Development and Pilot testing of a Leadership Module to Support Quality Improvement Teams in Nursing Homes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Background Leadership is a critical lever for supporting implementation of practice change ideas intended to improve care. We need evidence-based leadership programs to help front-line providers meaningfully implement practice change in complex care settings. Part of the SHIFT intervention, this paper describes and pilot tests a leadership program module (LeaderSHIFT) that provides training and implementation coaching to front-line leaders, as one of several integrated facilitated supports designed to help front-line care teams meaningfully enact practice change. Methods The LeaderSHIFT program module was developed based on empirical work, relevant facilitation and transformational leadership theories, and principles of stakeholder co-design and feasible engagement. A pilot implementation study was conducted that examined several of Proctor’s (2011) implementation outcomes. Results LeaderSHIFT includes four interactive workshops plus two one-on-one coaching sessions designed to develop capacity in four areas of implementation leadership: (1) Self-awareness, (2) Motivate and inspire, (3) Facilitate learning capacity, and (4 ) Support ‘team-oriented processes’. Pilot results suggest it can be successfully implemented (it was acceptable, adopted, appropriate, feasible). Fidelity (LeaderSHIFT role enactment) varied across pilot teams. Conclusions With a strong theoretical and empirical base, LeaderSHIFT highlights important, often overlooked, relational and socio-cultural aspects of successful implementation leadership. As such, the LeaderSHIFT program module has the potential to improve implementation of practice change interventions in nursing homes and other institutional care settings. Trial registration Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT03426072 ) on July 18, 2022. KEY MESSAGES REGARDING FEASIBILITY What uncertainties existed regarding the feasibility? While leadership is known to be a critical lever for implementation of evidence-informed practice change, there are few leadership training programs that have a relational focus designed to support broader team-based practice change initiatives; and uncertainty remains regarding implementability (feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity) of this type of leadership module in complex care settings What are the key feasibility findings? The LeaderSHIFT module performed well on several key implementation outcomes (module acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness). Fidelity to implementation leadership was successful for managers who were able to enact relational aspects of the role. What are the implications of the feasibility findings for the design of the main study? Findings confirmed the value of one-to-one coaching for enhancing leaders’ relational competencies and prompted training overlap for senior and front-line leaders to ensure there is a common understanding of respective roles in intervention implementation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».