TeamTRACS Pilot (CTSI)

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

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.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Implementation; Teamwork
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: TeamTRACS

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.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 172
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Pennsylvania
    • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 15213
      • University of Pittsburgh

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Description

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

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

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

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support); 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; 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.
No Intervention: Waitlist Comparison; 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 (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)
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 (range 1-5). Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more frequent skill use.	Baseline, 3-month follow-up (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)
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.	Beginning, midpoint, and end of self-guided implementation process (Months 0, 5, & 7)
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.	Beginning, midpoint, and end of self-guided implementation process (Months 0, 5, & 7)
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.	Beginning, midpoint, and end of self-guided implementation process (Months 0, 5, & 7)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change in Team Functioning From Baseline to 3-month Follow-up: Psychological Safety	Psychological safety (affective state) was assessed with Edmondson's (1999) Psychological Safety scale of 7 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1-7). Scores were averaged; higher scores indicate more psychological safety.	Baseline, 3-month follow-up (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)
Change in Team Functioning From Baseline to 3-month Follow-up: Learning Behavior	Learning behavior (behavioral process) was assessed with Edmondson's (1999) Learning Behavior scale of 7 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1-7). Scores were averaged; higher scores indicate more learning behavior.	Baseline, 3-month follow-up (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)
Change in Team Performance From Baseline to 3-month Follow-up	The overall quality of work done by the team will be assessed 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 (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Pittsburgh
• Collaborators: National Institutes of Health (NIH)
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Elizabeth A McGuier, PhD, University of Pittsburgh

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): June 8, 2022
• Primary Completion (Actual): March 22, 2023
• Study Completion (Actual): March 22, 2023

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: April 26, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 6, 2022
• First Posted (Actual): May 11, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): April 24, 2024
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: April 22, 2024
• Last Verified: April 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: implementation; multidisciplinary teamwork
• Other Study ID Numbers: STUDY21110090; UL1TR001857 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: YES
• IPD Plan Description: Deidentified data will be available upon reasonable request as allowed by IRB regulations and after manuscripts reporting the main findings are accepted for publication.
• IPD Sharing Time Frame: Data will be available after manuscripts reporting the main findings are accepted for publication.
• IPD Sharing Access Criteria: Contact the principal investigator to request access to the deidentified data.
• IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type: STUDY_PROTOCOL; SAP; ICF; ANALYTIC_CODE

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No