Reflecting & Evaluating

From CFIR Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Reflecting & Evaluating
Taxonomy
Domain
Process
Siblings
Engaging
Executing
Planning
Reflecting & Evaluating
Measurement maturity
Quantitative tools


Contents

Version 1.0

Quantitative and qualitative feedback about the progress and quality of implementation accompanied with regular personal and team debriefing about progress and experience.

Description

Quantitative and qualitative feedback about the progress and quality of implementation accompanied with regular personal and team debriefing about progress and experience. It is important to differentiate this processual construct from the Goals and Feedback construct under Inner Setting, described above. The focus here is specifically related to implementation efforts. Evaluation includes traditional forms of feedback, such as reports, graphs, and qualitative feedback and anecdotal stories of success[1]. Objectives should be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely (the SMART rubric)[2]. Less attention is paid in the literature to the need for, and value of, group and personal reflection. Dedicating time for reflecting or debriefing before, during, and after implementation is one way to promote shared learning and improvements along the way[3].

Rationale for inclusion

Quantitative and qualitative feedback about the progress and quality of implementation accompanied with regular personal and team debriefing about progress and experience.

Measurement

Qualitative codebook guidelines

Inclusion criteria

Include statements that refer to the process used in implementation, i.e., the implementation team’s (lack of) on-going review of implementation progress. Reflecting and Evaluating is part of the implementation process; it likely ends when implementation activities end. It does not require goals be explicitly articulated; it can focus on the current state, though there may be an implied goal (e.g., we need to implement the innovation) when the implementation team discusses feedback in terms of adjustments needed to complete implementation.



Exclusion criteria

Exclude statements related to the (lack of) alignment of the innovation with larger organizational goals, as well as feedback to staff regarding those goals, e.g., regular audit and feedback regarding the gap between the current organizational status and the future (goal) organizational status and code to Goals & Feedback. Goals and Feedback is independent of the implementation process; it likely continues when implementation activities end.

Exclude statements that capture the reflecting and evaluating that participants may do during the interview, for example, related to the success of the implementation and code to Knowledge & Beliefs about the Intervention.



Quantitative measures

Attachments

References

  1. Theory at a Glance: A guide for health promotion practice (PDF)
  2. Brach C, Lenfestey N, Roussel A, Amoozegar J, Sorensen A: Will It Work Here? A Decisionmaker's Guide to Adopting Innovations Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ); 2008.
  3. Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisana GP: Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Adm Sci Q 2001, 46:685-716.
Personal tools
Etiquette and Help