151 The CREATE-tool: A self-evaluation tool for a Challenging Rehabilitation Environment Appendix 1 shows that teams can have similar standardized cluster ratings, but different scores at the statement level. For instance, on cluster 5, exercise and peer support, teams 2 and 4 both score 0.62 on the cluster level and teams 3 and 5 both score 0.54. Teams 2 and 4, and teams 3 and 5 are comparable regarding this cluster, but on the item level all teams score differently. Table 2 also shows that there is a wide range of answers on the statement level within one team. Team discussion phase During the team meetings the ideas for improvement for the ward were noted. This resulted in 11 to 29 ideas per team, for example involving informal caregivers in the intake process or reorganizing the communal areas on the ward. Table 3 shows the number of ideas for improvement per team and the number of quick wins and ideas that take more time to tackle. Some ideas for improvement were assessed as quick wins by some participants, while others estimated that these ideas will take more time. One example is involving the informal caregiver in the rehabilitation process. Table 3. Outcome of team meeting: number of ideas for improvement per team Ideas for improvement Quick wins Ideas that take more time Team 1 17 9 9 Team 2 29 12 11 Team 3 11 3 5 Team 4 16 10 10 Team 5 26 7 8 6
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw