Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MADELEINE GABRIEL & JULIE DAS 9 FEBRUARY 2010
PURPOSE OF THIS SESSION
• Introductions • Purpose of our input today• Our role – we are evaluating the
programme, we are not evaluating you as participants of it.
• Your role – to feed back your reflections, local evaluation data and be part of the research.
1THE EVALUATION
WHY EVALUATE THIS ACTION LEARNING PROGRAMME?
• A pilot programme • Policy importance• Understand what works/does not work
and why (Process)• Understand what has changed
(Outcomes)• Independent feedback on the above
• Implications for roll out
OUR APPROACH - THE LOGIC MODEL
The Logic Model for the Patient Experience Action Learning programme
Rationale Activities and inputs Outputs Short term outcomes Longer term outcomes/impact
Programme logic
Strong policy and other drivers to improve patient experience, but NHS organisations can find this challenging. Action learning supporting NHS staff to plan and implement projects in ‘real time’ can accelerate development and capture learning about what works that can be cascaded more widely
Ten month programme, involving six full day national workshops, an online network and WebEx coaching sessions, aimed at 50 participants from a range of NHS organisations and across the ten SHA areas
NHS staff from a range of organisations:
Programme supports participants to:
Participants are able to:
In the longer term, outcomes for patients and patient satisfaction improve
Evaluation questions
How clearly the programme objectives articulated? How well are they understood by participants and their sponsors?How are needs and expectations of the individual participants understood and how far do they shape the way the programme is designed and delivered? How effectively are programme objectives translated into learning objectives for specific activities within the programme?
How appropriate is design and structure to meet the programme’s objectives?For example, is the timescale sufficient? Is the frequency of workshops and coaching sessions right? Does the group size and composition enable the right type of learning to take place?How are participants selected/recruited? Do facilitators have the right level of kills and knowledge? How well is the programme administered?Are patients involved in the programme?
Have target numbers been engaged, and does participation remain at a high level?What types of individual take part? What is their background and experience? Is the programme reaching its target audiences?How satisfied are participants with the programme?
Does participation lead to improvements in individual capability?Do participants begin to view fellow participants as a community of practice? To what extent is this further developed outside of the programme? Will it be sustained afterwards?What actions do participants take as a result of the programme? Are they able to set up workplace projects? Have they established baseline and metric measures?What new approaches, tools and learning are generated by the programme?
Have participants been able to get buy-in from colleagues to support new approaches? Is there evidence that they have transferred knowledge and skills to others?What new approaches to improving patient experience have been tried out? What has worked well and why? What’s been more challenging? How has the action learning programme supported participants to succeed, and what other factors have influenced success? What difference have these made/are these likely to make to patients? Is this likely to lead to longer term change in organisations’ ways of working?
• participate in a range of learning activities
• plan, implement and evaluate projects in their own organisations
• learn about patient experience models and tools
• develop own knowledge about good practice
• build peer networks
• pilot new approaches
• overcome obstacles and challenges faced
• cascade learning, change perceptions/attitudes within their own teams/organisations
• implement service changes through a patient experience approach
OUR RESEARCH METHODS
A mixed method approach, involving: • Interviews (Stakeholders)• Observations (Workshops and WebEx)• Survey (Participants)• Case Studies (Projects)• Evaluation Support (Secondary data)
The Plan
January Initial Observations & planning
January Initial Observations & planning
February – MarchCase study research part 1 & survey
February – MarchCase study research part 1 & survey
April - AugustAnalysis, interim report, observations
April - AugustAnalysis, interim report, observations
September – OctoberCase study research part 2, Survey
September – OctoberCase study research part 2, Survey
October - NovemberFinal Report
October - NovemberFinal Report
YOUR HELP2
Your input is vital !!
Case studies (10) March &
October
Workplace project evaluations (all)
The Survey: February and March (all)
THE NEXT WORKSHOP…
• Guidance on evaluating your projects• Thinking about the logic model for your
evaluations• Identifying the link from outputs to
outcomes• Measurement and capturing learning
We will be delivering part of the March 2nd workshop
A SMALL TASK... 3
BE PREPARED
• The problem you are trying to tackle (be specific!)• What changes you want to see:
•in the way you and your team work?•for patients?
Prepare some bullet points and be ready to discuss the following with regard to your projects.
QA&
