Has the implementation of HP been successful for:

• the programme?
• clinicians?

• Are clinicians satisfied with the HP programme?
• Are there any programme barriers or constraints?
• Is the programme working as intended?

• Review feedback

• Focus groups
• Interviews
• Surveys
• Feedback:
  • Governance group
  • SMEs
  • CWGs/CEs
  • Clinicians
  • HP programme team

How is the HP programme utilising its resourcing?

• Is the programme efficient?
• Are some specialties more resource-intensive than others?

• Monitor time usage 
• Identify time-consuming specialties

• Review feedback
• Time per specialty per month
• Time per task per month:
  • Development
  • Reviews
  • Localisations
  • Partial updates
  • Meetings and correspondence
  • Site administration

• Dot
• Feedback:
  • SMEs
  • CWGs/CEs
  • HP programme team

• Time taken per specialty for development, localisation, and review
• SME engagement
• Page views per specialty
• High-resource (time) low-use specialties

• Review feedback
• Time taken per specialty for development, localisation, and review
• Page views per specialty

• Dot
• Google Analytics
• Feedback:
  • SMEs
  • CWGs/CEs
  • HP programme team

Are the HP programme objectives being met?

• Localisations
• Reviews
• Development/draft
• Partial updates

• Number of pathways or pages in development or draft, localisations, reviews (12 categories)

• Dot

Are quality control measures in place to ensure HP conforms with:

• current clinical best practice guidelines?
• locally accepted best practice?

• Pathways are reviewed in collaboration with SMEs, CEs, and clinical leads
• Pathways are reviewed as scheduled to ensure that clinical and local referral information is clear, accurate, and up to date

• Audit selected pathways for clinical quality
• Review quality control processes

• Pathway audits
• Procedure documentation review
• Feedback:
  • SMEs
  • CWGs/CEs
  • HP programme team

How is HP being used by the wider health system?

• Have relationships between primary, secondary, tertiary care improved?

• Identify opportunities to increase collaboration between primary, secondary, and tertiary care
• Identify any programme barriers
• Determine the usefulness of HP as a vehicle for communication and relationship building

• Review feedback

• Focus groups
• Interviews
• Surveys
• Feedback:
  • SMEs
  • CWGs/CEs
  • HP programme team

• Increased participation in and engagement with HP

• User logins
• Sessions/page views

• Google Analytics

Is health professionals' knowledge and use of, and engagement with HP increasing?

• Increased participation in and engagement with HP

• Users
• Sessions
• Page views

• Google Analytics

• Clinician satisfaction with the HP programme
• Increased user knowledge of and confidence in appropriate care and referral services available locally

• Improved user experience
• User feedback on HP's impact on the quality of consultations

• Focus groups
• Interviews
• Surveys

• Impact of engagement and outreach activities

• Number of communications
• Estimated reach of communications

• Google Analytics campaign tracking
• Internal records

• Impact of education activities

• Number of events
• Estimated reach of communications

• Google Analytics and campaign tracking
• Internal records
• Feedback