI Check-Up within 48 h. Our analyses focused on the degree of agreement between the self-reported and clinician-rated versions of the Check-Up based on the simple or weighted kappa values for the two types of ratings. Binary variables used simple kappas, and ordinal variables with three or more levels were examined using weighted kappas with Fleiss-Cohen weights.ResultsBased on Cohen's Kappa values, we were able to establish that high levels of agreement existed between clinical assessors and lay interviewers, indicating that the instrument can be validly administered by community health workers without formal healthcare training. 13% of items had kappa values ranging between 0.10 and 0.39; 51% of items had kappa values between 0.4 and 0.69; and 36% of items had values of between 0.70 and 1.00.ConclusionOur findings indicate that there is potential for the Check-Up Self-Report instrument to be implemented in under-resourced health systems such as South Africa's.

Project description:BackgroundWeight stigma is prevalent within healthcare settings and is an aspect of the lived experience of people living with obesity. There is international evidence of weight stigma in the dental setting, where currently there is also evidence indicating limited training amongst dental professionals regarding obesity or obesity-related stigma. There has been Australian research and none have included dental support staff.AimsThis cross-sectional survey aimed to assess stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs of dental professionals (registered general dentists, oral health therapists) and support staff (dental assistants, dental receptionists) working in private and public regional practices in New South Wales and specialists in Special Needs Dentistry across Australia toward people living with obesity.MethodsAn anonymous electronic validated survey was administered through REDCap™ to assess stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs held amongst respondents in relation to people living with obesity.ResultsFifty-three participants completed the survey (n = 33 clinicians, n = 20 support staff). The majority 47/53 (88.7%) held positive attitudes toward people living with obesity. Of the clinicians, 15/33 (45.5%) reported 1 hour or less and 14/33 (42.4%) reported two to 5 hours of obesity-related education. 14/20 (70%) of the support staff reported no prior education or training about obesity. Of responses reflecting weight stigma, only three clinicians reported negative reactions toward the appearance, or discomfort during examination, of a patient with obesity, or a perception of laziness, compared with normal weight individuals. A higher proportion 4/20 (20%) of support staff reported responses indicating negative attitudes for people with obesity compared with normal weight individuals.ConclusionSurvey responses reflected evidence of weight stigma in both dental professionals and support staff. Professional development targeting weight stigma reduction in the dental setting is needed for both clinicians and support staff.

Dataset Information

Validity and usefulness of members reports of implementation progress in a quality improvement initiative: findings from the Team Check-up Tool (TCT).

Background

Methods

Design

Setting

Population

Measures

Analysis

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Validity and usefulness of members reports of implementation progress in a quality improvement initiative: findings from the Team Check-up Tool (TCT).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets