Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation SymposiumIntroduction
Dave Meehan and Philippa Darnton, Wessex AHSN
Content
1. Context 2. Why evaluate?– Supporting local ambition– Supporting learning and spread
3. Deciding what to evaluate - the evaluation programme
4. Objectives for today
The context
• WAHSN appointed as independent evaluation partner to Happy, Healthy at Home in 2015 to:1. Understand if the Vanguard’s New Care Models
are making a difference to patients, staff and the wider healthcare system
2. Spread our learning about those models that work (why and how) so that others might benefit
Why evaluate?
“The need for robust evaluation of complex care initiatives is increasingly recognised as an essential element in managing major organisational and system changes in healthcare. (Nuffield Trust, 2015)”
“Learning requires a commitment to evaluating what works during implementation” (Ham et al, 2016)
At the heart of the Vanguard programme
Why evaluate?
What has worked/not worked?
Why did it work/not work?
Can others benefit?
Deciding what to evaluate
Work from logic models (illustrated by the programme logic model) – a logic of change
underpinning all NCMs
Develop evaluation questions (and methods) that measure the expected outcomes and the context
for change
Improved personal wellbeing
Increased confidence of people to take responsibility for their
own health
Improved experience of care
Improved mental and physicalhealth outcomes
More care delivered at homeor in the community,
rather than in hospital15-20% fewer emergency admissions
and fewer hospital and care home bed days per head of population, compared to counterfactual, with
current model of care
Reduced annual costs per head of population
Improved staff satisfaction, staff confidence and staff
recommendation
E to deliver the following OUTCOMESHow have those
involved been affected by the changes?
How can the model of care be improved?
What is the impact on patient outcomes and
experience?
Which components of the care model are really making a difference?
From programme outcomes to evaluation questions
Q12017-18
Q42016-17
Q32016-17
Q22016-17
Q12016-17
Programme overview
Establish steering group
Develop evaluation framework
Refine Evaluation plans with refresh of Logic models, Activity outputs, Outcome metrics and
AHSN in depth evaluation.
Ensure data collection in place for all proposed measures.
Work with CSU to design and create implementation and
evaluation dashboards
Plan and prepare for first in depth evaluation of Prevention
workstream.
Undertake detailed evaluation of Recovery College and Making
Connections projects.
Plan and prepare for in-depth evaluation of Farnham Locality.
Plan and prepare for in-depth evaluation of Enhanced
Recovery at Home.(ER@H)
Ongoing - data collection in workstreams.
Ongoing – regular production of implementation and evaluation
dashboards.
Produce quarterly progress report
Report on evaluation of Recovery College and Making
Connections projects.
Hold first evaluation Symposium focusing on Prevention
workstreams (Making Connections & Recovery College).
Undertake detailed evaluation of Farnham Locality (ICT, Ref. Man.,
& prelim. Pre-Diabetes)
Undertake detailed evaluation of Enhanced Recovery at Home
(ER@H)
Plan and prepare for in-depth evaluation of Yateley localityPlan and prepare for in-depth
review of Interoperability workstream.
Ongoing - data collection in workstreams.
Ongoing – regular production of implementation and evaluation
dashboards.
Produce quarterly progress report.
Detailed evaluation of outstanding Farnham Locality (UCC, Pre-Diabetes Education)
Report on evaluation of ER@H.
Hold second evaluation Symposium Farnham (ICT, RM,
Pre-diabetes)
Undertake & complete detailed evaluation of Yateley locality
Undertake detailed evaluation of Interoperability workstream.
Ongoing - data collection in workstreams.
Ongoing – regular production of implementation and evaluation
dashboards.
Produce quarterly progress report and first draft of Final
Report.
Report on evaluation of Yateley locality.
Report on evaluation of IT workstream.
Hold third symposium : Final reflections (Farnham, Yateley,
other workstreams)
Produce final report on summative evaluation of NEHF Vanguard programme in 2016-
17.
Undertake evaluation of Safe Haven Café.
Report on evaluation of Safe Haven Café.
Plan and Prepare evaluation of Safe Haven Café.
Plan and prepare evaluation of Acute workstream, to include
rapid evaluation of NEHF implementation of MISSION.
Undertake evaluation of Acute workstream
& report on evaluation of MISSION.
Report on evaluation of Acute workstream
Report on evaluation of Farnham Locality
Our approach
Working in partnershi
p
Combined methods
Action learning
Specialist skills
Objectives for today
• Describe some evaluation case studies, focussing on the prevention workstream
• Explore some of the methods and tools we have developed
• Feedback some early findings• Share our learning and start other conversations
about evaluation (reflection cards)
