Skip to main content

Table 1 Indicators and Operationalization of Intervention Quality, including Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation

From: Process evaluation of a tailored intervention to Reduce Inappropriate psychotropic Drug use in nursing home residents with dementia

INTERVENTION QUALITY

 Relevance and Feasibility of RID Intervention

  Stakeholder

Indicator

Source

   1) Researchers

Added value tailored information provision

Questionnaire: Likert scale

Experiences with researchers

Interviews: description

   2) Internal project leader & MPT

Competence A of project leader (perceived by coach)

Questionnaire: Likert scale

Experiences with project leaders

Interviews: description

Experiences with MPT

Interviews: description

   3) External coach

Added value of coaching

Questionnaire: Likert scale

Coaching necessity for (continued) implementation

Questionnaire: Yes/No

Competence A of coach (perceived by project leader)

Questionnaire: Likert scale

Experiences with coaching

Interviews: description

 Extent of Performance of RID Intervention

  Task

Indicator

Source

   1) Organizing efforts of stakeholders

  

    - Researchers

Kick-off meeting in nursing home

Questionnaire: Yes/No

    - MPT

Formation of an MPT

Questionnaire: Yes/No

Attendance physicians, psychologists, and nursing staff at MPT meetings B

Questionnaire: % attendance B

    - External coach

Meetings coach and MPT in nursing home C

Questionnaire: # meetings

(Phone) meetings coach and project leader C

Questionnaire: # meetings

   2) Problem analysis

Researchers carried out problem analysis and presented results to the MPT and coach

Questionnaire: Yes/No

   3) Designing tailored AIP

AIP created

Questionnaire: Yes/No

Contribution coach, project leader, and MPT to designing the AIP

Questionnaire: Likert scale

Perceived match between problems and actions

Questionnaire: Likert scale

Coach provided feedback on the AIP

Questionnaire: Yes/No

Researchers provided feedback on the AIP

Questionnaire: Yes/No

Adjustments to AIP based on feedback

Questionnaire: Yes/No

   4) Implementation of tailored AIP

Start with implementation D

Questionnaire: # weeks passed

 

Execution actions as intended: E Implementation score

Questionnaire: 10-point scale

   5) Monitoring progression

Researchers carried out interim measurement and provided the MPT with the results *

Questionnaire: Yes/No

   6) Stimulating progression

Coach discussed and reflected on interim results with the MPT *

Questionnaire: Yes/No

   7) Adjustments to tailored AIP

MPT adjusted the AIP based on interim results F *

Questionnaire: Yes/No

Interviews: description

   8) Providing final results

Researchers carried out final measurement and provided the MPT with the end results

Questionnaire: Yes/No

 Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation

Interviews: data structured with CFIR

  1. Abbreviations: AIP Action and Implementation Plan, CFIR Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, MPT Multidisciplinary Project Team
  2. A Evaluated as: (very) competent on content (PDs, alternatives in managing NPS) and process (motivate, structure)
  3. B Since these disciplines are directly managing PDs and NPS, their attendance was considered most important. For each NH, the % of attendance was given as a mode (most frequently occurring % of separate disciplines). Attendance of separate disciplines is depicted in Additional File 2
  4. C The MPT and coach were supposed to have regular contact, but the number of meetings was not pre-defined
  5. D 8 weeks were planned for the problem analysis and designing the AIP, leaving 6 or 14 months (short vs. long duration) for implementation: Implementation within 8 weeks is as intended, 8–16 weeks suboptimal, > 16 weeks is deviation
  6. E Mean of Implementation scores of each action from AIP: 10-point scale (0 not at all implemented as intended – 10 totally implemented as intended) per action
  7. F Providing MPTs with their interim results was supposed to provide NHs with the opportunity to adapt the AIP. Not making changes while results indicated no improvement with respect to inappropriate PDU is considered a deviation
  8. * Only for the 8 NHs who started in the intervention group
Back to article page

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us