aged care (RC1 RC3). These groupings are not mutually exclusive, for example, both clinical – leadership projects involved residential aged care and community care. Also, the approach taken in the two clinical leadership projects is very similar to the approach taken in one of the residential aged care projects (RC3). Some projects focused on implementing changes in practices that will benefit consumers during the lifetime of the project (e.g. the CC5) whereas the focus in some projects was on developing resources which could be used by others at a later date to implement practice change (e.g. the CC6 and RC3 projects). As the projects commenced the implementation phase we were able to provide greater clarity in terms of their common elements; this in turn lent itself to a slight reframing of the categories where their primary impacts and outcomes were aligned with the three levels of the evaluation framework (consumers, providers, system). Therefore, in reporting on program delivery we have grouped the projects according to the of the CHSD Evaluation Framework that they primarily impacted on, as summarised in ‘level’ Figure 2. Projects that primarily impacted on the system that included the development of models for training clinical leaders (CL1 and CL2) and facilitating organisational change (RC3 and CC6). Projects that aimed to implement evidence-based practice in community care (CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5). Projects that delivered nation-wide workshops to disseminate current evidence in the areas of palliative care and skin care (RC1 and RC2). Figure Main focus of activity of EBPAC projects according to the CHSD evaluation framework Leadership and change projects Community care projects National out projects Evaluation CL1 CL2 CC6 RC3 CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC5 RC1 RC2 Hierarchy NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES NO NO Level 1: Impacts on, and outcomes for Consumers YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Level2: Impacts on, and outcomes for Providers
aged care (RC1 – RC3). These groupings are not mutually exclusive, for example, both clinical leadership projects involved residential aged care and community care. Also, the approach taken in the two clinical leadership projects is very similar to the approach taken in one of the residential aged care projects (RC3). Some projects focused on implementing changes in practices that will benefit consumers during the lifetime of the project (e.g. the CC5) whereas the focus in some projects was on developing resources which could be used by others at a later date to implement practice change (e.g. the CC6 and RC3 projects). As the projects commenced the implementation phase we were able to provide greater clarity in terms of their common elements; this in turn lent itself to a slight reframing of the categories where their primary impacts and outcomes were aligned with the three levels of the evaluation framework (consumers, providers, system). Therefore, in reporting on program delivery we have grouped the projects according to the ‘level’ of the CHSD Evaluation Framework that they primarily impacted on, as summarised in Figure 2. Projects that primarily impacted on the system that included the development of models for training clinical leaders (CL1 and CL2) and facilitating organisational change (RC3 and CC6). Projects that aimed to implement evidence-based practice in community care (CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5). Projects that delivered nation-wide workshops to disseminate current evidence in the areas of palliative care and skin care (RC1 and RC2). Figure Main focus of activity of EBPAC projects according to the CHSD evaluation framework Leadership and change projects Community care projects National projects Evaluation Hierarchy CL1 CL2 CC6 RC3 CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC5 RC1 RC2 Level 1: Impacts on, and outcomes for Consumers NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES NO NO Level2: Impacts on, and outcomes for Providers YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES out