Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
31 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2002-01-31
2009-09-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Facilitating Implicit Learning to Improve Neurorehabilitation in Stroke
NCT02017574
Stroke Rehabilitation, Functional Recovery, and Cost-effectiveness
NCT04279977
CO-OPerative Training for Stroke Rehabilitation
NCT02755805
Evaluation of Robot Assisted Neuro-Rehabilitation
NCT01253018
Stroke Inpatients Rehabilitation Reinforcement of Activity
NCT01891565
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The intervention consisted of a multiphase, staff training program delivered over six months, including: an off-site workshop emphasizing team dynamics, problem solving, and the use of performance feedback data; and action plans for process improvement; and telephone and videoconference consultations. Control and intervention teams received site- specific team performance profiles with recommendations to use this information to modify team process.
The main outcomes measures consisted of three patient outcomes: functional improvement as measured by the change in motor items of Function Independence Measure (FIM), community discharge, and length of stay (LOS). For both the primary (stroke only) and secondary analyses (all patients), there was a significant difference in improvement of functional outcome between the two groups, with the percentage of stroke patients gaining more than a median FIM gain of 23 points increasing significantly more in the intervention group (difference in increase = 13.6%, P=0.032). There was no significant difference on LOS or rates of community discharge. Stroke patients treated by staff who participated in a team training program were more likely to make functional gains than those treated by staff receiving information only. This study is a randomized cluster trial which tested used workshops to train rehabilitation staff. Patients treated by trained teams were compared with patients treated by teams that did not have workshop training. Stroke patients
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
SINGLE_GROUP
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Arm 1
The experimental arm consisted of a six month staff training period with an emphasis on effective team functioning to improve patient outcomes. The core of the intervention consisted of a concentrated 2.5 day workshop in Atlanta for 29 rehabilitation team leaders from 15 VA hospitals. Several weeks after the workshop, participants received a custom action plan developed on issues discussed in the workshop. The experimental arm also received a summary of results of the initial survey along with comparative data from all other sites. During the subsequent 5 months after the workshop, research staff maintained regular contact with research participants through telephone and videoconferencing
Information feedback
The experimental arm consisted of a six month staff training period. The core of the intervention consisted of a concentrated 2.5 day workshop in Atlanta for 29 rehabilitation team leaders from 15 VA hospitals. Several weeks after the workshop, participants received a custom action plan developed on issues discussed in the workshop. The experimental arm also received a summary of results of the initial survey along with comparative data from all other sites. During the subsequent 5 months after the workshop, research staff maintained regular contact with research participants through telephone and videoconferencing. The comparison arm (staff on 16 teams) completed the identical summary of staff, hospital, and team characteristics. The local PIs at the Comparison sites received summaries of the survey findings, comparative data from other participating VA sites, and suggestions on how this information could be used to improve patient outcomes.
Arm 2
The comparison arm (staff on 16 teams) completed the identical summary of staff, hospital, and team characteristics. The local PIs at the Comparison sites received summaries of the survey findings, comparative data from other participating VA sites, and suggestions on how this information could be used to improve patient outcomes. In addition, participants in the comparison arm were invited to contact the research staff for help in interpreting data or to set-up a process improvement initiative.
Information feedback
The comparison arm (staff on 16 teams) completed the identical summary of staff, hospital, and team characteristics. The local PIs at the Comparison sites received summaries of the survey findings, comparative data from other participating VA sites, and suggestions on how this information could be used to improve patient outcomes. In addition, participants in the comparison arm were invited to contact the research staff for help in interpreting data or to set-up a process improvement initiative.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Information feedback
The experimental arm consisted of a six month staff training period. The core of the intervention consisted of a concentrated 2.5 day workshop in Atlanta for 29 rehabilitation team leaders from 15 VA hospitals. Several weeks after the workshop, participants received a custom action plan developed on issues discussed in the workshop. The experimental arm also received a summary of results of the initial survey along with comparative data from all other sites. During the subsequent 5 months after the workshop, research staff maintained regular contact with research participants through telephone and videoconferencing. The comparison arm (staff on 16 teams) completed the identical summary of staff, hospital, and team characteristics. The local PIs at the Comparison sites received summaries of the survey findings, comparative data from other participating VA sites, and suggestions on how this information could be used to improve patient outcomes.
Information feedback
The comparison arm (staff on 16 teams) completed the identical summary of staff, hospital, and team characteristics. The local PIs at the Comparison sites received summaries of the survey findings, comparative data from other participating VA sites, and suggestions on how this information could be used to improve patient outcomes. In addition, participants in the comparison arm were invited to contact the research staff for help in interpreting data or to set-up a process improvement initiative.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
US Department of Veterans Affairs
FED
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Dale Christian Strasser, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
VA Medical Center, Decatur
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
VA Medical Center, Decatur
Decatur, Georgia, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Strasser DC, Falconer JA, Uomoto JM. Can quality of care indicators measure quality of care? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;93(11):2130-1; author reply 2131-2. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.04.035. No abstract available.
Stevens AB, Strasser DC, Uomoto J, Bowen SE, Falconer JA. Utility of Treatment Implementation methods in clinical trial with rehabilitation teams. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44(4):537-46. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2006.09.0120.
Strasser DC, Uomoto JM, Smits SJ. The interdisciplinary team and polytrauma rehabilitation: prescription for partnership. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Jan;89(1):179-81. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.774.
Strasser DC, Smits SJ, Falconer JA, Herrin JS, Bowen SE. The influence of hospital culture on rehabilitation team functioning in VA hospitals. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002 Jan-Feb;39(1):115-25.
Strasser DC, Falconer JA, Herrin JS, Bowen SE, Stevens AB, Uomoto J. Team functioning and patient outcomes in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Mar;86(3):403-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.04.046.
Strasser DC, Burridge AB, Falconer JA, Herrin J, Uomoto J. Measuring team process for quality improvement. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010 Jul-Aug;17(4):282-93. doi: 10.1310/tsr1704-282.
Strasser DC, Falconer JA, Stevens AB, Uomoto JM, Herrin J, Bowen SE, Burridge AB. Team training and stroke rehabilitation outcomes: a cluster randomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Jan;89(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.127.
Smits SJ, Falconer JA, Herrin J, Bowen SE, Strasser DC. Patient-focused rehabilitation team cohesiveness in veterans administration hospitals. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Sep;84(9):1332-8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00197-7.
Strasser DC, Burridge AB, Falconer JA, Uomoto JM, Herrin J. Toward spanning the quality chasm: an examination of team functioning measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Nov;95(11):2220-3. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.013. Epub 2014 Jul 4.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
O3225-R
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.