Table 3 Overall assessment of implementation strength
| Â | Site 7 | Site 8 | Site 9 | Site 10 | Site 11 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fidelity | Degree of concordancea with Perinatal Institute guideline | Low | High | Medium | Medium | High | |
Proportion of staff trained within each professional group | Face-to-face target | > 75% | > 75% | > 75% | > 75% | > 75% | |
E-learning target | < 75% | < 75% | > 75% | < 75% | < 75% | ||
Proportion of women risk stratified according to GAP | 87.5% (105/120) | 78.6% (92/117) | 84.2% (105/121) | 83.2% (99/119) | 84.4% (98/116) | ||
Reach | Proportion of women with a GAP-GROW chart in the notes | 62.2% (74/119) | 98.3% (115/117) | 93.3% (131/121) | 96.6% (115/119) | 94.2% (113/120) | |
Dose | Proportion of low-risk women who had at least the minimum expected number of fundal height measurements performed and plotted on GROW | 8.2% (4/49) | 53.2% (42/79) | 34.4% (31/90) | 31.4% (22/70) | 18.1% (15/83) | |
Proportion of low-risk women referred for growth scan when definite plot deviation | 40.0% (4/10) | 79.2% (19/24) | 80.9% (17/21) | 66.7% (10/15) | 61.2% (19/31) | ||
Proportion of high-risk women who had at least the minimum expected number of growth scans performed and plotted on GROW | 0.0% (0/33) | 16.7% (8/48) | 2.9% (1/35) | 12.8% (6/47) | 5.3% (2/38) | ||