Facilitators and “deal breakers”: a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the Goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams

Scobbie, L., Duncan, E. A.S., Brady, M. C., Thomson, K. and Wyke, S. (2020) Facilitators and “deal breakers”: a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the Goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams. BMC Health Services Research, 20, 791. (doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05651-2) (PMID:32843039) (PMCID:PMC7447562)

222734.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.



Background: High quality goal setting in stroke rehabilitation is vital, but challenging to deliver. The G-AP framework (including staff training and a stroke survivor held G-AP record) guides patient centred goal setting with stroke survivors in community rehabilitation teams. We found G-AP was acceptable, feasible to deliver and clinically useful in one team. The aim of this study was to conduct a mixed methods investigation of G-AP implementation in diverse community teams prior to a large-scale evaluation. Methods: We approached Scottish community rehabilitation teams to take part. Following training, G-AP was delivered to stroke survivors within participating teams for 6 months. We investigated staff experiences of G-AP training and its implementation using focus groups and a training questionnaire. We investigated fidelity of G-AP delivery through case note review. Focus group data were analysed using a Framework approach; identified themes were mapped into Normalisation Process Theory constructs. Questionnaire and case note data were analysed descriptively. Results: We recruited three teams comprising 55 rehabilitation staff. Almost all staff (93%, 51/55) participated in G-AP training; of those, 80% (n = 41/51) completed the training questionnaire. Training was rated as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ by almost all staff (92%, n = 37/41). G-AP was broadly implemented as intended in two teams. Implementation facilitators included - G-AP ‘made sense’; repetitive use of G-AP in practice; flexible G-AP delivery and positive staff appraisals of G-AP impact. G-AP failed to gain traction in the third team. Implementation barriers included - delays between G-AP training and implementation; limited leadership engagement; a poor ‘fit’ between G-AP and the team organisational structure and simultaneous delivery of other goal setting methods. Staff recommended (i) development of training to include implementation planning; (ii) ongoing local implementation review and tailoring, and (iii) development of electronic and aphasia friendly G-AP records. Conclusions: The interaction between G-AP and the practice setting is critical to implementation success or failure. Whilst facilitators support implementation success, barriers can collectively act as implementation “deal breakers”. Local G-AP implementation efforts should be planned, monitored and tailored. These insights can inform implementation of other complex interventions in community rehabilitation settings.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:This study was funded by a Chief Scientist Office doctoral training fellowship awarded to LS (DTF/11/02). Preparation of the manuscript was supported LS’s Stroke Association Clinical Lectureship award (TSA LECT 2016/02).
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Wyke, Professor Sally
Authors: Scobbie, L., Duncan, E. A.S., Brady, M. C., Thomson, K., and Wyke, S.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Health & Wellbeing > Social Scientists working in Health and Wellbeing
Journal Name:BMC Health Services Research
Publisher:BioMed Central
ISSN (Online):1472-6963
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2020 The Authors
First Published:First published in BMC Health Services Research 20: 791
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons licence

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record