Author/year	Strasser 2008
Brief name	Team training
Recipient	Multidisciplinary team: doctors, nurses, occupational therapists, speech‐language pathologists, physical therapists and social workers/case managers
Why (rationale, theory or goal of elements essential to the intervention)	Focused on effective functioning within a multidisciplinary team and the benefits of organised, co‐ordinated teams. By providing training to a team to increase skills in team effectiveness it was thought this would have a positive effect on the stroke survivors who were being treated by members of the team. The rationale for the intervention was the acceptance and endorsement of the role of the multidisciplinary rehabilitation and results from an observational study (conducted by the author) of characteristics of teams that predicted superior patient outcomes. Intervention was based on Lichstein's treatment implementation model. Evidence cited by authors for uptake: CARF – The Committee on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities where team care regarded as an indicator of provider quality.
What (materials) (any physical or informational materials used in the intervention and where these can be accessed)	Workbooks containing: introductory letter; an overview of the workshop; published articles relevant to the concept of teamwork; patient vignettes framing patient care; teamwork issues to be discussed during the workshop. Written action plans devised during training sessions. Funds provided (USD 1000 per site) to eliminate financial barriers to travel.
What (procedures) (procedures, activities, processes, or a combination of these, used in the intervention, including enabling or support activities)	Team training intervention occurred in 3 phases. First phase: 2.5‐day workshop for 2 self‐identified team leaders. Workshop emphasised skill development in team problem‐solving strategies and use of programme evaluation data. Second phase occurred 3–5 weeks after the workshop and consisted of written action plans to address team process problems based on discussions at the earlier workshop. Third phase (months 3–6) workshop participants received telephone and videoconference consultation (e.g. advice on implementation of action plans, facilitation of team process skills). Before the training, participants received workbooks containing an introductory letter, an overview of the workshop, published articles relevant to teamwork, patient vignettes and teamwork issues to be discussed in the workshop. Participants also engaged in formal social activities (a group dinner) during the training. A 'train the trainer' approach was used where 2 rehabilitation team leaders at each site received training to improve team functioning at their hospital.
Who provided (expertise, background and any specific training given)	Workshops conducted by research staff; an interdisciplinary team (a physiatrist, geriatric psychologist, rehabilitation psychologist, occupational therapist and research psychologist familiar with Veterans Affairs rehabilitation inpatient settings) led workshops.
How (modes of delivery, f2f, internet etc. and whether provided individually or in a group)	Off‐site, f2f workshops. Telephone and videoconference consultation.
Where (type of location where intervention occurred, infrastructure or relevant features)	Workshops held at Atlanta Veterans Affairs.
When and how much (number of times the intervention was delivered, over what time period including number of sessions, their schedule, duration, intensity or dose)	1 × 2.5‐day workshop (16 hours), written feedback 3–5 weeks after workshop, consultation 2–3 months after written feedback.
Tailoring (if intervention was planned to be personalised or adapted, then describe what, why, when and how)	Implementation action plans were modified according to perceived barriers by team leaders.
Modification of intervention throughout trial (if intervention was modified during course of study, describe changes (what, why when and how)	Not described.
Strategies to improve or maintain intervention fidelity (how and by whom, and if any strategies were used to maintain or improve fidelity)	A treatment implementation framework was used to measure and promote consistent and accurate presentation of the intervention. Feedback, individual consultations, detailed outlines of all intervention components and a timeline for delivery of interventions were used to increase consistency of workshop delivery. Research staff kept records of implementation activities, e.g. delivery of training materials, feedback documents to participants, participant attendance at workshops and consultation sessions with research staff. Questionnaires were used after workshops to determine participants receipt of information. A 15‐item questionnaire was sent to the primary contact at each site 2 months postintervention to report changes in team skills, new team behaviours and new programmes resulting from the training.
Extent of intervention fidelity (If intervention adherence or fidelity assessed, describe extent to which intervention was delivered as planned)	All sites received workshop materials before attending the workshop. 2 team leaders from 14/15 intervention sites attended the workshops. All sites received written documents relevant to the intervention. All sites received a minimum of 1 consultation from research staff, while most received 2–4 consultations. Questionnaires after workshops indicated participants strongly agreed (81%) or agreed (19%) that the workshops provided skills to enhance team functioning. Implementation of team activities were reported by 9/15 (60%) sites. These 9 sites reported implementing ≥ 1 changes in their work environment.