Problem solving team interventions: Web-based and consultant-based experimental evaluations.

This research was designed to develop, implement, and evaluate an assessment and intervention protocol to increase problem-solving teams' (PSTs) adoption and implementation of evidence-based practices aimed at students with disruptive behavior problems. Participants included 15 PSTs. Adopting single-case design methodology, we examined whether a customized set of assessment and intervention consultant-led intervention procedures could be used to improve the activities, process, and recommendations of PSTs compared to a web-based intervention. We were interested in evaluating two variations of the problem-solving model based on the team initiated problem-solving (TIPS) approach. TIPS includes steps to successful problem solving and solution implementation for student academic and behavioral concerns. Based on visual analysis and statistical randomization tests, we found that a teleconsultation web-based model of PST intervention was not effective in improving the functioning of the PST. In contrast, a customized, consultation-led intervention model with PST facilitators that followed this approach was found to be effective in improving both the foundation and thoroughness of the PST's problem solving. Implications of future PST improvement models for practice and research are discussed.

"Watch Me!" Training Increases Knowledge and Impacts Attitudes Related to Developmental Monitoring and Referral Among Childcare Providers.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of "Watch Me!" developmental monitoring training on childcare providers' knowledge and attitudes related to monitoring developmental milestones and making recommended referrals when there is a concern about a child's development. METHODS: A pretest-posttest design using web-based surveys was used to assess the impact of "Watch Me!" training on knowledge and attitudes related to conducting five key components of developmental monitoring (tracking development, recognizing delays, talking to parents about development, talking to parents about concerns, and making referrals). Variables included belief that developmental monitoring is important and is part of childcare provider role; perceived knowledge of, access to tools for, and prioritization of developmental monitoring; and ability to list recommended referrals when there is a concern. RESULTS: Childcare providers demonstrated a significant pre-post increase in perceived knowledge and access to the tools to engage in five core components of developmental monitoring after completing "Watch Me!" training. There was also a significant pre-post increase in childcare providers' ability to list the child's doctor as an appropriate referral (39 pre-63% post), but not in the ability to list Part C/Part B programs as an appropriate referral (56 pre-58% post). CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: "Watch Me!" training may be effective at impacting targeted areas of knowledge and attitude about developmental monitoring among childcare providers in the short term.

Sponsoring Institution Interests, Not National Plans, Shape Physician Workforce in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Graduate medical education (GME) determines the composition and distribution of the physician workforce in the United States. Federal and state governments heavily subsidize GME but in most cases do not tie subsidies to national or state physician workforce goals. As a result, GME sponsoring institutions (eg, teaching hospitals, schools of medicine, federally qualified health centers) decide how many and what type of physicians to train. The objective of this study was to better understand the factors that influence decision-making by sponsoring institutions. METHODS: Between May and December 2018, we interviewed 35 national or state GME policy leaders and an additional 26 GME leaders from a purposive sample of four sponsoring institutions. We analyzed interviews following a conventional content analysis approach to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: When considering investing in GME, we found that sponsoring institutions do not consider national or statewide workforce recommendations. Instead, they weigh multiple factors of concern to their institution, including public GME subsidies, market competition, potential clinical revenues, academic stature, local workforce demands, as well as their own organization's mission/culture, staffing, financial reserves, educational leadership, teaching resources, and size. CONCLUSIONS: Unless and until the incentives for sponsoring institutions are strongly aligned with national and state physician workforce priorities based on public need, progress on creating a more balanced physician workforce will not occur.