|
NH
|
1a) Atten-dance MPT
|
1b) Meetings coach + MPT
|
1c) (Phone)-meetings coach + PL
|
3a) AIP * created
|
3b) Contribution coach, PL, MPT in designing AIP
|
3c) Adjustments AIP based on feedback
|
4a) Start with implementation in weeks
|
4b) Execution A actions of AIP as intended
|
7) Adjustments AIP based on interim results
|
|---|
|
1
|
76–100%
|
9
|
0
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8
|
8.4
|
Not necessary
|
|
2
|
0–25%
|
7
|
5
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
8.5
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
26–50%
|
13
|
12
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
> 16
|
5.4
|
No
|
|
4
|
76–100%
|
7
|
3
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8
|
7.0
|
Yes
|
|
5
|
26–50%
|
9
|
7
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
6.4
|
Yes
|
|
6
|
26–50%
|
5
|
4
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
7.9
|
Not necessary
|
|
7
|
51–75%
|
8
|
3
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
7.9
|
Yes
|
|
8
|
26–50%
|
11
|
12
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
6.3
|
Yes
|
|
9
|
76–100%
|
9
|
8
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
7.0
|
N.A. B
|
|
10
|
51–75%
|
6
|
2
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
3.4
|
N.A.
|
|
11
|
76–100%
|
5
|
3
|
No.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
> 16
|
5.0
|
N.A.
|
|
12
|
26–50%
|
7
|
2
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
6.8
|
N.A.
|
|
13
|
76–100%
|
8
|
4
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8
|
7.3
|
N.A.
|
|
14
|
76–100%
|
5
|
7
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
7.8
|
N.A.
|
|
15
|
76–100%
|
5
|
1
|
Yes
|
Reasonable
|
No
|
Within 8–16
|
5.3
|
N.A.
|
|
16
|
76–100%
|
7
|
10
|
Yes
|
(Very) large
|
Yes
|
Within 8–16
|
6.3
|
N.A.
|
- Abbreviations: AIP (tailored) Action and Implementation Plan, MPT Multidisciplinary Project Team, NH Nursing Home, PL (internal) Project Leader
- A 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
- B Not Applicable: nursing homes 9–16 were in the deferred control group (start with the intervention in the second 8-month period and had therefore no interim results)
