TEC programme data review and evaluation: options study
This report presents the findings from the Technology Enabled Care (TEC) programme data review and evaluation option study.
Appendix 3: Measurement matrices
The following tables present measurement matrices for three of the workstreams. These compare the outcomes from the logic models with the evidence base and provide a qualitative assessment of confidence in the finding [9] . They have been derived from the initial spreadsheets developed in the data synthesis phase and combined with the outcomes identified in the logic models.
Table A3.1: Telecare measurement matrix
| Outputs |
Data |
Short-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confidence |
Medium-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confidence |
Long-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No of service users with dementia etc. |
Yes |
Increased feelings of independence and privacy |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
SUs remain in own home longer |
Yes |
Qual |
Medium |
Improved quality of life and wellbeing of SU |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
| No using TC alarms |
Yes |
Increased confidence to stay at home |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
Fewer complication from falls, fires etc. |
No |
TC is given first consideration at point of referral |
No |
||||
| No and type of responses |
Yes |
Increased number of genuine choices |
Limited |
Qual |
Medium |
Reduction in avoidable admissions |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Critical mass to achieve economic savings |
Limited |
Quant |
Medium |
| Improved perception of TC by profs |
No |
Better community options for discharged patients |
Limited |
Qual |
Medium |
Reduction in delayed discharge |
Yes |
Quant |
Medium |
Fewer people experience regional disparities/health inequalities |
No |
||
| Reports analyses on standardisation |
Limited |
Fewer falls, accidents and fires |
Yes |
Quant |
Medium |
Reduction in overnight care |
Yes |
Mixed |
High |
Improved person-centred effective healthcare |
Yes |
Qual |
Medium |
| Analogue to digital SUs transferred |
No |
Increased safety of SUs (earlier intervention in emergency) |
Limited |
Mixed |
Low |
Better targeting of resources to those who need it |
No |
There are no negative consequence from digital switchover |
No |
||||
| Better understanding of good practice |
No |
Greater consistency of provision |
No |
Improved health and well-being of carers |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
||||||
| Carers feel more confident in caring role |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
Reduced care burden on carers |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
Table A3.2: HMHM measurement matrix
| Outputs |
Data |
Short-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confid-ence |
Medium-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confid-ence |
Long-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confid-ence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No of patients initiating HMHM |
Yes |
Confidence and knowledge of self-management |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Improvement in condition control |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Critical mass to improve population health |
No |
||
| Reduced number of FtF contacts |
Limited |
Small proportion self-managing |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Larger proportion self-managing care |
Limited |
Mixed |
Medium |
Improved productivity and economic savings |
No |
||
| No with LTC experiencing health inequalities |
Limited |
Improved adherence to treatment |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Optimised FtF contacts and more timely appts |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Critical mass achieved to reduce burden of certain conditions |
No |
||
| Increase in clinical team skill |
Limited |
Improved outcomes for LTC experiencing health inequalities |
Limited |
Mixed |
Medium |
Increased health and well-being of patients |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Increased likelihood that people with LTCs can live longer in own homes |
No |
||
| Evidence reports |
Yes |
Small % of clinician population adopting alerts |
Limited |
Quant |
Medium |
HMHM becomes the default for certain conditions |
No |
Improved person-centred effective healthcare |
Yes |
Qual |
Medium |
||
| Small number of avoided delayed discharge |
No |
Larger number of earlier discharge |
No |
Improved viability of remote and rural communities |
Limited |
Qual |
Low |
||||||
| Small number of reduced wait times |
No |
Larger number of reduced wait times |
No |
Improved recruitment, retention and well-being of clinical staff |
No |
||||||||
| Carers feel more supported |
Limited |
Qual |
Medium |
Larger number of avoided admissions |
No |
improved well-being of carers |
Yes |
Qual |
Low |
||||
| Carer has improved confidence |
Limited |
Qual |
Low |
||||||||||
| Carer feels less burdened/ isolated |
Limited |
Qual |
Low |
Table A3.3: VC measurement matrix
| Outputs |
Data |
Short-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confidence |
Medium-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confidence |
Long-term outcomes |
Data |
Type |
Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No of AA waiting areas |
Yes |
Improved access to specialist services |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
Improved quality of life and well-being of patients |
Limited |
Qual |
Medium |
Critical mass to improve population health |
No |
||
| No of consultations |
Yes |
Improved management of certain conditions |
Yes |
Mixed |
High |
Reduced risk of spread of infections |
No |
Improved well-being of carers |
No |
||||
| No of VC meetings |
Yes |
Number of FtF meetings displaced/reduced need for travel |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Reduced need for carers to attend FtF app. |
No |
Critical mass to achieve economic savings |
No |
||||
| No of new connections between orgs/systems |
No |
New ways of working e.g. access second opinion |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
Shorter waiting times for appts. |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
Reduced CO2 emissions |
No |
||
| VC enabled programmes integrated |
No |
Improved communication across health/care/ SG |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
Better stability of vulnerable services |
Limited |
Quant |
Low |
Improved person-centred effective healthcare |
Yes |
Qual |
Medium |
| No of new service start-ups |
Limited |
Improved collaboration between professionals |
Yes |
Qual |
High |
More skilled workforce |
Yes |
Qual |
Medium |
Improved viability of remote and rural communities |
Yes |
Qual |
Medium |
| Local evaluations |
Yes |
Reduced travel/increased productivity staff |
Yes |
Mixed |
Medium |
Improved interoperability and efficiency |
Limited |
Qual |
Medium |
Improved health and well-being of professionals |
Yes |
Qual |
Medium |
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback