Table 4 CTAC sites’ project outcomes, coached versus non-coached
Coached Sites | Non-Coached Sites | |
|---|---|---|
Implementation outcomes at 12 months | ||
Penetration | Half of sites fully implemented across their clinic | Half of sites fully implemented across their clinic |
Other half had implemented most of their projects, but had components of their complex projects still being worked on or that had been infeasible to implement | Other half either had not implemented anything or conducted limited pilots (at 12 months, one pilot was adapted to be implemented clinic-wide) | |
Fidelity to site project | Good but some variable fidelity across clinic | Good but some variable fidelity across clinic |
Implementation outcomes at 18 months | ||
Sustainability | Variable, but most components still in use, though some drop-off in practice | Variable, but most components still in use, though some drop-off in practice |
Dissemination | Ongoing work to monitor, adapt, and spread projects | Little ongoing work, several projects being fully implemented and one targeted for system-wide spread |
Project reported outcomes | ||
Service and patient | Staff and patient satisfaction with intervention Some tracking that identified positive service impacts | Did not systematically collect satisfaction data Few described assessing impacts, but overall perceived positive impacts |
Staff outcomes | Improved clinic communication and relationships, gains in QI knowledge and skill, and a sense of pride and accomplishment | When learning was described it was often in relation to content of their intervention |