TeamTRACS Pilot (CTSI)

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
In a previous research study, the investigators adapted an evidence-based team training intervention for healthcare settings (TeamSTEPPS) to fit the needs and context of Child Advocacy Center multidisciplinary teams. This study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the adapted training, TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support). This hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation study will test the effectiveness of TeamTRACS and pilot a self-guided approach to implementing TeamTRACS in low-resource settings.

Detailed Description
-----------------
This study is designed to test the effects of TeamTRACS on knowledge, skill use, and team functioning. It will also evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of a self-guided implementation approach that requires few resources and builds local capacity for change. Six rural Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) will be randomized to TeamTRACS (4 CACs) or a waitlist comparison (2 CACs). The long-term goal of this research is to create an effective team training that can be rapidly scaled up and disseminated to rural CACs nationwide. Supporting rural teams can improve team performance, strengthen the workforce, and ultimately improve service quality and outcomes for rural children who experience child abuse.

Official Title
-----------------
Improving Teamwork in Rural Child Advocacy Centers: A Hybrid-Effectiveness Implementation Trial of TeamTRACS

Conditions
-----------------
Teamwork, Implementation

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Behavioral: TeamTRACS


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Individuals at least 18 years of age who are members of the multidisciplinary team at the participating CACs. Exclusion Criteria: Under 18 years old

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)<br>CACs randomized to the intervention condition (n = 4) will participate in TeamTRACS. CACs will receive an implementation guide to assist in preparing for and maximizing the impact of training. | Behavioral: TeamTRACS<br>* TeamTRACS is a team training intervention adapted from TeamSTEPPS (Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), a widely used evidence-based team training developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. TeamTRACS targets knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to team member roles, shared awareness, communication, mutual support, and goal-setting. TeamTRACS is structured, easy to use, flexible in length and intensity, and requires few resources. It incorporates didactic instruction, discussion, and interactive activities and can be delivered virtually or in-person.<br>|
| No Intervention: Waitlist Comparison<br>CACs randomized to the waitlist comparison (n = 2) will participate in TeamTRACS approximately 4 months after CACs in the intervention condition. | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Change in teamwork knowledge from baseline to 3-month follow-up | Survey questions assessing knowledge taught in TeamTRACS will be assessed with multiple choice questions. The percent of correct answers (range 0-100%) will be calculated. | Baseline, 3-month follow-up | 
| Change in teamwork skill use from baseline to 3-month follow-up | Frequency of teamwork skill use will be assessed with survey items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more frequent skill use. | Baseline, 3-month follow-up | 
| Acceptability of self-guided implementation | Perceived acceptability of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Baseline | 
| Acceptability of self-guided implementation | Perceived acceptability of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Month 4 | 
| Acceptability of self-guided implementation | Perceived acceptability of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Month 8 | 
| Appropriateness of self-guided implementation | Perceived appropriateness of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Baseline | 
| Appropriateness of self-guided implementation | Perceived appropriateness of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Month 4 | 
| Appropriateness of self-guided implementation | Perceived appropriateness of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Month 8 | 
| Feasibility of self-guided implementation | Perceived feasibility of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Baseline | 
| Feasibility of self-guided implementation | Perceived feasibility of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Month 4 | 
| Feasibility of self-guided implementation | Perceived feasibility of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions. | Month 8 | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Change in team functioning from baseline to 3-month follow-up | Affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes and states will be assessed with survey items rated on Likert scales. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more adaptive team functioning. | Baseline, 3-month follow-up | 
| Change in team performance from baseline to 3-month follow-up | The overall quality of work done by the team will be assessed with with Edmondson's (1999) Team Performance scale of 5 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate better performance. | Baseline, 3-month follow-up | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
multidisciplinary teamwork, implementation