Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34479654›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2021

Reflective writing: a tool to support continuous learning and improved effectiveness in implementation facilitators.

Tanya T Olmos-Ochoa, Karissa M Fenwick, David A Ganz, Neetu Chawla, Lauren S Penney, Jenny M Barnard, Isomi M Miake-Lye, Alison B Hamilton, Erin P Finley

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03063294 (Improving PACT Coordination Across Settings and Services), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03063294 nacompletednot on this map

Improving PACT Coordination Across Settings and Services (QUE 15-276)

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2017 to 2020Enrolled12ConditionsCoordination, AdministrativeArmsOnline Toolkit, Distance-based coaching
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tanya T Olmos-OchoaHSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - Sepulveda, 16111 Plummer Street (152), North Hills, CA, 91343, USA. Tanya.Olmos-Ochoa@va.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8532-5933
Karissa M FenwickHSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - Sepulveda, 16111 Plummer Street (152), North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.
David A GanzHSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - Sepulveda, 16111 Plummer Street (152), North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.
Neetu ChawlaHSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - Sepulveda, 16111 Plummer Street (152), North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.
Lauren S PenneyElizabeth Dole Center of Excellence for Veteran and Caregiver Research, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Jenny M BarnardHSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - Sepulveda, 16111 Plummer Street (152), North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.
Isomi M Miake-LyeHSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - Sepulveda, 16111 Plummer Street (152), North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.
Alison B HamiltonHSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - Sepulveda, 16111 Plummer Street (152), North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.
Erin P FinleyHSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - Sepulveda, 16111 Plummer Street (152), North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.

Funding

Quality Enhancement Research Initiative 15-276
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation facilitators support the adoption of evidence-based practices and other improvement efforts in complex healthcare settings. Facilitators are trained to develop essential facilitation skills and facilitator effectiveness is typically evaluated post-implementation, but little is known about how facilitators apply and adapt didactic knowledge after training, or how learning and refining experiential knowledge occurs during the facilitation process. We propose the use of reflective writing as a tool to document and support facilitator learning and facilitator effectiveness.

methodsUsing an instrumental case study of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project, we explore the use of reflective writing by facilitators to support their learning and effectiveness. Six primary care clinics participated in weekly hour-long facilitation calls over a 12-month period to implement quality improvement projects related to care coordination. Two facilitators completed templated reflections after each facilitation call for their assigned sites, totaling 269 reflections. We used the declarative-procedural-reflective model, which defines the process of skill development in clinical practice, to qualitatively analyze the reflections. Two independent coders used content analysis principles to code text that captured facilitators' observations, evaluations, interpretations, and communication. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze reflections by facilitator and by code within and across reflections.

resultsCTAC facilitators primarily used the reflections to summarize the calls (observation), assess the facilitation process and the tasks and activities they used (evaluation), document their thoughts about how to improve their own effectiveness (interpretation), and describe their communication with implementing teams. Ninety-one percent of reflections included observations, 42% interpretation, 41% evaluation, and 44% facilitator communication. In total, we coded 677 segments of text within reflections: 39% represented observation, 20% interpretation, 18% evaluation, and 23% facilitator communication.

conclusionsThe process of reflective writing allowed the CTAC facilitators the time and structure to evaluate their facilitation and to think critically about how to adjust their facilitation in response to their observations and interpretations. Reflective writing is a feasible and acceptable tool to support and document facilitator learning and effectiveness.

trial registrationThe project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03063294 ) on February 24, 2017.

Indexed as

Facilitator effectivenessImplementation facilitationQualitative methodsQuality improvementReflective writing

Identifiers

PMID34479654
PMCPMC8417958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.