Patient Safety Training Evaluations: Reflections on Level 4 and more… Eduardo Salas, Ph.D....
-
Upload
amos-cummings -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Patient Safety Training Evaluations: Reflections on Level 4 and more… Eduardo Salas, Ph.D....
Patient Safety Training Evaluations: Reflections on Level 4
and more…Eduardo Salas, Ph.D.Department of Psychology &Institute of Simulation & TrainingUniversity of Central [email protected]
Purpose Today…
I. Challenge Offer some observations & myths
II. Proposal Time to think differently
III. Guide Best Practices
A few thoughts about the science of training…
What do we know about training? The science has evolved & matured… The past decade—an explosion of research!
More empirical work Research conducted in organizations New, more & deeper theories and models More evaluations reported
Huge military investment… Influence of cognitive psychology…
Expertise
What do we know about training? Much progress in…
Organizational needs analysis Cognitive task analysis Transfer of training Instructional design Feedback Training evaluation Simulation-based training Individual characteristics
Observations From the Science The quality and quantity of research has
increased The cognitive and organizational concepts
is revolutionizing the field The field is multi-disciplinary The influence of technology will continue Training is part of an organizational system There are more guidelines, tools and
approaches for practitioners
Framework for Training Effectiveness
Myths & misconceptions about training…
The Simplistic View of Training
Uninformed About the Science Erroneous Assumptions
Unskilled Worker
Training Program
Skilled Worker
Myth
Reality Opinions aside, training is a
behavioral/cognitive event that can be structured to empirical investigation.
There is a science of training that should be exploited to optimize training design.
Processes exist which, if appropriately and consistently applied, can help to ensure that effective training is designed.
Myth
Reality Experts do not have access to their own
expertise. Knowledge becomes “compiled”
Task experts do not necessarily understand the learning process or how learning progresses.
Task experts are crucial, but they must be paired with learning experts. Partnership
Myth
Reality Just because trainees are having fun,
doesn’t mean that they are learning anything. Very little or no relationship
“Instrumentality” does seem to be a factor. Does seem to be related to learning Affects motivation to learn
Simple measures of training outcomes are insufficient to judge training quality.
Myth
Reality Training transfer is a very complex
phenomenon. Some of the factors:
Supervisor Peer support Climate for Transfer Opportunity to perform/practice
Even when trainees demonstrate learning after training, it does not mean that they can or will transfer back to the job.
Thinking Differently about Training Evaluation…
Kirkpatrick’s Model of Training Evaluation
Level 1 – ReactionDid the participants like the training? What do they plan to do with what they learned?
Level 2 – LearningWhat skills, knowledge, or attitudes changed after training? By how much?
Level 3 – Behavior / Training TransferDid the participants change their behavior on-the-job based on what they learned?
Level 4 – Results Did the change in behavior positively affect the organization?
Level 5 – Return on InvestmentWas the training worth the cost?
This Model… Has served as well! Used, misused & abused! Created a misconception that Level 1 is
all one needs Over simplified evaluations Links among levels, weak Minimal impact of training on Level 4
Clinical outcomes
So…
What if we reverse Kirkpatrick’s model?
Start as Level 4…
What are the outcomes/results we want
out of this training?
Level 3: Given these wanted outcomes…
What behaviors we want/need of our trainees?
Level 2: Given these needed behaviors…
What KSAs we want our trainees to have?
Level 1: Given those KSAs…
What reactions we want our trainees to have?
What do you get by reversing Kirkpatrick’s typology? Precise learning outcomes Better links among Levels Better link of training to outcomes
Clinically-relevant Hints for performance
assessment/observation Tailor training program better Better accountability
Best Practices after Training Evaluation in…Healthcare,
Aviation…
Best Practices1. Even before designing your training, start
backwards: Think about evaluation first.2. Accept that effective training does not exist
without effective evaluation.3. Strive for robust, experimentation design in
your evaluation: It is worth the headache.4. When designing your evaluation plan and
metrics, ask the experts – your frontline staff.5. Do not reinvent the wheel, leverage existing
data relevant to training objectives.
Best Practices (cont)6. When developing measures: Consider multiple
aspects of performance.7. When developing measures: Design for variance.8. Evaluation is affected by more than just
training itself: Consider organizational, team, or other factors which may help (or hinder) the effects of training (and thus the outcome of your evaluation)
9. Engage socially powerful players early: Physicians, nursing & executive management is crucial to evaluation success…
Best Practices (cont)10. Ensure evaluation continuity: Have a plan for
employee turnover at both the participant & evaluation administration team level.
11. Environmental signals before, during, and after training must indicate that the trained KSAs & the evaluation itself are valued by the organization.
12. Get in the game coach! Feed evaluation results back to frontline providers & facilitate continual improvement through constructive coaching.
13. Report evaluation results in meaningful way.
Conclusions
Avoid Myths! Training Evaluation matters! Reverse Kirkpatrick’s
typology!