Implementation of best practice goal-setting in five rehabilitation services: A mixed-methods evaluation study.

The study used a co-design and participatory approach, so confirmation bias was possible. Sustainability was only checked at 3 months, and no client interviews were done at that point. C-COGS scores were generally high, which may reflect ceiling effects rather than true client-centeredness. Each site selected different components of a multifaceted package, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated. Site 3 had limited congruency data because goals were set only within individual disciplines, and site 5 had only 4 pre-implementation discipline goals in the congruency analysis. Improvements in goal specificity often decreased after audit and feedback stopped.

The supplied text says the authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. It does not name a funding source or sponsor.

Do not read the improvements as caused by a single goal-setting tool. The package included staff education and training, keyworker model and workplace instruction, case conference restructure, communication goal and action boards, client workbook and client rehabilitation flyer, and each site chose components, so no part can be separated.