提高以社区为基础的质量保证的保真度测量的可行性:对监督者依从性和能力的部分与完整的观察。

Jason E Chapman, Zoe M Alley, Sonja K Schoenwald
{"title":"提高以社区为基础的质量保证的保真度测量的可行性:对监督者依从性和能力的部分与完整的观察。","authors":"Jason E Chapman,&nbsp;Zoe M Alley,&nbsp;Sonja K Schoenwald","doi":"10.1177/26334895221135263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical supervision is a common quality assurance method for supporting the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in community mental health settings. However, assessing and supporting supervisor fidelity requires efficient and effective measurement methods. This study evaluated two observational coding approaches that are potentially more efficient than coding full sessions: a randomly selected 15-min segment and the first case discussion of the session.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data were leveraged from a randomized trial of an Audit and Feedback (A&F) intervention for supervisor Adherence and Competence. Supervisors (<i>N</i> = 57) recorded and uploaded weekly group supervision sessions for 7 months, with one session observationally coded each month (<i>N</i> = 374). Of the coded sessions, one was randomly selected for each supervisor, and a random 15-min segment was coded. Additionally, the first case discussion was coded for the full sample of sessions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all models (and controlling for the proportion of the session covered by the partial observation), Adherence and Competence scores from partial observations were positively and significantly associated with scores from full sessions. In all cases, partial observations were most accurate when the level of Adherence and Competence was moderate. At lower levels, partial observations were underestimates, and at higher levels, they were overestimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results suggest that efficient observational measurement can be achieved while retaining a general level of measurement effectiveness. Practically, first-case discussions are easier to implement, whereas 15-min segments have fewer potential threats to validity. Evaluation of resource requirements is needed, along with determining whether A&F effects are retained if feedback is based on partial observations. Nevertheless, more efficient observational coding could increase the feasibility of routine fidelity monitoring and quality assurance strategies, including A&F, which ultimately could support the implementation and sustainment of effective supervision practices and EBIs in community practice settings.<b>Plain Language Summary:</b> When delivering evidence-based mental health interventions in community-based practice settings, a common quality assurance method is clinical supervision. To support supervisors, assessment methods are needed, and those methods need to be both efficient and effective. Ideally, supervision sessions would be recorded, and trained coders would rate the supervisor's use of specific strategies. In most settings, though, this requires too many resources. The present study evaluated a more efficient approach. The data came from an existing randomized trial of an Audit and Feedback intervention for enhancing supervisor Adherence and Competence. This included 57 supervisors and 374 sessions across seven months of monitoring. Instead of rating full supervision sessions, a more efficient approach was to have coders rate partial sessions. Two types of partial observations were considered: a randomly selected 15-minute segment of the session and the first case discussion of the session. The aim was to see if partial observations and full observations led to similar conclusions about Adherence and Competence. In all cases, they did. The scores were most similar for sessions with moderate levels of Adherence and Competence. If Adherence and Competence were low, partial observations were underestimates, but if they were high, partial observations were overestimates. Observing partial sessions is more efficient, but in terms of accuracy, the benefits and limitations should be evaluated in light of how the scores will be used. Additionally, future research should consider whether Audit and Feedback interventions have the same effect if feedback is based on observations of partial sessions.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"3 ","pages":"26334895221135263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b0/97/10.1177_26334895221135263.PMC9924246.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the feasibility of fidelity measurement for community-based quality assurance: Partial- versus full-session observations of supervisor adherence and competence.\",\"authors\":\"Jason E Chapman,&nbsp;Zoe M Alley,&nbsp;Sonja K Schoenwald\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26334895221135263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical supervision is a common quality assurance method for supporting the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in community mental health settings. However, assessing and supporting supervisor fidelity requires efficient and effective measurement methods. This study evaluated two observational coding approaches that are potentially more efficient than coding full sessions: a randomly selected 15-min segment and the first case discussion of the session.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data were leveraged from a randomized trial of an Audit and Feedback (A&F) intervention for supervisor Adherence and Competence. Supervisors (<i>N</i> = 57) recorded and uploaded weekly group supervision sessions for 7 months, with one session observationally coded each month (<i>N</i> = 374). Of the coded sessions, one was randomly selected for each supervisor, and a random 15-min segment was coded. Additionally, the first case discussion was coded for the full sample of sessions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all models (and controlling for the proportion of the session covered by the partial observation), Adherence and Competence scores from partial observations were positively and significantly associated with scores from full sessions. In all cases, partial observations were most accurate when the level of Adherence and Competence was moderate. At lower levels, partial observations were underestimates, and at higher levels, they were overestimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results suggest that efficient observational measurement can be achieved while retaining a general level of measurement effectiveness. Practically, first-case discussions are easier to implement, whereas 15-min segments have fewer potential threats to validity. Evaluation of resource requirements is needed, along with determining whether A&F effects are retained if feedback is based on partial observations. Nevertheless, more efficient observational coding could increase the feasibility of routine fidelity monitoring and quality assurance strategies, including A&F, which ultimately could support the implementation and sustainment of effective supervision practices and EBIs in community practice settings.<b>Plain Language Summary:</b> When delivering evidence-based mental health interventions in community-based practice settings, a common quality assurance method is clinical supervision. To support supervisors, assessment methods are needed, and those methods need to be both efficient and effective. Ideally, supervision sessions would be recorded, and trained coders would rate the supervisor's use of specific strategies. In most settings, though, this requires too many resources. The present study evaluated a more efficient approach. The data came from an existing randomized trial of an Audit and Feedback intervention for enhancing supervisor Adherence and Competence. This included 57 supervisors and 374 sessions across seven months of monitoring. Instead of rating full supervision sessions, a more efficient approach was to have coders rate partial sessions. Two types of partial observations were considered: a randomly selected 15-minute segment of the session and the first case discussion of the session. The aim was to see if partial observations and full observations led to similar conclusions about Adherence and Competence. In all cases, they did. The scores were most similar for sessions with moderate levels of Adherence and Competence. If Adherence and Competence were low, partial observations were underestimates, but if they were high, partial observations were overestimates. Observing partial sessions is more efficient, but in terms of accuracy, the benefits and limitations should be evaluated in light of how the scores will be used. Additionally, future research should consider whether Audit and Feedback interventions have the same effect if feedback is based on observations of partial sessions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation research and practice\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"26334895221135263\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b0/97/10.1177_26334895221135263.PMC9924246.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221135263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221135263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:临床监督是支持社区精神卫生机构实施和维持循证干预(ebi)的常见质量保证方法。然而,评估和支持主管忠诚需要高效和有效的测量方法。本研究评估了两种可能比对整个会话进行编码更有效的观察性编码方法:随机选择15分钟片段和会话的第一个案例讨论。方法:数据来自一个随机试验的审计和反馈(A&F)干预监督依从性和能力。监督员(N = 57)记录并上传了为期7个月的每周小组监督会议,每个月进行一次观察编码(N = 374)。在编码的会话中,每个主管随机选择一个,并随机编码一个15分钟的片段。此外,第一个案例讨论是为整个会话样本编码的。结果:在所有模型中(并控制部分观察涵盖的会话比例),部分观察的依从性和能力得分与完整会话的得分呈正相关且显著。在所有情况下,当依从性和能力水平为中等时,部分观察是最准确的。在较低水平上,部分观测值被低估,而在较高水平上,部分观测值被高估。结论:结果表明,在保持一般测量有效性水平的同时,可以实现有效的观测测量。实际上,第一案例讨论更容易实现,而15分钟的片段对有效性的潜在威胁更少。如果反馈是基于部分观察,则需要对资源需求进行评估,并确定是否保留A&F效果。然而,更有效的观察编码可以增加常规保真度监测和质量保证策略的可行性,包括A&F,最终可以支持有效监督实践和社区实践环境中的ebi的实施和维持。摘要:当在社区实践环境中提供基于证据的精神卫生干预措施时,一种常见的质量保证方法是临床监督。为了支持管理者,需要评估方法,这些方法需要既高效又有效。理想情况下,监督会议将被记录下来,训练有素的编码员将对主管对特定策略的使用进行评估。但是,在大多数情况下,这需要太多的资源。本研究评估了一种更有效的方法。这些数据来自一项现有的随机试验,该试验旨在通过审计和反馈干预来提高主管的依从性和能力。这包括57名主管,在7个月的监测中进行了374次会议。比起评估整个监督环节,更有效的方法是让程序员评估部分环节。考虑了两种类型的部分观察:会议中随机选择的15分钟片段和会议的第一个案例讨论。目的是观察局部观察和全面观察是否会得出关于依从性和能力的相似结论。在所有情况下,他们都做到了。在中等水平的依从性和能力的疗程中,得分最为相似。如果依从性和能力较低,则部分观察值被低估,但如果依从性和能力较高,则部分观察值被高估。观察部分会话更有效,但就准确性而言,应该根据如何使用分数来评估其优点和局限性。此外,未来的研究应该考虑,如果反馈是基于部分会话的观察,审计和反馈干预是否具有相同的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Improving the feasibility of fidelity measurement for community-based quality assurance: Partial- versus full-session observations of supervisor adherence and competence.

Improving the feasibility of fidelity measurement for community-based quality assurance: Partial- versus full-session observations of supervisor adherence and competence.

Improving the feasibility of fidelity measurement for community-based quality assurance: Partial- versus full-session observations of supervisor adherence and competence.

Improving the feasibility of fidelity measurement for community-based quality assurance: Partial- versus full-session observations of supervisor adherence and competence.

Background: Clinical supervision is a common quality assurance method for supporting the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in community mental health settings. However, assessing and supporting supervisor fidelity requires efficient and effective measurement methods. This study evaluated two observational coding approaches that are potentially more efficient than coding full sessions: a randomly selected 15-min segment and the first case discussion of the session.

Method: Data were leveraged from a randomized trial of an Audit and Feedback (A&F) intervention for supervisor Adherence and Competence. Supervisors (N = 57) recorded and uploaded weekly group supervision sessions for 7 months, with one session observationally coded each month (N = 374). Of the coded sessions, one was randomly selected for each supervisor, and a random 15-min segment was coded. Additionally, the first case discussion was coded for the full sample of sessions.

Results: Across all models (and controlling for the proportion of the session covered by the partial observation), Adherence and Competence scores from partial observations were positively and significantly associated with scores from full sessions. In all cases, partial observations were most accurate when the level of Adherence and Competence was moderate. At lower levels, partial observations were underestimates, and at higher levels, they were overestimates.

Conclusions: The results suggest that efficient observational measurement can be achieved while retaining a general level of measurement effectiveness. Practically, first-case discussions are easier to implement, whereas 15-min segments have fewer potential threats to validity. Evaluation of resource requirements is needed, along with determining whether A&F effects are retained if feedback is based on partial observations. Nevertheless, more efficient observational coding could increase the feasibility of routine fidelity monitoring and quality assurance strategies, including A&F, which ultimately could support the implementation and sustainment of effective supervision practices and EBIs in community practice settings.Plain Language Summary: When delivering evidence-based mental health interventions in community-based practice settings, a common quality assurance method is clinical supervision. To support supervisors, assessment methods are needed, and those methods need to be both efficient and effective. Ideally, supervision sessions would be recorded, and trained coders would rate the supervisor's use of specific strategies. In most settings, though, this requires too many resources. The present study evaluated a more efficient approach. The data came from an existing randomized trial of an Audit and Feedback intervention for enhancing supervisor Adherence and Competence. This included 57 supervisors and 374 sessions across seven months of monitoring. Instead of rating full supervision sessions, a more efficient approach was to have coders rate partial sessions. Two types of partial observations were considered: a randomly selected 15-minute segment of the session and the first case discussion of the session. The aim was to see if partial observations and full observations led to similar conclusions about Adherence and Competence. In all cases, they did. The scores were most similar for sessions with moderate levels of Adherence and Competence. If Adherence and Competence were low, partial observations were underestimates, but if they were high, partial observations were overestimates. Observing partial sessions is more efficient, but in terms of accuracy, the benefits and limitations should be evaluated in light of how the scores will be used. Additionally, future research should consider whether Audit and Feedback interventions have the same effect if feedback is based on observations of partial sessions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信