Toolkit and distance coaching strategies: a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to implement care coordination quality improvement projects in primary care

Table 3 CTAC sites’ engagement in CFIR implementation processes, coached versus non-coached

	Coached Sites	Toolkit Only Sites
Champions	1–2 champions, usually a nurse, displayed champion behaviors^a	1–2 champions, usually a nurse, displayed champion behaviors ^a
QI Teams	2–8+ people Often composed of nursing and clerk staff, +/− providers, +/− supervisors	1–4 people Often a nurse champion with assistance from a supervisor
Planning	Began between leaders and champions during site visit Scheduled, structured weekly meetings Organized through SMART^b goals	Driven by champions with input from supervisors Lack of consistent meetings or organizational structure Generally did not describe having elaborated goals
Engaging	Formal outreach (e.g., scripted education or printed materials) to staff and patients to standardize practice	Utilized informal outreach to notify staff of intervention
Reflecting and evaluating	Developed and/or used structured data collection tools Data primarily fed back to refine tools and processes, less effort to document implementation and impacts	Sometimes used single data points on administrative reports to track impacts and/or informal methods to evaluate Did not describe using data feedback mechanisms to improve tools or implementation

^aChampion behaviors included but were not limited to serving as a team leader, helping to plan and troubleshooting problems, engaging staff in training and education, and advocating for the local initiative [33]
^bSMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound

ISSN: 1472-6963