Dataset Information

Facilitators and "deal breakers": a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the Goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:High quality goal setting in stroke rehabilitation is vital, but challenging to deliver. The G-AP framework (including staff training and a stroke survivor held G-AP record) guides patient centred goal setting with stroke survivors in community rehabilitation teams. We found G-AP was acceptable, feasible to deliver and clinically useful in one team. The aim of this study was to conduct a mixed methods investigation of G-AP implementation in diverse community teams prior to a large-scale evaluation. METHODS:We approached Scottish community rehabilitation teams to take part. Following training, G-AP was delivered to stroke survivors within participating teams for 6?months. We investigated staff experiences of G-AP training and its implementation using focus groups and a training questionnaire. We investigated fidelity of G-AP delivery through case note review. Focus group data were analysed using a Framework approach; identified themes were mapped into Normalisation Process Theory constructs. Questionnaire and case note data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS:We recruited three teams comprising 55 rehabilitation staff. Almost all staff (93%, 51/55) participated in G-AP training; of those, 80% (n?=?41/51) completed the training questionnaire. Training was rated as 'good' or 'very good' by almost all staff (92%, n?=?37/41). G-AP was broadly implemented as intended in two teams. Implementation facilitators included - G-AP 'made sense'; repetitive use of G-AP in practice; flexible G-AP delivery and positive staff appraisals of G-AP impact. G-AP failed to gain traction in the third team. Implementation barriers included - delays between G-AP training and implementation; limited leadership engagement; a poor 'fit' between G-AP and the team organisational structure and simultaneous delivery of other goal setting methods. Staff recommended (i) development of training to include implementation planning; (ii) ongoing local implementation review and tailoring, and (iii) development of electronic and aphasia friendly G-AP records. CONCLUSIONS:The interaction between G-AP and the practice setting is critical to implementation success or failure. Whilst facilitators support implementation success, barriers can collectively act as implementation "deal breakers". Local G-AP implementation efforts should be planned, monitored and tailored. These insights can inform implementation of other complex interventions in community rehabilitation settings.

SUBMITTER: Scobbie L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7447562 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facilitators and "deal breakers": a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the Goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams.

Scobbie Lesley L Duncan Edward A S EAS Brady Marian C MC Thomson Katie K Wyke Sally S

BMC health services research 20200825 1

<h4>Background</h4>High quality goal setting in stroke rehabilitation is vital, but challenging to deliver. The G-AP framework (including staff training and a stroke survivor held G-AP record) guides patient centred goal setting with stroke survivors in community rehabilitation teams. We found G-AP was acceptable, feasible to deliver and clinically useful in one team. The aim of this study was to conduct a mixed methods investigation of G-AP implementation in diverse community teams prior to a l ...[more]

PMID: 32843039

Similar Datasets

Project description:The ongoing rise in the numbers of chronically ill people necessitates efforts for effective self-management. Goal setting and action planning are frequently used, as they are thought to support patients in changing their behavior. However, it remains unclear how goal setting and action planning in the context of self-management are defined in the scientific literature. This study aimed to achieve a better understanding of the various definitions used.A scoping review was conducted, searching PubMed, Cinahl, PsychINFO and Cochrane. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated to ensure the focus on goal setting/action planning and self-management. The literature was updated to December 2015; data selection and charting was done by two reviewers. A qualitative content analysis approach was used.Out of 9115 retrieved articles, 58 met the inclusion criteria. We created an overview of goal setting phases that were applied (preparation, formulation of goals, formulation of action plan, coping planning and follow-up). Although the phases we found are in accordance with commonly known frameworks for goal setting, it was striking that the majority of studies (n = 39, 67%) did not include all phases. We also prepared an overview of components and strategies for each goal setting phase. Interestingly, few strategies were found for the communication between patients and professionals about goals/action plans. Most studies (n = 35, 60%) focused goal setting on one single disease and on a predefined lifestyle behavior; nearly half of the articles (n = 27, 47%) reported a theoretical framework.The results might provide practical support for developers of interventions. Moreover, our results might encourage professionals to become more aware of the phases of the goal setting process and of strategies emphasizing on patient reflection. However, more research might be useful to examine strategies to facilitate communication about goals/action plans. It might also be worthwhile to develop and evaluate goal setting/action planning strategies for people with different and multiple chronic conditions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo map the extant literature evaluating the use of technology for goal setting in adult rehabilitation and the impact of technology for patient outcomes.DesignScoping review.MethodsMEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), AMED and Scopus were searched for articles describing observational or interventional studies. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database were searched for grey literature. Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts for potentially relevant articles. We included articles describing studies that had evaluated the development or application of technology to facilitate goal setting in rehabilitation for adults. Articles were excluded if the technology described did not include features to facilitate goal setting or were not in English. Narrative reviews, opinion pieces and editorials were also excluded.ResultsAfter screening 1640 publications of potential interest, we identified 27 studies for inclusion. These 27 articles described studies involving a total of 16 different technologies including, seven mobile apps, three websites, two mobile apps/website hybrids, two apps and two websites connected to a pedometer. We found that most technologies described were designed to facilitate self-management with goal setting as a feature and that only five included a shared decision moment around goal setting. Only six of the 16 technologies had research providing evidence of effectiveness in terms of improved patient outcomes, with the best evidence of beneficial effects associated with technologies that linked goal setting to pedometer use.ConclusionsThe identified technologies for use in adult rehabilitation that included goal setting as a feature were largely accepted and valued by patients and health professionals. The limited data suggest that there is a need for further research; specific foci may include the impact of incorporation of a shared decision-making moment and evaluation of effectiveness on patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundGoal setting is considered 'best practice' in stroke rehabilitation; however, there is no consensus regarding the key components of goal setting interventions or how they should be optimally delivered in practice. We developed a theory-based goal setting and action planning framework (G-AP) to guide goal setting practice. G-AP has 4 stages: goal negotiation, goal setting, action planning & coping planning and appraisal & feedback. All stages are recorded in a patient-held record. In this study we examined the implementation, acceptability and perceived benefits of G-AP in one community rehabilitation team with people recovering from stroke.MethodsG-AP was implemented for 6 months with 23 stroke patients. In-depth interviews with 8 patients and 8 health professionals were analysed thematically to investigate views of its implementation, acceptability and perceived benefits. Case notes of interviewed patients were analysed descriptively to assess the fidelity of G-AP implementation.ResultsG-AP was mostly implemented according to protocol with deviations noted at the planning and appraisal and feedback stages. Each stage was felt to make a useful contribution to the overall process; however, in practice, goal negotiation and goal setting merged into one stage and the appraisal and feedback stage included an explicit decision making component. Only two issues were raised regarding G-APs acceptability: (i) health professionals were concerned about the impact of goal non-attainment on patient's well-being (patients did not share their concerns), and (ii) some patients and health professionals found the patient-held record unhelpful. G-AP was felt to have a positive impact on patient goal attainment and professional goal setting practice. Collaborative partnerships between health professionals and patients were apparent throughout the process.ConclusionsG-AP has been perceived as both beneficial and broadly acceptable in one community rehabilitation team; however, implementation of novel aspects of the framework was inconsistent. The regulatory function of goal non-attainment and the importance of creating flexible partnerships with patients have been highlighted. Further development of the G-AP framework, training package and patient held record is required to address the specific issues highlighted by this process evaluation. Further evaluation of G-AP is required across diverse community rehabilitation settings.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral active ingredients contribute to the purposes and mechanisms of goal-setting in rehabilitation. Active ingredients in the goal-setting process include, interdisciplinary teamworking, shared decision-making, having meaningful and specific goals, and including action planning, coping planning, feedback, and review. Clinicians have expressed barriers and enablers to implementing these active ingredients in rehabilitation teams. Interventions designed to improve goal-setting practices need to be tailored to address context specific barriers and enablers. Attempts to understand and enhance goal-setting practices in rehabilitation settings should be supported using theory, process models and determinant frameworks. Few studies have been undertaken to enhance goal-setting practices in varied case-mix rehabilitation settings.MethodsThis study is part of a larger program of research guided by the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework. A multisite, participatory, codesign approach was used in five sites to address three stages of the KTA. (1) Focus groups were conducted to understand barriers and enablers to implementing goal-setting at each site. Following the focus groups three staff co-design workshops and one consumer workshop were run at each site to (2) adapt knowledge to local context, and to (3) select and tailor interventions to improve goal-setting practices. Focus groups were analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and informed the selection of behaviour change techniques incorporated into the implementation plan.ResultsBarriers and enablers identified in this study were consistent with previous research. Clinicians lacked knowledge and understanding of the differences between a goal and an action plan often confusing both terms. Clinicians were unable to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of comprehensive action planning and review processes that extended beyond initial goal-setting. Interventions developed across the sites included staff training modules, a client held workbook, educational rehabilitation service flyers, interdisciplinary goal-based case conference templates, communication goal boards and a key worker model. Implementation plans were specifically established for each site.ConclusionsRehabilitation teams continue to struggle to incorporate a truly client-centred, interdisciplinary model of goal-setting in rehabilitation. Whilst clinicians continue to lack understanding of how they can use aspects of goal-setting to enhance client outcomes and autonomy in rehabilitation settings.

Project description:BackgroundJoint rehabilitation goals are an important component for effective teamwork in the rehabilitation field. The activities and participation domain of the ICF provides a common language for professionals when setting these goals. Involving clients in the formulation of rehabilitation goals is gaining momentum as part of a person-centred approach to rehabilitation. However, this is particularly difficult when clients have an acquired communication disability. The expressive communication difficulties negatively affect the consensus building process. As a result, obtaining information regarding rehabilitation goals from professionals and their clients warrants further investigation for this particular population.MethodsThis comparative study investigated clients and their assigned rehabilitation professionals' perception of the importance of ICF activities and participation domains for inclusion in their rehabilitation program. Twelve clients in an acute rehabilitation centre and twenty of their corresponding rehabilitation professionals participated in an activity using the Talking Mats™ visual framework for goal setting. Each participant rated the importance of the nine activities and participation domains of the ICF for inclusion in their current rehabilitation program.ResultsThe ICF domains which consistently appear as very important across these groups are mobility, self-care and communication. Domains which consistently appear in the lower third of the rankings include spare time, learning and thinking and domestic life. Results indicate however that no statistical significant differences exist in terms of the individual domains across each of the participant groups. Within group differences however indicated that amongst the speech-language therapists and physiotherapists there was a statistical significant difference between spare time activities and communication and mobility.ConclusionsFindings indicate that consensus is possible amongst professionals and clients even within an acute-rehabilitation setting. In addition, the Talking Mats™ visual framework appears to be a valid protocol for including clients with acquired communication disabilities in the process of obtaining consensus during goal-setting.

Dataset Information

Facilitators and "deal breakers": a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the Goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams.

Publications

Facilitators and "deal breakers": a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the Goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets