1 / 19

Evaluation of Phase 2 of Choose Life

Evaluation of Phase 2 of Choose Life. Patricia Russell & Associates. The research team. Patricia Russell Clare Lardner Dawn Griesbach Lucy Johnston Karin Dowell. Aim of the evaluation.

charisma-spino
Download Presentation

Evaluation of Phase 2 of Choose Life

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Phase 2 of Choose Life Patricia Russell & Associates

  2. The research team • Patricia Russell • Clare Lardner • Dawn Griesbach • Lucy Johnston • Karin Dowell

  3. Aim of the evaluation To evaluate the performance and achievements of Phase 2 of Choose Life, and to make recommendations for going forward from 2010.

  4. Methods • Document review • Questionnaire surveys to ADATs, CHPs and NHS Boards • Interviews with national stakeholders • Interviews and groups with Co-ordinators • Sounding Board • Case studies • Expenditure return

  5. Purpose of the Sounding Board • To reflect on the main findings and themes emerging from the evaluation • To consider the implication of those findings for the future direction and priorities of Choose Life

  6. Changes in the wider context • HEAT 5 target • Concordat and SOAs • Move of NIST to Health Scotland • New policy agendas

  7. Focus in Phase 2 • improving national and local co-ordination • more targeting of high risk groups, but balancing with a public health approach • better linkages at national and local level with key services e.g. mental health and substance misuse services • a more strategic approach to national and local training • mainstreaming and sustainability

  8. National co-ordination • The framework – single focus strategy, money. guidance, SG lead, national support • Loss of momentum towards end of Phase 2: funding, Move of NIST, Decline of profile - poor links to policies • Local view of impact of new location of national support team- fragmentation, loss of SIREN, too much health focus • National view – Health Scotland provides expertise, training infrastructure, performance management

  9. Key messages • A stronger lead from Scottish Government • Retention of a separate identity now but move to becoming embedded in MWB policy. Capitalise on TAMFS • Explicit links to the new policy agendas • Keep a national support team but clarify the focus of activity – leadership and guidance

  10. Local co-ordination • CPPs “high level” and not much involved • Co-ordinator role pivotal but a number of models. Key factors: designated CLC F/T or P/T location of CLC seniority of CLC or manager good strategic links and reporting lines good networks and relationships skills and experience of CLC

  11. Targeting high risk groups • Limited progress • Lack of guidance • Two main approaches Training of staff who worked with high risk groups Funding of local projects or posts • Need for guidance to support more and better local targeting

  12. Training High numbers trained • For the future A training strategy with a focus on training after HEAT5 Tackling lack of trainer capacity in some areas Better targeting of training e.g high risk groups Research on how training is being used and to what effect. Flexibility of training to include other key groups, e.g. pre-registration GPs, police, ambulance workers

  13. Evidence base • An achievement • Continue with research programme and consider focus for 2010 -13 • Great concern about loss of SIREN and strong message that it should be revived • No national evaluation framework – and limited local evaluation. Address the lack of consistent evaluation

  14. Making better linkages • Limited progress both nationally and locally • Gaps remain - GPs, primary care, clinical services - although some progress with psychiatrists • Locally some evidence of links with health, social work and substance misuse services • An area for further work

  15. Capacity building • Provision and funding of training, funding for new posts and services, funding for local groups, and advice and consultancy • Mixed picture on sustainability • Question for the future • Is there value in putting resources into projects for the remaining 3 years?

  16. Performance measurement • Issues about the 20% target • No milestones in phase 2 • Development of outcome frameworks Consider the utility and relevance of the target and setting milestones or identifying other outcomes / indicators

  17. Mainstreaming and sustainability • Some progress • Permanent CLC posts/local infrastructures • Retained budgets • Suicide prevention in local strategies and plans • Suicide prevention a priority of TAMFS – an opportunity

  18. How should Choose Life go forward? • Retain the strategy but re- focus • Consider utility of target • Clarify links to national policy agenda • Choose Life needs a stronger SG“push” • A national support function is needed • Co-ordinator role pivotal locally but with supporting infrastructure • Priority should be sustainabilty

  19. Priorities • Training – after HEAT 5 • A revived SIREN • More and better targeting • Re-energised effort at links to key services • Think about role of project funding • Look at new partners e.g employment • Improve performance measurement

More Related