Treatment enactment category | Scoring based on teams’ self-reported progression throughout the pilot | ||
---|---|---|---|
Excellent (5) | Adequate (3) | Poor (1) | |
Creating actionable AIM statementsa | The team developed an aim statement that reflects 4 of 5 of the SMART components including the ‘specific’ and ‘measurable’ categories. | The team developed an aim statement that reflects up to 3 of the SMART components. | The team’s aim statement did not reflect any of the SMART components. |
Intervention Progression using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA Cycles | The team planned and implemented their intervention in a way that aligned with their aim statement, AND reported using PDSA cycles to spread it to involve other residents and/or staff on their unit. | The team planned and implemented their intervention, but it did not align clearly with their aim statement, OR was only conducted on a limited number of residents and/or staff on the unit. | The team provided no evidence of implementing their intervention, or using PDSA cycles to promote change |
Use of measurement to guide decision-making | The team included specific text documenting how measurement and data were used to guide improvement decisions in successive PDSA cycles. | The team made vague reference to measurement tools and/or strategies used to guide decision-making in successive PDSA cycles. | The team did not report how measurement and data were used to guide decision-making. |