NCT05370157

TeamTRACS Pilot (CTSI)

Completed NA Results posted Last updated 24 April 2024

What this trial tests

NA trial testing TeamTRACS in Teamwork in 172 participants. Completed in 22 March 2023.

Timeline

8 June 2022

Primary endpoint
22 March 2023

22 March 2023

Quick facts

Lead sponsor	University of Pittsburgh
Phase	NA
Status	Completed
Study type	INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation	randomized
Design	parallel
Masking	none
Primary purpose	health services research
Enrollment	172
Start date	8 June 2022
Primary completion	22 March 2023
Estimated completion	22 March 2023
Sites	1 location across United States

Drugs / interventions tested

• TeamTRACS

Conditions studied

• Teamwork — all drugs for Teamwork →
• Implementation — all drugs for Implementation →

Sponsor

University of Pittsburgh

Who can join

18 and older, any sex, with Teamwork or Implementation. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.

Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov

Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.

Change in Teamwork Knowledge From Baseline to 3-month Follow-up Primary · Baseline, 3-month follow-up (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)

Survey questions assessing knowledge taught in TeamTRACS will be assessed with multiple choice questions. The percent of correct answers (range 0-100%) will be calculated.

Baseline

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	75.60	± 10.87
Waitlist Comparison	74.72	± 10.82

Follow-up

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	80.00	± 11.16
Waitlist Comparison	75.00	± 7.88

Change in Teamwork Skill Use From Baseline to 3-month Follow-up Primary · Baseline, 3-month follow-up (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)

Frequency of teamwork skill use will be assessed with survey items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (range 1-5). Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more frequent skill use.

Baseline

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.22	± 0.49
Waitlist Comparison	4.08	± 0.59

Follow-up

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.19	± 0.54
Waitlist Comparison	4.20	± 0.55

Acceptability of Self-guided Implementation Primary · Beginning, midpoint, and end of self-guided implementation process (Months 0, 5, & 7)

Perceived acceptability of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions.

Baseline (Beginning of self-guided implementation process)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.38	± 0.48

Month 5 (midpoint of self-guided implementation process)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.25	± 0.96

Month 7 (End of study)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.25	± 0.50

Appropriateness of Self-guided Implementation Primary · Beginning, midpoint, and end of self-guided implementation process (Months 0, 5, & 7)

Perceived appropriateness of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions.

Baseline (Beginning of self-guided implementation process)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	3.63	± 0.75

Month 5 (midpoint of self-guided implementation process)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.25	± 1.50

Month 7 (End of study)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.25	± 0.96

Feasibility of Self-guided Implementation Primary · Beginning, midpoint, and end of self-guided implementation process (Months 0, 5, & 7)

Perceived feasibility of the self-guided implementation process will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions.

Baseline (Beginning of self-guided implementation process)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.50	± 0.58

Month 5 (midpoint of self-guided implementation process)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.00	± 0.82

Month 7 (End of study)

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.38	± 0.75

Change in Team Functioning From Baseline to 3-month Follow-up: Psychological Safety Secondary · Baseline, 3-month follow-up (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)

Psychological safety (affective state) was assessed with Edmondson's (1999) Psychological Safety scale of 7 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1-7). Scores were averaged; higher scores indicate more psychological safety.

Baseline

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	5.46	± 1.12
Waitlist Comparison	5.59	± 1.04

Follow-up

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	5.51	± 1.13
Waitlist Comparison	5.94	± 0.98

Change in Team Functioning From Baseline to 3-month Follow-up: Learning Behavior Secondary · Baseline, 3-month follow-up (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)

Learning behavior (behavioral process) was assessed with Edmondson's (1999) Learning Behavior scale of 7 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1-7). Scores were averaged; higher scores indicate more learning behavior.

Baseline

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.77	± 1.02
Waitlist Comparison	4.96	± 1.02

Follow-up

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	4.86	± 0.99
Waitlist Comparison	5.08	± 0.96

Change in Team Performance From Baseline to 3-month Follow-up Secondary · Baseline, 3-month follow-up (Month 7, 3 months after training workshop)

The overall quality of work done by the team will be assessed with Edmondson's (1999) Team Performance scale of 5 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate better performance.

Baseline

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	5.47	± 1.28
Waitlist Comparison	5.75	± 1.08

Follow-up

Group	Value	95% CI
TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support)	5.63	± 1.14
Waitlist Comparison	6.07	± 0.97

Sponsor's own description

In a previous research study, the investigators adapted an evidence-based team training intervention for healthcare settings (TeamSTEPPS) to fit the needs and context of Child Advocacy Center multidisciplinary teams. This study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the adapted training, TeamTRACS (Team Training in Roles, Awareness, Communication, and Support). This hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation study will test the effectiveness of TeamTRACS and pilot a self-guided approach to implementing TeamTRACS in low-resource settings.

Publications & conference data

1 peer-reviewed publication reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):

1. Team training in the real world: A cluster-randomized hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of TeamTRACS in rural Children's Advocacy Centers.
   McGuier EA, Wright JD, Flett G, Rothenberger SD, et al · · 2025 · PMID 41523639 · DOI 10.1017/cts.2025.10203