You completed the training. But did the risk change?

Ok I’ve got to admit it…training is one of my favorite things to do. It is absolutely my sweet spot. I believe strongly in giving people practical education that helps them understand not only what they need to do, but why it matters.

But when the training is over, who determines whether it actually worked?

An attendance sheet tells us who was present. A training evaluation may tell us whether people enjoyed the presentation or thought the information was helpful. Neither one tells us whether staff have changed what they are doing.

Whether the education comes from me, an internal leader, a specialty association training, or another outside resource, the organization needs a way to measure whether anything changed.

Let the Findings Drive the Training

Training should begin with what the organization is actually seeing as problematic or a risk to the organization.

What concerns are showing up in audits? Are the same documentation problems appearing across multiple staff members? Is the record failing to support medical necessity? Are services disconnected from the treatment plan?

Those findings should help determine the focus of the training. They also give the organization a starting point for measuring improvement.

If the original audit found that progress notes did not clearly describe the intervention or the client’s response, the training should address those specific concerns. Staff need practical examples that connect the requirements to the work they perform every day.

Then, after staff have had time to apply what they learned, the organization needs to review the same issue again.

Look Again

The follow-up review does not need to be a massive audit. A focused sample may be enough.

Are the same findings still showing up? Has the documentation improved? Are staff applying the information consistently? Did the training lower the risk, or did everyone simply attend?

It is important to measure the same issue that led to the training. If the concern involved ASAM documentation for SUD services, the follow up review should examine whether the assessment, level of care decision, treatment plan, and progress notes now tell a consistent story.

If the findings do not improve, the answer may not be more training. The organization may have a workflow problem, inconsistent supervision, an electronic record that makes documentation difficult, or an accountability concern. Training can address a lack of knowledge. It cannot fix every operational problem.

What I Can Do Differently

This has also made me think about my role when I provide training. I cannot own the organization’s results, but I can help establish what success should look like before the training begins. I can ask:

• What specific concern are we trying to correct?
• What are you currently finding in audits?
• What should look different after this training?
• Who will review the records afterward?

I can also follow up after the training with one important question:

What have you seen change since the training?

That question is far more valuable than asking whether everyone enjoyed the presentation. It moves the conversation from satisfaction to impact.

Training matters. But completing the training is only one step. The real measure of success is whether the behavior changed, and the risk previously identified has decreased.