Development and evaluation of Goal setting and Action Planning (G-AP) training to support person-centred rehabilitation practice.
Lesley Scobbie, Katie Elliott, Sally Boa and 5 others
PMID 40230403WHAT IT FOUND
Staff felt confident using G-AP with individual patients after online training, but team-level rollout stalled due to time pressures and role changes.
The resource is free, but this study measured staff opinions, not patient outcomes.
Key findings
0198% of staff agreed the webinars gave them the 'go-ahead' to try G-AP in practice, and most felt prepared to use it individually.
02While staff felt prepared, team-level implementation was challenging and required time to reconfigure roles and processes, which had not yet happened at the one-month mark.
03Staff rated the online training highly for relevance and ease of use, with 87% finding the website content very relevant to their work.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study evaluated staff opinions and readiness, not patient outcomes or the effectiveness of G-AP itself. The evaluation was conducted in only one NHS board in Scotland, so findings may not apply to other settings. The follow-up period was short (one month), so it could not assess long-term implementation or sustainment. No patient data were collected, so the impact on care experience is unknown. Self-reported confidence and skills may not reflect actual practice change.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Scottish Government Neurological framework fund. One author (LS) was supported by a Stroke Association Clinical Lectureship award. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret high staff confidence and positive ratings as evidence that G-AP improves patient outcomes. The study measured staff opinions and readiness to use the tool, not the effectiveness of the tool itself or its impact on patients.