Regular monitoring of your HealthPathways programme enables you to continually assess and adjust programme work priorities and engagement activities. Using a consistent methodology and tracking the same metrics over time can help generate regular reporting for reviewing workflows, and serve as the basis for more in-depth evaluations or research. This should be implemented at an early stage of your programme.
Devise a methodology or workflow process for compiling your data. Tabulate your data and conduct simple data exploration. It may be beneficial to construct a dashboard.
Review your data regularly by comparing current results with previous ones. Consider how your activities have impacted these results based on experience.
Consider your results in the wider domain:
- Has your initial analysis identified areas that merit more detailed investigation?
- Could any of the results benefit the wider community?
Key questions or programme aims
Regular Monitoring
|
|
Key questions/Programme aims
What questions will identify if the programme is achieving its aims?
|
Outcomes/Programme logic
What difference do we aim to make?
What do we expect to achieve?
Who will benefit?
|
Indicators
How will we know if progress is tracking well?
What changes will we look for?
What indicators will help answer our key questions?
|
Methods/Data sources
What data will we collect and how?
|
|
Are the HP programme content development objectives being met?
- How is the programme tracking towards pathway goals (localisations/reviews)?
|
- Track programme indicators over time
- Localisations
- Reviews
- Drafts
- Partial updates
|
- Number of pathways or pages in development or draft, localisations, reviews (12 categories)
|
|
- Identify usage and resources of specialties
- Time and page views per specialty
|
- Time per specialty
- Page views per specialty
|
- Dot
- Google Analytics
- HP programme team
|
|
How is the HP programme utilising its resourcing?
|
- Monitor time usage and identify outliers
- Identify time-consuming specialties
|
- Time per specialty per month
- Time per task per month
- Development
- Reviews
- Localisations
- Partial updates
- Meetings and correspondence
- Site administration
|
|
|
Is health professionals' knowledge and use of, and engagement with HP increasing?
- Is site activity increasing?
- Are the engagement activities effective?
|
- Increased participation in and engagement with HP
|
- Positive trends in number of:
- Users
- Sessions
- Page views
- Page views – top ten
- Specialties
- Localised (top ten)
- Unlocalised (top ten)
|
|
- 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
|
- Engagement, education, and outreach activities
|
- Number of communications
- Estimated reach of communications
|
- Google Analytics and campaign tracking
- Feedback
|
- Maintain continued usefulness of HP and use as a tool for communication and relationship building
|
- Review feedback
- Number of CWGs
|
|
- Review and log all feedback
|
- Feedback
- Dot
- Engagement activities
- News stories
- Events
|
|
Are there any service redesign, clinical improvement, or localisation opportunities?
|
- Identify and adjust work development priorities
- Update priority plans based on user feedback
- Identify service redesign opportunities
- Reduce use of unlocalised pages
|
- Page views
- Search terms
- Review feedback
|
- Google Analytics
- Feedback
|
- Solicit involvement from SMEs and primary care in localising pathways
|
- Estimated number of contributors by pathway specialty
- CWG feedback
|
- Dot
- HP programme team
- CWG feedback
|