PCD Strategy Evaluation 2007.pdf - NT Health Digital Library ...
PCD Strategy Evaluation 2007.pdf - NT Health Digital Library ... PCD Strategy Evaluation 2007.pdf - NT Health Digital Library ...
2.3 LimitationsLack of an implementation strategyA key limitation of this evaluation was the absence of an implementation plan for the NTPCDS,upon which this evaluation could be based. Multiple initiatives have occurred nationally andwithin the NT during this 7-year timeframe. Therefore it was not possible to determine howimplementation was expected to occur, and to assess if this occurred – a fundamentalcomponent of any process evaluation. To address this the RhED team decided to discuss allprogress achieved, regardless of whether this was influenced by the NTPCDS or not. The reasonfor this is the NTPCDS is an Northern Territory wide strategy, and as such all progress with theimprovement in chronic disease and prevention that was identified in the evaluation process hasbeen reported.Evaluating progress against baseline dataA Statistical Report for the NTPCDS was produced in 2000 (8) . It formed a baseline upon which tomeasure the impact of the NTPCDS and provides excellent baseline data within the PCDSreporting framework (8) . There has however not been another report, using the same methods,since this date, though several reports on facets of the NTPCDS exist in other areas. This hasmade it difficult to report against a baseline and interpret the results of other reports. Forexample: the goal of the NTPCDS was to reduce the projected impact of five common chronicdiseases – the number of hospitalisations, deaths and financial costs. This was unable to beevaluated, as there has been no new published hospital data since 2000, apart from that foundon renal day admissions.Many sources of data had to be re-identified as several in the existing draft report were well outof date, or provided baseline data only. Some could not be found, were not available, or were notcomparable to the baseline data, or the NT data were not for publication ie Medicare. Due to thebreadth of this report against objectives and key result areas, this process was complex andextensive. Hence only information that was published was used in the development of the finalreport; and some areas remain incomplete due to the lack of available published data.Evaluation processThe approach used by the NTDH&CS in undertaking this evaluation, using different groups andan internal and external process, created another limitation. Internal staff initiated the evaluationand external consultants completed the project, with limited opportunity for discussion with theChapter 2: Evaluation Methodology – Evaluation of the NT Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy 2007 18
internal project team. It was very difficult at times to identify data sources and validatestatements made in the draft evaluation report. Therefore some of the information contained inthe draft report that could not be validated, was removed.RestructuresBetween 1999-2006 there were three restructures within the NTDH&CS. The broader policyenvironment shifted from Strategy 21 to the current Building Healthier Communities Framework,which included a change from horizontal to vertical programs. This has made it difficult to assesswhere programs and resources have been shifted, or if they have been reallocated or haveceased. Therefore, within the time constraints of the evaluation process, it was not possible togain a sense of the impact of corporate policy directions, except to comment upon how this hasaffected communication between service providers and the integration of services within theNTDH&CS and other service providers across the Northern Territory.Translation between policy and practiceDetermining the translation between policy, the PCDS and practice, and what service providersattributed to the PCDS or another program offered challenges. For example: it was difficult forsome groups, internal and external to NTDH&CS, to identify how the PCDS influenced their work,yet their work was clearly contributing to the outcomes expected from the PCDS.Chapter 2: Evaluation Methodology – Evaluation of the NT Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy 2007 19
- Page 1 and 2: Pty LtdABN 82 147 637 101AN EVALUAT
- Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTSList of figuresLis
- Page 5 and 6: 6.6 Indigenous workforce 996.7 Prev
- Page 7 and 8: List of AbbreviationsABCDACCHOsACIC
- Page 9 and 10: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to ac
- Page 11 and 12: However the extraordinary number of
- Page 13 and 14: the establishment of the Sunrise He
- Page 15 and 16: RECOMMENDATIONSGeneral recommendati
- Page 17 and 18: Exploration of joint funding arrang
- Page 19 and 20: CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION1.1 Backgrou
- Page 21 and 22: Choosing the 5 chronic conditionsTh
- Page 23 and 24: Table 1.1Key Result Areas + Best Bu
- Page 25 and 26: prior to the launch of NTPCDS, such
- Page 27 and 28: Year * Action Outcome1999 S NT Prev
- Page 29 and 30: Year * Action Outcome2005 P Aborigi
- Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER 2.EVALUATION METHODOLOGYThe
- Page 33 and 34: 2.2 Evaluation StagesThe NTPCDS eva
- Page 35: chronic disease activities funded t
- Page 39 and 40: Situation at Baseline1. The Guideli
- Page 41 and 42: 3.1.2 Patient information and recal
- Page 43 and 44: Ferret Miwatj, Numbulwar, Marngarr,
- Page 45 and 46: Medicare information is not for pub
- Page 47 and 48: was in place in Central Australia i
- Page 49 and 50: What orientation and ongoing traini
- Page 51 and 52: programs focus on chronic disease p
- Page 53 and 54: The information collected as part o
- Page 55 and 56: Assessment against objectiveMost se
- Page 57 and 58: career development, and retention i
- Page 59 and 60: are. Indigenous employment is NTDH&
- Page 61 and 62: NTDH&CS Programs that encourage Hea
- Page 63 and 64: 2002 Aboriginal and Torres Strait I
- Page 65 and 66: delivering any prevention and healt
- Page 67 and 68: The Community Services Division - A
- Page 69 and 70: 1 x AHW Central Australia 2001 S100
- Page 71 and 72: One clinic stated it had no care pl
- Page 73 and 74: Identifies priority practices to in
- Page 75 and 76: There has been a significant growth
- Page 77 and 78: about 25 per cent of the hospital b
- Page 79 and 80: The level of funding provided by th
- Page 81 and 82: Central Australia and two zones cur
- Page 83 and 84: The diabetes education teams at HLN
- Page 85 and 86: maintenance group for people with l
internal project team. It was very difficult at times to identify data sources and validatestatements made in the draft evaluation report. Therefore some of the information contained inthe draft report that could not be validated, was removed.RestructuresBetween 1999-2006 there were three restructures within the <strong>NT</strong>DH&CS. The broader policyenvironment shifted from <strong>Strategy</strong> 21 to the current Building <strong>Health</strong>ier Communities Framework,which included a change from horizontal to vertical programs. This has made it difficult to assesswhere programs and resources have been shifted, or if they have been reallocated or haveceased. Therefore, within the time constraints of the evaluation process, it was not possible togain a sense of the impact of corporate policy directions, except to comment upon how this hasaffected communication between service providers and the integration of services within the<strong>NT</strong>DH&CS and other service providers across the Northern Territory.Translation between policy and practiceDetermining the translation between policy, the <strong>PCD</strong>S and practice, and what service providersattributed to the <strong>PCD</strong>S or another program offered challenges. For example: it was difficult forsome groups, internal and external to <strong>NT</strong>DH&CS, to identify how the <strong>PCD</strong>S influenced their work,yet their work was clearly contributing to the outcomes expected from the <strong>PCD</strong>S.Chapter 2: <strong>Evaluation</strong> Methodology – <strong>Evaluation</strong> of the <strong>NT</strong> Preventable Chronic Disease <strong>Strategy</strong> 2007 19
Change language