Table 3

Implementation outcomes and measures that participants provided to monitor implementation success

Measures (subcategories)
(n=28)
Addressed outcomes in accordance with Proctor et al5
Main categories
RLS phase(n)
Acceptability
N=50
Adoption
N=46
Appropriateness
N=48
Implementation costs
N=46
Feasibility
N=43
Fidelity
N=42
Penetration
N=49
Sustainability
N=49
PRAI
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES (n=10)
Reporting rate, eg, decrease in reportsXXXXXXXX42
Types of costs: quantified as low (reporting) and high (analysis and realisation of interventions)*X18
Incoming reports, eg, report distribution during the year, regular incomeXXX9
Utilisation (continuous)XXX6
Relative reporting rate, eg, related to professional groups, number of bedsXXXX3
Number of deduced interventions #XX3
Completeness of filled-in reporting screenXX1
Processing time (incoming report until analysis)XXX1
Number of analysed casesXX1
Accordance project planning and realisation*X1
(n)415121230521
QUALITATIVE MEASURES (n=18)
Quality of report, eg, type and/or contentXXXXXXXX18
RLS realisation and/or implementation*X18
Benefit (not specifically quantified)*X15
Staff follow-up regarding RLS*X4
Deduction of interventions as a result of analysed reports, eg, regional projectsXX4
Stage of reporting analysis and deduced interventionsXXX3
Supply of and demand for regular trainings*XX2
Deduction of recommendationsXX2
RLS integration in organisational routines and intranet*X2
Several conditions for RLS accessXX1
Repeated reports (yes/no)XX1
Criticality of reports (potential risks)XX1
Origin of reportsXXX1
Staff participation in reporting analysis meetingsXX1
Risk evaluation of reportsXX1
Risk evaluation of reports before and after a preventive intervention*X1
Realisation of recommendationsXX1
Adherence to intervention plansXX1
(n)237143131565
  • *Could not be assigned to a specific RLS phase: P=preparation, R=reporting, A=analysis and I=intervention, including feedback.

  • RLS, reporting and learning system.