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?
|
|
- 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
|
Identify any barriers in specialty development:
- 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?
|
Track programme indicators over time:
- Localisations
- Reviews
- Development/draft
- Partial updates
|
- Number of pathways or pages in development or draft, localisations, reviews (12 categories)
|
|
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
|
|
- Focus groups
- Interviews
- Surveys
- Feedback:
- SMEs
- CWGs/CEs
- HP programme team
|
- Increased participation in and engagement with HP
|
- User logins
- Sessions/page views
|
|
Is health professionals' knowledge and use of, and engagement with HP increasing?
|
- Increased participation in and engagement with HP
|
Positive trends in number of:
- Users
- Sessions
- Page views
|
|
- 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
|