Skip to main content

Table 3 NoMaD instrument as adapted for revalidation

From: The implementation of medical revalidation: an assessment using normalisation process theory

Domains Sub- domains Sub-domain questions
Coherence Differentiation How does revalidation differ from usual ways of working?
Communal Specification Do participants have a shared understanding of the purpose of revalidation?
Individual Specification How does revalidation affect the work for participants?
Internalisation Can participants see the potential value of revalidation?
Cognitive participation Initiation Are there key people who drive the revalidation forward and get others involved?
Legitimation Do participants believe that being involved in revalidation is a legitimate part of their role?
Enrolment Are participants open to working with others in new ways for the purposed of revalidation?
Activation Are participants willing to support revalidation?
Collective action Interactional workability Can participants easily integrate revalidation into their existing work?
Relational integration Does being involved in revalidation disrupt working relationships?
Do participants have confidence in other people’s ability to carry out revalidation?
Skill set workability Do participants believe work is assigned to those with appropriate skills to carry out revalidation?
Is sufficient training provided to enable participants to enact revalidation?
Contextual integration Are sufficient resources available to support revalidation?
Do management adequately support revalidation?
Reflexive monitoring Systemisation Are participants aware of reports about the effects of the revalidation?
Communal appraisal Do participants agree that revalidation is worthwhile?
Individual appraisal Do participants value the effects revalidation has on their work?
Reconfiguration Is feedback about revalidation used to improve it in the future?
Do participants modify how they work with revalidation?
  1. Source: Finch et al. 2015 [18]