A: Implementation / Process evaluation KEQ 1: How well was the Checks health target implemented? Criteria Poor Almost adequate Adequate Excellent 83 84% 85 - 89% Achievement of coverage ≤82% – ≥90% target Coverage for at-risk populations A reduction in the relative A reduction in the relative Coverage for ethnicities at Achievement of coverage (by ethnicity and deprivation) is coverage gap between ethnicity coverage gap between ethnicity relatively higher risk is the same target (equity) less than for populations with groups that are at higher risk groups that are at higher risk or better than for other lower risk, and this has not than with relatively lower than with relatively lower ethnicities; and coverage for ‘gap’ meaningfully reduced since risk; or a reduction in the risk; and a reduction in the those living in Quintile 5 areas is 2012. relative gap in coverage relative gap in coverage the same or better than for between Quintile 5 and Quintile between Quintile 5 and Quintile those living in Quintile 1 areas. 1. 1. Checks were only delivered Checks were mostly delivered Checks were delivered both Checks were delivered both Quality of service opportunistically. Purpose of opportunistically. Purpose of opportunistically and opportunistically and delivery check may not have been check may not have been Purpose of check and Purpose of check and communicated to patient. communicated to patient. result were communicated to result were communicated to Follow-up (where indicated) was Follow-up (where indicated) was patient. Follow-up (where patient. Everyone whose risk not a routine aspect of the risk initiated by the health provider indicated) was initiated by the was assessed was followed up, assessment process (possibly when assessment suggested the health provider, with those who whether or not their risk was stalling until the patient initiated patient to be risk’, with those were assessed as risk’ elevated. Those who were ‘at ‘at a further consultation). people encouraged to initiate a encouraged to initiate assessed as risk’ were ‘at consultation. consultation, and this was encouraged to initiate a
A: Implementation / Process evaluation KEQ 1: How well was the Checks health target implemented? Criteria Poor Almost adequate Adequate Excellent Achievement of coverage target ≤82% 83 – 84% 85 - 89% ≥90% Achievement of coverage target (equity) Coverage for at-risk populations (by ethnicity and deprivation) is less than for populations with lower risk, and this ‘gap’ has not meaningfully reduced since 2012. A reduction in the relative coverage gap between ethnicity groups that are at higher risk than with relatively lower risk; or a reduction in the relative gap in coverage between Quintile 5 and Quintile 1. A reduction in the relative coverage gap between ethnicity groups that are at higher risk than with relatively lower risk; and a reduction in the relative gap in coverage between Quintile 5 and Quintile 1. Coverage for ethnicities at relatively higher risk is the same or better than for other ethnicities; and coverage for those living in Quintile 5 areas is the same or better than for those living in Quintile 1 areas. Quality of service delivery Checks were only delivered opportunistically. Purpose of check may not have been communicated to patient. Follow-up (where indicated) was not a routine aspect of the risk assessment process (possibly stalling until the patient initiated a further consultation). Checks were mostly delivered opportunistically. Purpose of check may not have been communicated to patient. Follow-up (where indicated) was initiated by the health provider when assessment suggested the patient to be ‘at risk’, with those people encouraged to initiate a consultation. Checks were delivered both opportunistically and Purpose of check and result were communicated to patient. Follow-up (where indicated) was initiated by the health provider, with those who were assessed as ‘at risk’ encouraged to initiate consultation, and this was Checks were delivered both opportunistically and Purpose of check and result were communicated to patient. Everyone whose risk was assessed was followed up, whether or not their risk was elevated. Those who were assessed as ‘at risk’ were encouraged to initiate a
more-hearts-diabetes-checks-evaluation-aug16.docx