The document outlines an evaluation plan for Western Australia's Department of Health's online consultation management system trial. The evaluation aims to determine if the online system is an effective way to engage stakeholders on health policies and programs. It will examine the representation and usefulness of feedback collected, and the experiences of both WA Health staff and stakeholders using the system. The findings will advise whether the online system should be implemented more broadly across WA Health.
This document discusses the importance of using monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data to inform policy formulation, program planning, and improvement. It provides examples of how M&E data has been used in Nigeria to guide resource allocation and strengthen sub-national M&E systems. Barriers to data use include technical, organizational, individual, and political constraints. Ensuring data is effectively used requires understanding how it is produced and used, identifying and addressing barriers, and strengthening decision-making processes.
Social Networks for Data Use: How we can leverage a world of connections to i...MEASURE Evaluation
Presented by Michelle Li, MEASURE Evaluation; Daines Mgidange, PATH; and Sarah Romorini, Population Services International, for a December 2017 webinar.
This document provides an overview of a workshop on data demand and use. The workshop objectives are to develop a framework for linking data with action, create an action plan for overcoming barriers to data use and improving information flow, and establish three commitments to improve data use in participants' jobs. The workshop covers various monitoring and evaluation concepts like results chains, indicators, baselines, and targets. It also discusses data demand and use, the context of decision making, barriers to data use, and descriptive data analysis techniques like service delivery analysis and unit cost analysis. Participants will learn a seven-step process for using information to make data-informed decisions.
This document provides an overview of SHAP (State Health Access Program) evaluations and how they can inform implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It discusses how SHAP grantees are conducting evaluations through administrative data, surveys, focus groups and ROI analyses. Grantees will report benchmarks on enrollment, costs, and qualitative measures. The evaluations can provide best practices on outreach, newly insured characteristics, and models for insurance exchanges. Technical assistance is available from SHADAC to help grantees with data, indicators, methods and a data user workshop.
This document summarizes a panel discussion on meaningful use and achieving certification criteria for electronic health records. The panelists discussed how meaningful use goes beyond an IT project and requires organizational readiness, physician alignment, information technology considerations, and vendor sustainability. Key components for achieving meaningful use include governance, communication, physician alignment, IT considerations, quality measures, and legal issues around incentives.
Maximizing Performance Incentives Through Star RatingsCitiusTech
The main aim of this document is to provide a high level understanding of the Star rating quality program of CMS and it’s impact on plans (at contract level) offered by the payers which are in Medicare Advantage line of business
It describes the various measure categories and their weightages, domains and sources required by CMS to assess quality of care and patient experience.
This document discusses the importance of using monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data to inform policy formulation, program planning, and improvement. It provides examples of how M&E data has been used in Nigeria to guide resource allocation and strengthen sub-national M&E systems. Barriers to data use include technical, organizational, individual, and political constraints. Ensuring data is effectively used requires understanding how it is produced and used, identifying and addressing barriers, and strengthening decision-making processes.
Social Networks for Data Use: How we can leverage a world of connections to i...MEASURE Evaluation
Presented by Michelle Li, MEASURE Evaluation; Daines Mgidange, PATH; and Sarah Romorini, Population Services International, for a December 2017 webinar.
This document provides an overview of a workshop on data demand and use. The workshop objectives are to develop a framework for linking data with action, create an action plan for overcoming barriers to data use and improving information flow, and establish three commitments to improve data use in participants' jobs. The workshop covers various monitoring and evaluation concepts like results chains, indicators, baselines, and targets. It also discusses data demand and use, the context of decision making, barriers to data use, and descriptive data analysis techniques like service delivery analysis and unit cost analysis. Participants will learn a seven-step process for using information to make data-informed decisions.
This document provides an overview of SHAP (State Health Access Program) evaluations and how they can inform implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It discusses how SHAP grantees are conducting evaluations through administrative data, surveys, focus groups and ROI analyses. Grantees will report benchmarks on enrollment, costs, and qualitative measures. The evaluations can provide best practices on outreach, newly insured characteristics, and models for insurance exchanges. Technical assistance is available from SHADAC to help grantees with data, indicators, methods and a data user workshop.
This document summarizes a panel discussion on meaningful use and achieving certification criteria for electronic health records. The panelists discussed how meaningful use goes beyond an IT project and requires organizational readiness, physician alignment, information technology considerations, and vendor sustainability. Key components for achieving meaningful use include governance, communication, physician alignment, IT considerations, quality measures, and legal issues around incentives.
Maximizing Performance Incentives Through Star RatingsCitiusTech
The main aim of this document is to provide a high level understanding of the Star rating quality program of CMS and it’s impact on plans (at contract level) offered by the payers which are in Medicare Advantage line of business
It describes the various measure categories and their weightages, domains and sources required by CMS to assess quality of care and patient experience.
A presentation given by Dr Joanna Raven of the PERFORM2Scale consortium and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. Entitled 'How do you effectively facilitate health systems interventions?' the presentation was given at the Sept 2019 European Congress on Tropical Medicine and International Health.
The document discusses implementing an electronic health information system at an opioid treatment program to enhance practices. It will be a prospective, comparative study over 3 years. Preliminary activities included getting stakeholder buy-in and needs assessments. Five aims were identified: quality, productivity, satisfaction, financial performance, and risk management. Hypotheses were developed for each aim. Data sources and measures were identified for evaluating the hypotheses. The study received NIH funding.
Presentation given by Professor Sophie Witter at the 5th Meeting of the Montreux Collaborative on Fiscal Space, Public Financial Management and Health Financing in November 2021
Health system strengthening – what is it, how should we assess it, and does i...ReBUILD for Resilience
This presentation was given to the UK's Department for International Development on 30th July 2019.
Comprehensive reviews of health system strengthening interventions are rare, partly because of lack of clarity on definitions of the term but also the potentially huge scale of the evidence. In our talk, we will reflect on the process of undertaking such an evidence review for DFID recently (attached again), drawing out suggestions on definitions of HSS and approaches to assessment, as well as summarising some key conclusions from the current evidence base. Most HSS interventions have theories of change relating to specific system blocks, but more work is needed on capturing their spill-over effects and their contribution to meeting over-arching health system process goals. We will make some initial suggestions about such goals, to reflect the features that characterise a ‘strong health system’. We will highlight current findings on ‘what works’ but also that these are just indicative, given the limitations and biases in what has been studied and how, and argue that there is need to re-think evaluation methods for HSS beyond finite interventions and narrow outcomes. Clearer concepts, frameworks and methods can support more coherent HSS investment.
Proven Steps to Accelerate Star and HEDIS Performance 091714Deb DiCicco
This document summarizes a presentation on improving Star and HEDIS performance measures. It discusses the importance of provider collaboration and focusing on the whole patient. It also outlines how in-home testing can help close gaps in measures by making it more convenient for patients. Specific strategies discussed include distributing test kits to patients, notifying providers and patients of abnormal results, and using Star data to guide care improvement efforts.
What Makes a Good Performance Management Plan? A new tool for managersMEASURE Evaluation
The document provides guidance on what makes a good performance management plan (PMP). It outlines 14 key factors for a quality PMP, including having a clear results framework, indicators that reflect project objectives, and practical plans for collecting high-quality data. A good PMP is easy to follow, with the right level of indicators to assess results while still being manageable. It also identifies costs for implementation and opportunities for evaluation. Developing a strong PMP upfront helps guide effective management and decision making.
This document summarizes a presentation on developing a framework for monitoring the impact of health reform. It discusses why states should develop such a framework and have Medicaid involved. Key points include using the framework to track progress on goals, define each program's contributions, and avoid duplicative data collection. The presentation provides examples from California and Maryland and outlines steps to develop a framework, including defining scope, choosing measures, identifying data sources, and engaging stakeholders. It emphasizes establishing the framework early to monitor baseline trends and impacts over time.
Gender and Essential Packages of Health Services: Exploring the Evidence BaseReBUILD for Resilience
Presented by Val Percival of Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Canada.
Part of a session - 'Context, gender, and sustainability in introducing and scaling-up essential health care packages in fragile and crisis-affected countries' - at the Fifth Global Symposium for Health Systems Research in October 2018. The essential package of health services is a mechanism for expanding equitable coverage of primary health care and essential hospital services in countries recovering from conflict. The session explores the evidence-base on such healthcare packages in different contexts and prioritizes areas for strengthening research.
- - -
CMS Innovation Center
http://innovation.cms.gov
We accept comments in the spirit of our comment policy:
http://newmedia.hhs.gov/standards/comment_policy.html
CMS Privacy Policy
http://cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/Aboutwebsite/Privacy-Policy.html
CORE Group Fall Meeting 2010. Family Planning Integration: Overcoming Barriers to NGO Programming. A Presentation of Preliminary Results from the CORE Group CBFP/MCH Integration Survey. - Paige Anderson Bowen, CORE Group Consultant
Monitoring and Evaluation at the Community Level: A Strategic Review of ME...MEASURE Evaluation
This document summarizes MEASURE Evaluation's accomplishments and lessons learned from supporting community-level monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems over Phase III. It describes key challenges faced in community-based M&E like low capacity and lack of resources. Best practices identified include involving stakeholders, intensive capacity building, and using simple tools. Gaps around data use and accessibility are discussed, along with recommendations for integrating community data and indicators, improving capacity building strategies, and taking a more strategic approach to community-based information systems.
Botswana Gender-based Violence Referral System & Beyond: What a health inform...MEASURE Evaluation
This document discusses Botswana's efforts to improve its gender-based violence (GBV) care and response system through the development of a new GBV survivor services referral system and a mobile-based health information system. It describes how the existing informal GBV referral system lacked organization and data sharing. The new system aims to better coordinate care across sectors and track referrals using mobile phones. It also discusses the vision for a future national health information system that integrates this GBV data and evaluates GBV prevention programs across the country.
COVID19: Impact & Mitigation Strategies for Payer Quality Improvement 2021CitiusTech
This white paper analyzes the impact of COVID-19 on payer quality improvement strategies and measures for 2020-2021. It finds that about 74% of quality measures will likely see negative impacts due to reduced outpatient visits, while 15% may improve due to lower utilization. The top negatively impacted domains are behavioral health, preventive care, and access. Future strategies discussed include integrating narrow networks, accounting for virtual care, and leveraging data science and interoperability.
The document examines the effects of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks on service delivery in the health sector in Uganda, using Marie Stopes Uganda as a case study. It finds that M&E frameworks that include well-defined principles, resources, and M&E plans have a positive effect on service delivery, though program outputs alone do not. However, the study was limited to northern Uganda and generalizing the findings to the entire country was difficult. It recommends that Marie Stopes Uganda strengthen its M&E principles, resources, plans, and output definitions to improve service delivery.
The Beneficiary Engagement and Incentives: Shared Decision Making (SDM) Model team hosted a webinar on Tuesday, February 7, 2017. During this webinar Model team members provided an overview of the application, provided technical guidance followed by a question-and-answer (Q&A) segment.
- - -
CMS Innovation Center
http://innovation.cms.gov
We accept comments in the spirit of our comment policy:
http://newmedia.hhs.gov/standards/comment_policy.html
CMS Privacy Policy
http://cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/Aboutwebsite/Privacy-Policy.html
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation released a Request for Information (RFI) in late 2013 entitled the “Evolution of ACO Initiatives at CMS.” These are the first of two batches of responses received by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to the RFI.
- - -
CMS Innovation Center
http://innovation.cms.gov
We accept comments in the spirit of our comment policy:
http://newmedia.hhs.gov/standards/comment_policy.html
CMS Privacy Policy
http://cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/Aboutwebsite/Privacy-Policy.html
Batch processing in Mule allows splitting messages into individual records, performing actions on each record in parallel, and reporting results. It is useful for integrating or synchronizing large datasets between systems, extracting/transforming/loading data into a target system, and handling large volumes of incoming API data. Mule's batch jobs simplify processing massive amounts of data through record-based reporting, error handling, and parallel processing to improve reliability.
An international dental patient visited a clinic in India with sensitive teeth and an inability to smile well. The patient had severe tooth attrition, missing molars, and worn tooth surfaces. The dentists performed root canals on multiple teeth, placed dental implants, and created zirconia crowns. After treatment, the patient had a cheerful smile and improved chewing ability.
A presentation given by Dr Joanna Raven of the PERFORM2Scale consortium and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. Entitled 'How do you effectively facilitate health systems interventions?' the presentation was given at the Sept 2019 European Congress on Tropical Medicine and International Health.
The document discusses implementing an electronic health information system at an opioid treatment program to enhance practices. It will be a prospective, comparative study over 3 years. Preliminary activities included getting stakeholder buy-in and needs assessments. Five aims were identified: quality, productivity, satisfaction, financial performance, and risk management. Hypotheses were developed for each aim. Data sources and measures were identified for evaluating the hypotheses. The study received NIH funding.
Presentation given by Professor Sophie Witter at the 5th Meeting of the Montreux Collaborative on Fiscal Space, Public Financial Management and Health Financing in November 2021
Health system strengthening – what is it, how should we assess it, and does i...ReBUILD for Resilience
This presentation was given to the UK's Department for International Development on 30th July 2019.
Comprehensive reviews of health system strengthening interventions are rare, partly because of lack of clarity on definitions of the term but also the potentially huge scale of the evidence. In our talk, we will reflect on the process of undertaking such an evidence review for DFID recently (attached again), drawing out suggestions on definitions of HSS and approaches to assessment, as well as summarising some key conclusions from the current evidence base. Most HSS interventions have theories of change relating to specific system blocks, but more work is needed on capturing their spill-over effects and their contribution to meeting over-arching health system process goals. We will make some initial suggestions about such goals, to reflect the features that characterise a ‘strong health system’. We will highlight current findings on ‘what works’ but also that these are just indicative, given the limitations and biases in what has been studied and how, and argue that there is need to re-think evaluation methods for HSS beyond finite interventions and narrow outcomes. Clearer concepts, frameworks and methods can support more coherent HSS investment.
Proven Steps to Accelerate Star and HEDIS Performance 091714Deb DiCicco
This document summarizes a presentation on improving Star and HEDIS performance measures. It discusses the importance of provider collaboration and focusing on the whole patient. It also outlines how in-home testing can help close gaps in measures by making it more convenient for patients. Specific strategies discussed include distributing test kits to patients, notifying providers and patients of abnormal results, and using Star data to guide care improvement efforts.
What Makes a Good Performance Management Plan? A new tool for managersMEASURE Evaluation
The document provides guidance on what makes a good performance management plan (PMP). It outlines 14 key factors for a quality PMP, including having a clear results framework, indicators that reflect project objectives, and practical plans for collecting high-quality data. A good PMP is easy to follow, with the right level of indicators to assess results while still being manageable. It also identifies costs for implementation and opportunities for evaluation. Developing a strong PMP upfront helps guide effective management and decision making.
This document summarizes a presentation on developing a framework for monitoring the impact of health reform. It discusses why states should develop such a framework and have Medicaid involved. Key points include using the framework to track progress on goals, define each program's contributions, and avoid duplicative data collection. The presentation provides examples from California and Maryland and outlines steps to develop a framework, including defining scope, choosing measures, identifying data sources, and engaging stakeholders. It emphasizes establishing the framework early to monitor baseline trends and impacts over time.
Gender and Essential Packages of Health Services: Exploring the Evidence BaseReBUILD for Resilience
Presented by Val Percival of Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Canada.
Part of a session - 'Context, gender, and sustainability in introducing and scaling-up essential health care packages in fragile and crisis-affected countries' - at the Fifth Global Symposium for Health Systems Research in October 2018. The essential package of health services is a mechanism for expanding equitable coverage of primary health care and essential hospital services in countries recovering from conflict. The session explores the evidence-base on such healthcare packages in different contexts and prioritizes areas for strengthening research.
- - -
CMS Innovation Center
http://innovation.cms.gov
We accept comments in the spirit of our comment policy:
http://newmedia.hhs.gov/standards/comment_policy.html
CMS Privacy Policy
http://cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/Aboutwebsite/Privacy-Policy.html
CORE Group Fall Meeting 2010. Family Planning Integration: Overcoming Barriers to NGO Programming. A Presentation of Preliminary Results from the CORE Group CBFP/MCH Integration Survey. - Paige Anderson Bowen, CORE Group Consultant
Monitoring and Evaluation at the Community Level: A Strategic Review of ME...MEASURE Evaluation
This document summarizes MEASURE Evaluation's accomplishments and lessons learned from supporting community-level monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems over Phase III. It describes key challenges faced in community-based M&E like low capacity and lack of resources. Best practices identified include involving stakeholders, intensive capacity building, and using simple tools. Gaps around data use and accessibility are discussed, along with recommendations for integrating community data and indicators, improving capacity building strategies, and taking a more strategic approach to community-based information systems.
Botswana Gender-based Violence Referral System & Beyond: What a health inform...MEASURE Evaluation
This document discusses Botswana's efforts to improve its gender-based violence (GBV) care and response system through the development of a new GBV survivor services referral system and a mobile-based health information system. It describes how the existing informal GBV referral system lacked organization and data sharing. The new system aims to better coordinate care across sectors and track referrals using mobile phones. It also discusses the vision for a future national health information system that integrates this GBV data and evaluates GBV prevention programs across the country.
COVID19: Impact & Mitigation Strategies for Payer Quality Improvement 2021CitiusTech
This white paper analyzes the impact of COVID-19 on payer quality improvement strategies and measures for 2020-2021. It finds that about 74% of quality measures will likely see negative impacts due to reduced outpatient visits, while 15% may improve due to lower utilization. The top negatively impacted domains are behavioral health, preventive care, and access. Future strategies discussed include integrating narrow networks, accounting for virtual care, and leveraging data science and interoperability.
The document examines the effects of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks on service delivery in the health sector in Uganda, using Marie Stopes Uganda as a case study. It finds that M&E frameworks that include well-defined principles, resources, and M&E plans have a positive effect on service delivery, though program outputs alone do not. However, the study was limited to northern Uganda and generalizing the findings to the entire country was difficult. It recommends that Marie Stopes Uganda strengthen its M&E principles, resources, plans, and output definitions to improve service delivery.
The Beneficiary Engagement and Incentives: Shared Decision Making (SDM) Model team hosted a webinar on Tuesday, February 7, 2017. During this webinar Model team members provided an overview of the application, provided technical guidance followed by a question-and-answer (Q&A) segment.
- - -
CMS Innovation Center
http://innovation.cms.gov
We accept comments in the spirit of our comment policy:
http://newmedia.hhs.gov/standards/comment_policy.html
CMS Privacy Policy
http://cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/Aboutwebsite/Privacy-Policy.html
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation released a Request for Information (RFI) in late 2013 entitled the “Evolution of ACO Initiatives at CMS.” These are the first of two batches of responses received by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to the RFI.
- - -
CMS Innovation Center
http://innovation.cms.gov
We accept comments in the spirit of our comment policy:
http://newmedia.hhs.gov/standards/comment_policy.html
CMS Privacy Policy
http://cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/Aboutwebsite/Privacy-Policy.html
Batch processing in Mule allows splitting messages into individual records, performing actions on each record in parallel, and reporting results. It is useful for integrating or synchronizing large datasets between systems, extracting/transforming/loading data into a target system, and handling large volumes of incoming API data. Mule's batch jobs simplify processing massive amounts of data through record-based reporting, error handling, and parallel processing to improve reliability.
An international dental patient visited a clinic in India with sensitive teeth and an inability to smile well. The patient had severe tooth attrition, missing molars, and worn tooth surfaces. The dentists performed root canals on multiple teeth, placed dental implants, and created zirconia crowns. After treatment, the patient had a cheerful smile and improved chewing ability.
Ocean Education Consultant provides one-stop solutions for students seeking to study abroad by helping with career planning, admission processing, visa assistance, and interview preparation to get students into overseas programs in as little as one month. They encourage confused or unmotivated students to contact their offices in Karachi for free help with studying abroad.
Elsa Lé é uma artista plástica portuguesa nascida em 1968 em Ovar. Formou-se em Artes Plásticas/Pintura e trabalha como professora e ilustradora. Participou em várias exposições em Portugal e no estrangeiro e ilustrou livros de diferentes autores portugueses. Seu trabalho mais recente foi ilustrar o livro "O Reino Cinátilante".
Gramática: El verbo, el número y la persona de los verbos.
Ortografía: Acentuación de palabras llanas y esdrújulas.
Escribir: Dividir un texto en párrafos.
Actualment una de les malaties que augmenten la mortalitat de la població és l'Infart Agut de Miocardi (IAM), més coneguda com a atac de cor. Es pretén analitzar què és i com es produeix un IAM i sobretot el Codi IAM o Codi Infart a Catalunya i donar a conèixer el recull d’un seguit d'innovacions tecnològiques que s'han posat a prova darrerament seguint el model d’Smart City, acompanyat d’una enquesta sobre la informació que tenen els ciutadans, que ens farà reflexionar sobre aquesta malaltia.
Pau Herranz Santos
2n Batxillerat / INS Infanta Isabel d'Aragó
This presentation discusses a wind farm project using 660V 50Hz doubly fed induction generator (DFIG) technology. It introduces wind turbines and wind farms, explaining how they convert kinetic wind energy to electrical energy. Horizonal axis wind turbines (HAWT) are discussed. The presentation covers the main components of a HAWT including the rotor blades, main gearbox, generator, and other systems. It then explains how DFIGs work, their advantages over other generator types particularly for grid integration, and their suitability for use in wind turbines.
The document contains ultrasound scans of various abdominal organs and structures including the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. Multiple images show:
1) A thickened gallbladder wall with gallstones and tenderness on scanning.
2) A large multi-cystic mass occupying the right lobe of the liver with compression of surrounding tissue.
3) A TIPS stent seen within the hepatic veins.
The document discusses evaluation of health programs. It defines evaluation as the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback. The main goals of evaluation are to influence decision-making and policy formulation through empirically-driven feedback. Formative evaluation assesses needs and implementation, while summative evaluation determines outcomes, impacts, costs and benefits. Evaluation questions, methods, and frameworks are described to establish program merit, worth and significance based on credible evidence from stakeholders. Standards ensure evaluations are useful, feasible, proper and accurate.
QI Plan Part One21Davis Health Care is dedic.docxmakdul
QI Plan Part One
21
Davis Health Care is dedicated to providing an excellent patient care experience. A recent survey indicated that they could improve their quality of service. Imagine you are charged with identifying an area of improvement for this organization.
Select one area of improvement from the following list to complete Part 1 and Part 2 of this assignment:
· Patient safety
· Staff development and team improvement
· Productivity management
· Patient education
· Another area of improvement - Needs faculty approval
You will focus on this area of improvement throughout the remainder of the course, which will lead to a quality improvement plan in the final week.
Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper in which you address the following prompts for the area of improvement that you selected from above:
Part 1: Data Collection Tools
· Explain data needed to monitor improvements.
· Explain at least three data collection tools you can use to collect performance information.
· Explain the types of information each tool collects.
· Explain the strengths and weaknesses of each data collection tool.
· Explain how the data collection tools are similar. Explain how the data collection tools are different.
Part 2: Data Display, Measurement and Reporting
· Identify at least two tools that measure and display the QI data that can be gathered with the data collection tools identified in Part 1.
· Explain the types of information each tool measures, displays, and reports.
· Explain each measurement, display, and reporting tool's strengths and weaknesses.
· Explain how the measurement, display, and reporting tools are similar and different from each other.
· Explain how the measurement, display and reporting tools are useful for health care organizations.
Cite at least 3 sources according to APA guidelines to support your information.
Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.
QI Plan Part One
Davis Healthcare Improvement
Davis Healthcare is a dedicated team of professionals to providing efficient services and patient care delivering. However, each healthcare service requires improvements in one or more sectors to improve the quality of services rendered to the patients. Therefore, focusing on each aspect of development within the healthcare service, Davis Healthcare must make amendments and specific improvements to particular sections of its organization.
Among the required sectors of development include productivity management. This section entails activities that ensure service delivery to various patients and proper coordination with staff to coordinate patient care. Different data collection tools and analyses techniques and instruments must be used to have the appropriate data required for analysis in this section, (Panesar, Carson-Stevens, Salvilla, & Sheikh, 2014). Nice, but what is the topic you will be talking about – HAC, HAI, handwashing, pt identification, med errors? etc
Data Collection
Data col ...
Centralization of Healthcare Insurance.docxwrite31
This document outlines an assessment for a course on health care leadership. Students are asked to propose a change to their local health care system and conduct a comparative analysis of two other countries' systems related to the proposed change. They must summarize their proposed change, the outcomes of the foreign systems, and how those systems compare to the current local system in a 4-5 page report. The report should address factors like who pays for care, outcomes, costs of implementing changes, and not implementing changes. Students are encouraged to examine systems with differing outcomes or innovative approaches related to their proposed change.
CHAPTER SIXTEENUnderstanding Context Evaluation and MeasuremeJinElias52
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Understanding Context: Evaluation and Measurement in Not-for-Profit Sectors
Dale C. Brandenburg
Many individuals associated with community agencies, health care, public workforce development, and similar not-for-profit organizations view program evaluation akin to a visit to the dentist’s office. It’s painful, but at some point it cannot be avoided. A major reason for this perspective is that evaluation is seen as taking money away from program activities that perform good for others, that is, intruding on valuable resources that are intended for delivering the “real” services of the organization (Kopczynski & Pritchard, 2004). A major reason for this logic is that since there are limited funds available to serve the public good, why must a portion of program delivery be allocated to something other than serving people in need? This is not an unreasonable point and one that program managers in not-for-profits face on a continuing basis.
The focus of evaluation in not-for-profit organization has shifted in recent years from administrative data to outcome measurement, impact evaluation, and sustainability (Aspen Institute, 2000), thus a shift from short-term to long-term effects of interventions. Evaluators in the not-for-profit sector view their world as the combination of technical knowledge, communication skills, and political savvy that can make or break the utility and value of the program under consideration. Evaluation in not-for-profit settings tends to value the importance of teamwork, collaboration, and generally working together. This chapter is meant to provide a glimpse at a minor portion of the evaluation efforts that take place in the not-for-profit sector. It excludes, for example, the efforts in public education, but does provide some context for workforce development efforts.
CONTRAST OF CONTEXTS
Evaluation in not-for-profit settings tends to have different criteria for the judgment of its worth than is typically found in corporate and similar settings. Such criteria are likely to include the following:
How useful is the evaluation?
Is the evaluation feasible and practical?
Does the evaluation hold high ethical principles?
Does the evaluation measure the right things, and is it accurate?
Using criteria such as the above seems a far cry from concepts of return on investment that are of vital importance in the profit sector. Even the cause of transfer of training can sometimes be of secondary importance to assuring that the program is described accurately. Another difference is the pressure of time. Programs offered by not-for-profit organizations, such as an alcohol recovery program, take a long time to see the effects and, by the time results are viewable, the organization has moved on to the next program. Instead we often see that evaluation is relegated to measuring the countable, the numbers of people who have completed the program, rather than the life-changing impact that decreased alcohol abuse has on ...
The Health Finance and Governance (HFG) Project organized a multi-country workshop to support policymakers from public health and finance agencies in developing concrete action plans for mobilizing domestic resources for health. This presentation on the HFG toolkit addresses gaps in the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Finance relationship. The toolkit presents a set of strategies, self assessment methodologies and performance management processes to help the MOH better manage their own resources and to help foster more effective coordination between the MOH and the MOF.
Chapter 5 Program Evaluation and Research TechniquesCharlene R. .docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 5 Program Evaluation and Research Techniques
Charlene R. Weir
Evaluation of health information technology (health IT) programs and projects can range from simple user satisfaction for a new menu or full-scale analysis of usage, cost, compliance, patient outcomes, and observation of usage to data about patient's rate of improvement.
Objectives
At the completion of this chapter the reader will be prepared to:
1.Identify the main components of program evaluation
2.Discuss the differences between formative and summative evaluation
3.Apply the three levels of theory relevant to program evaluation
4.Discriminate program evaluation from program planning and research
5.Synthesize the core components of program evaluation with the unique characteristics of informatics interventions
Key Terms
Evaluation, 72
Formative evaluation, 73
Logic model, 79
Program evaluation, 73
Summative evaluation, 73
Abstract
Evaluation is an essential component in the life cycle of all health IT applications and the key to successful translation of these applications into clinical settings. In planning an evaluation the central questions regarding purpose, scope, and focus of the system must be asked. This chapter focuses on the larger principles of program evaluation with the goal of informing health IT evaluations in clinical settings. The reader is expected to gain sufficient background in health IT evaluation to lead or participate in program evaluation for applications or systems.
Formative evaluation and summative evaluation are discussed. Three levels of theory are presented, including scientific theory, implementation models, and program theory (logic models). Specific scientific theories include social cognitive theories, diffusion of innovation, cognitive engineering theories, and information theory. Four implementation models are reviewed: PRECEDE-PROCEED, PARiHS, RE-AIM, and quality improvement. Program theory models are discussed, with an emphasis on logic models.
A review of methods and tools is presented. Relevant research designs are presented for health IT evaluations, including time series, multiple baseline, and regression discontinuity. Methods of data collection specific to health IT evaluations, including ethnographic observation, interviews, and surveys, are then reviewed.
Introduction
The outcome of evaluation is information that is both useful at the program level and generalizable enough to contribute to the building of science. In the applied sciences, such as informatics, evaluation is critical to the growth of both the specialty and the science. In this chapter program evaluation is defined as the “systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and results of programs to make judgments about the program, improve or further develop program effectiveness, inform decisions about future programming, and/or increase understanding.”1 Health IT interventions are nearly always embedded in ...
QI Plan Part One28QI Plan Part OneDavis .docxmakdul
QI Plan Part One
28
QI Plan Part One
Davis Healthcare Improvement
Davis Healthcare is a dedicated team of professionals to providing efficient services and patient care delivering. However, each healthcare service requires improvements in one or more sectors to improve the quality of services rendered to the patients. Therefore, focusing on each aspect of development within the healthcare service, Davis Healthcare must make amendments and specific improvements to particular sections of its organization.
Among the required sectors of development include productivity management. This section entails activities that ensure service delivery to various patients and proper coordination with staff to coordinate patient care. Different data collection tools and analyses techniques and instruments must be used to have the appropriate data required for analysis in this section, (Panesar, Carson-Stevens, Salvilla, & Sheikh, 2014). Nice, but what is the topic you will be talking about – HAC, HAI, handwashing, pt identification, med errors? etc
Data Collection
Data collection is aimed at obtaining appropriate data and information required to ensure that correct information is managed within the organization's settings for proper analysis and fact evaluation. The kind of data needed to monitor improvements include data on specific statistics regarding delivery of services, feedback from patients, recovery rates, as well as patient care response.
Some of the tools that can be used in data collection include surveys, questionnaires, and interviews. These collection devices are used in gathering data from the field and various respondents appropriately before indulging in analysis and improvement process of the healthcare delivery sector (Blischke, Karim, & Murthy, 2011).
Surveys are short questions issued to various persons with specific answer sets and defined sets of questions. These studies are aimed at targeted forms of responses within the community and organization. The surveys are given out to respondents across the field area, to achieve issue objectively where the respondents can respond to the questions categorically.
· Surveys are easily formed as they are simple problems and can be sent through emails or other forums to the various respondents across the field of study.
· Informational content on the improvement of productivity management is categorized into obvious questions that can easily be understood by the different respondents within the responses.
· The response fields have areas that can be expounded upon to give more detailed information about a particular service or area of study. According to surveys, information available on specific areas of study and the challenges that each department undertakes in productivity management can be recorded in the survey answers.
· Some of the cons of using surveys include problems in understanding questions asked to the various departments. Moreover, categorizing each study ...
Outcomes Based Contracting resource - logic model and Results Based Accountability framework. Taken from the draft Partnering in Procurement Document developed by the Western Australian Council of Social Service and WA Health
Running head: ANALYSIS PAPER 1
ANALYSIS PAPER 2
Analysis Paper
Krista Kim
Rasmussen College
Author Note
This paper is being submitted on January 21st, 2018, for Kim Sanders’s H490/HSA4922 Section 01 Healthcare Management Capstone - Online Plus - 2018 Winter Quarter
Analysis Paper
Based on the results of the SWOT analysis, what should Barbara recommend as an overall strategy?
From the SWOT analysis, the overall strategy that Barbara should recommend is a system that is capable of meeting the needs of the healthcare facility effectively and efficiently. The strategy focuses on having systems that are fast to allow for easy processing of information and offer quality support to the patients. It should also have a high level of functionality to allow for the normalizing, analyzing, access and the storage of the entire patient's data and saving it for easy retrieving in the future. The system should also be user-friendly so that the professionals and the staff using it can be in a position to easily maneuver in the process of care delivery. The other component of the system that the company should consider is that it should have a wide range of features to enhance maximum utilization and the ease of data access by the patients and physicians. Finally, the medical professionals should also be trained on how to use the system upon implementation.
How will the selection of the chosen EHR system contribute to the strategy? Further explain why it was the best choice.
One of the ways in which the selection of eClinical works EHR will contribute to strategy is that it is the ability to maintain highly organized data; it’s fast and also has amazing features. The EHR system adapted for use in the organization should be in a position to increase effectiveness, efficiency, achieve quality in the delivery of care and also enhance the patient’s outcomes (Sinha et al., 2013). Due to its organization, the system will make it easy for the health care professionals to retrieve the patients’ information while at the same time ensuring security to prevent access of the patient information by unauthorized persons. The e-Clinical works will also contribute to the strategy because it offers low and affordable prices and has low maintenance costs and this aids in the reduction of the costs that the healthcare facilities incur in the maintenance. The other way in which the system will contribute to the strategy is that it has a wide scope of features which make it easy for the patients and the physicians to login into their portals and interact with each other.
On what basis should she develop actions items? What should the action items be, as they directly relate to the strategy?
The action items should be developed based on their importance in m ...
The Healthy County Health Department convened organizations to develop a community health improvement plan. A council was established to improve population health through prevention and health promotion. The council used the MAPP process to conduct four assessments to identify health issues: community health status, forces of change, local public health system, and community themes/strengths. A subcommittee prioritized health problems using assessment data. The result was a plan identifying priority issues and goals. Performance management could be enhanced by developing standards, regular reporting, and quality improvement processes for addressing priority health issues.
Elevating Medical Management Services to Meet Member ExpectationsCognizant
Healthcare payer organizations can lower the cost of commoditized medical management functions via better and different processes, and invest the savings in member-centric care management services.
On April 18, 2016, The United States Supreme Court denied a petiti.docxvannagoforth
On April 18, 2016, The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari (refused to review the lower court’s ruling) in the case of Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2015.
Tell me what you would do if you were the Supreme Court.
That case let stand the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which can be found at the following website:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2220742578695593916&q=Authors+Guild+v.+Google+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=4000006
Please write a 500-word summary of fair use as this court decision says it.
Running head: YOUR SHORTENED TITLE GOES HERE 1
SHORTENED TITLE GOES HERE (IN CAPS) 2
Plan
What is your plan for evaluation of the strategies using performance improvement data and tracers? What tracers will you use? Include necessary detail to deliver key points and requirements, such as specific data collection methods, timeframes for evaluation, and intended re-evaluation.
Tracer method is a unique technique used by the healthcare organizations, to obtain a real time picture of quality performance from point of entry to discharge. A key part of The Joint Commission’s on-site survey process is the tracer methodology (The Joint Commission, 2017).. Some traditional tracer tools can be used for quality and safety improvement. The focus of these tools is on ….. and the plan for the evaluation of this initiative for fall prevention will use tracers in the following manner….
OR
To evaluate the identified measure is the 30 day readmission rate for patients, data twill be racked by system tracers which will be completed monthly by the Assistant Director of Nursing.
Plan Evaluation
How effective and sustainable is your plan? In other words, evaluate the effectiveness and the ease of use, timeliness, and efficiency of your plan for the progress and success of your initiative.
The plan to prevent falls is effective and sustainable with the involvement and collaboration of all team members by implementing the following strategies… The initiative will be evaluated by the following methods, post implementation…….
OR
Every three months this data will be compiled and analyzed to determine what actions were effective and ineffective. The complete study will take place over a one year period with the desired result of an 15% or below hospital readmission rate.
Use of Tracers
Individual tracers make the most sense to utilize for this proposal because these tracers are designed to “trace” the care experiences that a patient had during hospitalization. For example: in case of fall prevention, these tracers help to track the patient’s experience regarding safety, satisfaction of personal needs, hygiene, compliance of staff during care….. System tracers can be utilized as well, for example….
OR
System tracers provide information by tracking where in an organizational process breakdowns occur or exist and are a valuable tool in identifying where changes needs to occur. ...
Step 1 Engage Stakeholders The first step in the CD.docxdessiechisomjj4
Step 1: Engage Stakeholders
The first step in the CDC Framework approach to program evaluation is to engage the
stakeholders. Stakeholders are people or organizations that are invested in the program, are
interested in the results of the evaluation, and/or have a stake in what will be done with the
results of the evaluation. Representing their needs and interests throughout the process is
fundamental to good program evaluation.
Typical Stakeholders in Public Health
Key stakeholders for evaluations of public health programs fall into three major groups:
• Those involved in program operations: Management, program staff, partners, funding
agencies, and coalition members.
• Those served or affected by the program: Patients or clients, advocacy groups,
community members, and elected officials.
• Those who are intended users of the evaluation findings: Persons in a position to make
decisions about the program, such as partners, funding agencies, coalition members, and
the general public or taxpayers.
Clearly, these categories are not mutually exclusive; in particular, the primary users of
evaluation findings are often members of the other two groups, i.e., the program management or
an advocacy organization or coalition. While you may think you know your stakeholders well,
these categories help you to think broadly and inclusively in identifying stakeholders.
Potential Stakeholders in Public Health Programs
• Program managers and staff.
• Local, state, and regional coalitions interested in the public health issue.
• Local grantees of your funds.
• Local and national advocacy partners.
• Other funding agencies, such as national and state governments.
• State or local health departments and health commissioners.
• State education agencies, schools, and other educational groups.
• Universities and educational institutions.
• Local government, state legislators, and state governors.
• Privately owned businesses and business associations.
• Health care systems and the medical community.
• Religious organizations.
• Community organizations.
• Private citizens.
• Program critics.
• Representatives of populations disproportionately affected by the problem.
• Law enforcement representatives.
Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public Health Programs Page 13
Why Stakeholders are Important to an Evaluation
Stakeholders can help (or hinder) an evaluation before it is conducted, while it is being
conducted, and after the results are collected and ready for use. Because so many public health
efforts are complex and because public health agencies may be several layers removed from
frontline implementation, stakeholders take on particular importance in ensuring that the right
evaluation questions are identified and that evaluation results will be used to make a difference.
Stakeholders are much more likely to support the evaluation and act on the results and
recommendations if they are involved.
The document provides information about a webinar on the 2014 Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals presented by Kathleen Amos and Janelle Nichols. It outlines phone and webinar etiquette, presenter disclosures, requirements for continuing education credit, and learning objectives. The presentation provides an overview of the Core Competencies, how they have changed, and tools and resources available to support their use.
Health Accounts Peer-Learning Workshop: Summary of Key Themes and DiscussionsHFG Project
In November 2016, over 60 government technicians, policymakers and technical advisors from 47 countries across the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe participated in the first global Health Accounts Peer-Learning Workshop. During this workshop, participants shared their experiences and ideas on how to improve Health Accounts production and increase the uptake of Health Accounts results for policy.
The document summarizes key discussions from a global Health Accounts peer-learning workshop. Over 60 participants from 47 countries shared challenges of and solutions to improving health accounts production and policy uptake. Common challenges included lack of stakeholder buy-in, insufficient resources, and misaligned planning cycles. Solutions focused on early stakeholder engagement, using existing data systems, and tailoring analysis and communication to address specific policy questions. Participants agreed that effective stakeholder engagement, streamlined data collection, and ensuring the relevance of analysis are critical for successful health accounts production and use.
Monitoring and Evaluation of Health ServicesNayyar Kazmi
This document provides an overview of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of health services. It discusses the key differences between monitoring and evaluation, and explains that M&E is important to assess whether health programs and services are achieving their goals and objectives. The document also outlines the main components and steps involved in conducting evaluations, including developing indicators, collecting and analyzing data, reporting findings, and implementing recommendations.
This document provides guidance on evaluating nutrition initiatives. It outlines key steps to developing an evaluation framework, including: defining objectives; selecting process, outcome and impact indicators; and choosing appropriate data collection methods. The summary should evaluate the intervention, not just describe it. An effective evaluation demonstrates the value of the initiative and whether objectives were achieved.
Evaluation of health systems performance: the role of Health Systems Research
WA Health Evaluation Plan
1. 1
PROGRAM EVALUATION PLAN:
Western Australian Department of Health Online
Consultation Management System
Program Background
The Western Australian Department of Health (WA Health) conducts many consultations and
is interested in which is the most effective way to engage with key stakeholders on health
reform and policy. To this end, WA Health has purchased online consultation management
software with the goal of increasing stakeholder participation in policy and program feedback
and development.
The objectives laid out for the online consultation management system include, but are not
limited to;
Having a user friendly interface to effectively share information between WA Health
and relevant stakeholders;
Providing a central repository of upcoming, current and previous consultations by the
Department to minimize duplication and share information; and
Reporting feedback on the outcome of consultations to the general public and directly
to participants in the process.
The cloud-based online consultation system, CitizenSpace created by Delib, was chosen
through an open tendering process and is being tested through an initial two year trial period.
The trial involves two areas of WA Health (Public Health and System Policy & Planning) –
with possible expansion to other WA Health branches after completion of the trial evaluation
(e.g. Clinical Services, Purchasing & System Performance, and System & Corporate
Governance).
The online consultation system is intended to provide a central point of reference for health
professionals and consumers to access information on WA Health policies and programs as
well as allowing them to provide feedback.
A key component of the online consultation software is the “We asked, you said, we did”
feature that encourages consultation managers to close the feedback loop with stakeholders
regarding outcomes of consultations and information on how the data received was used to
inform decision making at WA Health. The provision of feedback to relevant stakeholders
serves to increase the amount and effectiveness of stakeholder engagement with the
Government.
2. 2
Following completion of the trial, it is expected that an evaluation on the use of an online
consultation management system will provide information about whether such a system is an
effective way for WA Health to engage with stakeholders while providing useful information
for the creation of policies and programs. This evaluation will focus on the consultations
completed during the first year of the online consultation system’s two year trial period.
Currently there is no standard approval procedure for WA Health consultations undertaken as
part of the Online Consultation Management System trial period. While there are no set
approval guidelines, there is an informal approval process that has emerged throughout the
trial. This process is outlined in the flowchart below.
Consultation Approval Process:
Purpose of Evaluation
The primary purpose of the evaluation is to establish whether an online consultation
management system is an effective method for WA Health to engage with stakeholders about
WA Health policies and programs. WA Health’s two-year trial of an online consultation
management system will be used to inform the evaluation and provide evidence to support
findings.
The evaluation aims to determine how useful information collected through online
consultation is, as well as the extent to which it influences policy and program decisions. In
addition, the representation and quality of stakeholder response as well as the experience of
WA Health staff with using an online consultation management system will help determine
the overall effectiveness of such a system.
The findings from the evaluation along with recommendations will be reported to the
Director General of WA Health and the State Health Executive Forum (SHEF) to consider
whether an online management system should be implemented across all of WA Health.
3. 3
Audiences and Stakeholders
The table below outlines the key stakeholders with an interest in the process of evaluation
and the evaluation’s findings, as well as their positions, departments and areas of interest.
Primary Stakeholders:
Secondary Stakeholders:
the Public
Consultation Respondents
WA Health Employees
Health Professionals
Health Departments in Other States
Other Government Departments
Stakeholder Interest Groups:
Here, the stakeholders’ interests are made explicit. The interests groups (designated with
letters A - D) are assigned to the various stakeholders in the table above in order to clearly
identify the information needs of each stakeholder.
A: Efficient use of Resources
Cost Effectiveness (roll out, maintenance, training, etc.)
Time Efficiency
B: Optimal Outcomes
Information gained from consultations is useful.
4. 4
Interest in number of consultations conducted and number of responses.
The information gained through consultations serves to influence the creation of
policies and programs.
C: Ease of Use
Consultations are intuitive and easy to follow, allowing them to be completed fully.
Access to consultations available in rural areas and on older operating systems.
Sufficient access and ease of use for people with disabilities.
The information gained by consultations is easy to access and analyse.
The creation of consultations is simple and straightforward.
D: Online Consultation as a Meaningful and Effective Form of Stakeholder
Engagement
The process generates value for both sides of the consultation (WA Health and
participating stakeholders).
The consultations provide a real voice for stakeholders, leading to effective
communication between the Government and the public.
It is important to clearly identify the target audiences of the evaluation and its findings. These
audiences are split into two groups, primary and secondary. The primary audience is the main
target of the evaluation. In this case the primary audience is made up of decision makers that
will ultimately use the information gained through the evaluation to inform whether or not
WA Health’s use of an online consultation system is effective, and whether or not its use
should be expanded. The secondary audience is made up of groups that may find the
outcomes of the evaluation beneficial, but do not have any say in the implementation of
online consultation at WA Health.
Primary Audience – Department of Health, relevant divisions and directors/coordinators, and
the WA Minister for Health, Health Departments of other states, other public sector agencies
Secondary/Potential Audiences – Public Health Organisations (Health Consumers Council,
Disability Services Commission WA, etc.) wider WA Health, Chief Medical Officer
Form of Evaluation
The evaluation of the online consultation management system fits within two of Owen’s five
forms of evaluation: the Interactive form and the Impact form (Owen 2006).
In an Interactive evaluation, the evaluation is most concerned with the process of program
delivery and whether or not the program is working efficiently (Owen 2006). Importantly for
this exercise, an Interactive evaluation looks at the ways in which program delivery can be
improved in order to foster better program outcomes (Owen 2006).
Impact evaluations can also be called summative evaluations that, “…assist with decisions
about whether to terminate a program or to adopt it in another place” (Owen 2006, p. 47).
The Impact part of the online consultation management system evaluation will look at
whether or not the goals of the program have been achieved, whether the program is effective
5. 5
and efficient in achieving these goals and whether or not the needs of WA Health have been
met by the program (Owen 2006).
Information Required – Key Evaluation Questions
Asking the right questions is crucial to the success of any evaluation. The key questions
outlined in this plan will uncover the information most useful to WA Health and will dictate
the direction that the evaluation will take. In addition to directing the evaluation, the
questions themselves will influence what information will be collected, and how it will be
collected. Most importantly, however, the key evaluation questions ensure that the client and
the evaluators are on the same page and want the same information; and that the evaluation
stays focused (Owen 2006).
In addition to these key questions, the unintended outcomes (both positive and negative) of
the online consultation management system will also be uncovered and analysed.
The key evaluation questions for the online consultation management system are as follows:
1. Is public online consultation being done efficiently?
1.1. Is there sufficient (and quality) stakeholder response to online consultations?
2. Is the online consultation system meeting WA Health expectations, and providing the
desired outcomes? (i.e. Is the online consultation system effective?) – Analysis of this
question will be based on the completed consultations within the first year of the two year
trial period
2.1. Is feedback and consultation being directed to the appropriate stakeholders?
2.2. Are the proper people within the WA Health receiving the results of these
stakeholder consultations?
2.3. Is the information gained through consultations useful and up to consultation creator
expectations?
2.4. Is the information gained being used effectively to influence policy and program
decisions
3. Can/should this online consultation be expanded into other areas of WA Health, what
adjustments need to be made in order to accommodate this?
Information Collection and Analysis
The number of completed consultations will need to be examined as well as the number of
responses and the quality of information gained. The user experience on the WA Health side
(creating consultation, approval process, usefulness of responses, etc.) will need to be
investigated, as well as the experiences of consultation respondents. These investigations will
look at each of the consultations individually. The information gained through the
6. 6
examinations of the different consultations will then be compared in order to highlight
strengths and weaknesses in the process.
It must be determined whether or not the information gained from stakeholder consultation
has been effectively used to influence policy and program development and that this
information is going to the correct people. The consultation process must also be efficient
from the perspective of both WA Health and the respondents to the consultations.
Criteria for Making Judgements
The success of this program will be judged against WA Health expectations for the
consultation process. The expectations of consultation creators and parties involved in the
consultation approval process will set the benchmarks for measuring the success of the
program. In order to be considered successful, the program must meet the needs of WA
Health while ensuring a high quality, effective means of stakeholder engagement.
These needs could include expected response rates, the number of completed trials and the
usefulness of information gained through consultations. The results gained from online
consultation must be worth the time and effort put into the creation of these consultations. If
the online consultation system is less efficient in receiving quality stakeholder feedback than
other forms of stakeholder engagement, it can be seen as less desirable. In order to assess
this, online consultations will be compared to other forms of consultation in terms of cost,
efficiency and the usefulness of information received. Comparing online consultation to
traditional forms of consultation will provide insight into how useful online consultation is as
a stakeholder engagement tool.
Methods and Activities
The way that data and information will be collected for the evaluation is outlined in this
section. The information gained through the use of these methods and activities will form the
basis of the final evaluation report.
1. Interviews:
Stakeholders will be interviewed in an attempt to answer the key questions as laid out
in the evaluation plan.
Stakeholders will be interviewed individually as to avoid bias and receive a more
honest view of the consultation process.
The evaluation process will require approximately ten to fifteen interviews to be
conducted.
2. Consultation Analysis:
Each of the consultations completed throughout the first year of the two year trial of
the online consultation management system will be analysed separately.
This analysis will involve the views of the consultation creators, the numbers and
rates of consultation responses, and the overall quality of the consultations.
7. 7
The information gained through this analysis will serve to identify the benefits and
possible areas of improvement in the consultation process.
3. Document Analysis:
3.1. Literature Review:
A literature review will be conducted focusing on online consultation in
government and the area of health.
The literature review will serve to answer the question of whether or not online
consultation is an effective form of stakeholder engagement.
The lessons learned from the literature review can then be applied to the way that
WA Health consults with stakeholders.
3.2. Analysis of Related WA Health Documents:
Analysis of these documents, such as the Project Plan for the online consultation
management system, will allow the evaluators to compare the planned objectives
of the system to its actual outcomes.
These documents will also serve to provide context on the consultation system
and will highlight WA Health’s reason for its implementation.
Resources
In order to complete the evaluation, evaluators must be given access to relevant stakeholders
within WA Health, as well as access to consultation respondents. These stakeholders include
consultation creators as well as people throughout the consultation approval chain. These
stakeholders will be interviewed in order to determine their views on the efficiency and
effectiveness of the online consultation management system.
The evaluators must also be given access to WA Health information concerning the online
consultation system. This information would include the results of completed consultations,
documents relating to the relationship between Delib and WA Health, and documents
outlining the requirements for the online consultation system.
Throughout the process, WA Health should provide a mentor to the evaluators in order to
answer questions and provide guidance. The involvement of a supervisor would ensure
quality throughout the process and would also allow the evaluator access to relevant
information about the online consultation management system.
Dissemination & Engagement
Stakeholders at WA Health will be engaged throughout the evaluation process. Stakeholders
will be involved in the design and implementation of the evaluation in order to ensure its
relevance to WA Health and the accuracy of its findings. In order to achieve this,
stakeholders will be involved in the creation of the key evaluation questions as well as
helping to establish the program’s criteria for success.
8. 8
In addition to this, a report will be created that outlines the evaluation’s findings. This report
will lay out the evaluation process and will make clear the scope of the evaluation and
whether or not there are any biases or conflicts of interest that need to be taken into account.
This report will be created and delivered at the end of the evaluation process and will include
qualitative findings related to the performance of the online consultation management system
versus the expectations of WA Health.
In order to ensure the validity of the report, it must be targeted toward the correct decision
makers and must be created with stakeholder buy-in throughout the process.
Timeline
The evaluation will take place over three stages:
1. Evaluation Planning (March 2015 – June 2015)
In this stage there will be two main deliverables:
o Evaluation Plan – 20 May 2015
o Literature Review – 18 June 2015
2. Data Collection (July 2015 – October 2015)
This phase of the evaluation will involve the collection and organisation of
relevant data (including interviews and analysis of the completed
consultations). Important deadlines for this phase are:
o Interviews Conducted – 15 September 2015
o Consultations Analysed – 5 October 2015
o Data Organised and Reported – 31 October 2015
3. Reporting (March 2016 – June 2016)
This phase will involve the final reporting on the outcomes of the evaluation
along with recommendations to WA Health. Important dates for this phase
are:
o Draft of Final Report – 25 May 2016
o Final Report – 20 June 2016
Quality and Other Issues
Structural changes within WA Health
o The evaluators are unable to control or foresee possible changes in WA Health
and must adapt and cope with any changes that may occur.
o It is assumed that the findings of this evaluation will be relevant no matter
what possible changes may occur to the structure of WA Health.
9. 9
This evaluation is being conducted in compliance with the Guidelines for the Ethical
Conduct of Evaluations published by the Australasian Evaluation Society Inc. (AES
2002).
10. 10
Table 1 – Key Questions and Data Collection
This table outlines the key evaluation questions, as well as how and where the answers to these questions will be determined.
Key Questions and Sub-Questions Data Sources Method of Collection & Analysis
Is public online consultation being done efficiently? Consultation Creators; Senior Research Officer –
Development & Reporting Team, Senior Policy
Officer – Disaster Preparedness & Management
Interview
Is there sufficient, quality, stakeholder response to
online consultation?
Director; DDGs; Senior Research Officer –
Development & Reporting Team, Senior Policy
Officer – Disaster Preparedness & Management
Interview
Consultation Creators; Consultation Feedback
Analysts; 10 Completed Consultations
Interview; Analysis of Completed Evaluations
Is the online consultation systemmeeting WA Health
expectations, and providing the desired outcomes? (i.e. Is the
online consultation systemeffective?)
Director, DDGs Senior Research Officer –
Development & Reporting Team, Senior Policy
Officer – Disaster Preparedness & Management;
Consultation Respondents
Interview
Is feedback and consultation being directed to the
appropriate stakeholders?
DDGs; Director; Consultation Creators; Senior
Research Officer – Development & Reporting
Team, Senior Policy Officer – Disaster
Preparedness & Management
Interview
Are the proper people within the WA Health
receiving the results of these stakeholder
consultations?
Director, DDGs; Data Analysts; Senior Research
Officer – Development & Reporting Team, Senior
Policy Officer – Disaster Preparedness &
Management
Interview
Is the information gained through consultations
useful and up to consultation creator expectations?
Consultation Creators; Senior Research Officer –
Development & Reporting Team, Senior Policy
Officer – Disaster Preparedness & Management;
Director; DDGs
Interview
Is the information gained being used effectively to
influence policy and program decisions?
Director; DDGs; Senior Research Officer –
Development & Reporting Team, Senior Policy
Officer – Disaster Preparedness & Management
Interview
Can/should this online consultation be expanded into other
areas of WA Health. If so, what adjustments need to be made
in order to accommodate this?
Senior Research Officer – Development &
Reporting Team, Senior Policy Officer – Disaster
Preparedness & Management; Director; DDGs;
Director General; HIN; D/Comms; Project Lead
Interview
11. 11
Bibliography:
Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) (2002). Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of
Evaluations. www.aes.asn.au, AES.
Department of Health. (2013). WA Health Writing Style Guide, Communications
Directorate, Department of Health, Perth.
Department of Health. (2013). Request: Consultation Management System. W. A. D. o.
Health.
Owen, J. M. (2006). Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches. Crows Nest NSW,
Allen & Unwin.
Program Evaluation Unit (2014), Evaluation Guide, Department of Treasury, Government
of Western Australia, Perth.
12. 12
Important Documents for Phase 2:
Completed Evaluation Plan
WA Treasury Evaluation Guide
Request for Tender Document for online consultation management system
Literature Review
AES Ethics Guidelines