Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Mar 20.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Ind Med. 2016 Jul 5;59(10):897–918. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22593

TABLE VII.

Ratings on PERS for Health Interventions at Sites A and B: Facilitator level

Facilitator-level factors SITE A: Kaizen event teams SITE B: design team


BILD BFED W-2 BFIT-1 W-2 BFIT-2 SWIPE-1 SWIPE-2 BILD W-2 BFIT/BILD

Overall intervention assessment Unsuccessful Successful Unsuccessful In-progress Unsuccessful In-progress Successful In-progress
23. Facilitator experience with IDEAS Tool implementation 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
24. Facilitator followed steps of the IDEAS tool 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25. Facilitator invited involvement of experts and advisers (if requested by team members) 1 1 1 1 1 TBD 1 1
26. Principal Investigator intervened at facility level to resolve derailed intervention efforts (if needed) 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA
Sum 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 3
Total possible 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 3
% Of total possible 100 100 100 100 75 100 75 100

NCO, Correctional Officer; DOC, Connecticut Department of Correction; KET, Kaizen Event Team; DT, Design Team; BILD, Building Improvement Linked to Design; W-2BFIT, Work to be fit; BFED, Better Food through Education and Design; SWIPE, Structured Work-related Injury Prevention through Ergonomics; FSC, Facility Steering Committee; SWSC, Study-wide Steering Committee; TBD, To be determined; NA, Not available; PERS, Program Evaluation Rating Sheet; IDEAS =Intervention Design and Analysis Scorecard.