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

Back to top