« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Annex 4 POSSIBLE APPROACH TO EVALUATION
At the meeting of
SEHD and
HaHP representatives on 14 December 2004
the following points were agreed.
- Evaluation is of crucial importance to
HaHP Phase 2 as a national health
demonstration project; some outcomes need to be further
clarified; and there needs to be clarity over what data
are to be collected, when and by whom.
- There are significant limitations to what can
reasonably be expected of
HaHP in itself as regards designing
and delivering the evaluation, especially as there are
real concerns as to the likelihood that an
NHS evaluation post of the
anticipated grade would attract and retain a suitably
skilled person. there are also limits to the extent to
which
HaHP partners' senior staff can be
expected to provide ongoing evaluation leadership
inputs; moreover, it would be highly desirable for
HaHP to have the support of an
academic input and/or other high-level specialist
evaluation expertise.
- SEHD will support
HaHP in the identification and
timeous realisation of a practical and suitably
streamlined evaluation solution.
- HaHP would explore possibilities
with
NHS Health Scotland.
Following discussion involving representatives of the
Scottish Executive,
NHS Health Scotland and
NHS Argyll and Clyde the following
HaHP evaluation network approach is
suggested as a potential solution for exploring further as
a matter of high priority
Notes
#1: Health Scotland input highly relevant, given
national lead role in health improvement evaluation,
sponsorship of
RUHBC (see #2) and links with all
national demonstration projects
#2:
RUHBC (Research Unit in Health,
Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh) currently
seeking to fill new post of Head of Evaluation, viewed by
Health Scotland as an important health improvement
resource; Erica Wimbush of Health Scotland will discuss
possible involvement in
HaHP with
RUHBC Director, Steve Platt
#3: Post would be in
HaHP, but link to
RUHBC likely to make it more attractive
to individuals with suitable expertise; possibility of
Honorary Fellowship would need to be discussed with
RUHBC/University of Edinburgh.
#4: See #3. Postholder might work towards PhD.
#5: Inclusion of other academic adviser(s) would
widen/deepen expertise, provide in-built peer review at all
stages, and facilitate wide engagement in
HaHP. Invitations to participate
actively could be sent to all relevant university
departments/other relevant research institutions, but need
to avoid unwieldy arrangements/excessive bureaucracy.
#6:
HaHP Evaluation Network would link to
other relevant networks,
e.g. Heart Health Learning Network and network
of national health demonstration projects.
« Previous | Contents | Next »