Integrated Personal Commissioning South West Collaborative January 2015 Contact the SW IPC Evaluation Team: Laura Wheeler: Emma Rowse: Louise Witts:

About the SW IPC Collaborative: the geography and the team SW Collaborative IPC Evaluation Team: Emma Rowse, Core IPC Team Laura Wheeler, SW AHSN Helen Davies-Cox, IPC LTC Lead Ray Heal, IPC LTC Lead Corine Koppenol, IPC Children’s Lead Helen Lloyd, Senior Research Fellow, PenCLAHRC Sarah Day, Core IPC Team Louise Witts, SW AHSN Cohorts: LTC & Frailty, Complex Children & Young People, Mental Health and Learning Disabilities Evaluation Partners: SW CSU Individual sites NHSE Evaluation Team PenCLAHRC University of Plymouth

Improved carers quality of life Improved experience of people Improved quality of life Improved mental wellbeing People with complex needs and their carers have better quality of life and can achieve the outcomes that are important to them and their families through greater involvement in their care, and being able to design support around their needs and circumstances Patient Experience of PCCC (M-LTC6) Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale Practitioner Experience of delivering PCCC (M-Person-Centred Health Care for Older Adults Survey) New Better integration and quality of care, including better user and family experience of care Talking Mats Care plan - % goals and aspirations achieved Carers Outcome Star Improved experience of carers/family Improved experience of practitioners Practitioner understanding and skill Continuous improvement process Talking Mats Adapted Southern Health NHS experience questionnaire Site leads interview Practitioner focus groups Prevention of crises in people’s lives that lead to unplanned hospital and institutional care – so ensuring better value for money practitioner case studies/video Carer case studies/video People case studies/video Activity and Cost Acute CommunityGP Mental HealthVoluntary Sector Overview: SW IPC Evaluation Framework Baseline, plus 3, 6, 12 months Outcomes Experience Activity & Cost Social Care PAM optional

What evaluation questions are we asking? Summative/Outcome Did people achieve the outcomes that were important to them? Did people’s experience of care and support improve? How did people’s use of resources change as a result of the intervention? Formative/Process What resources did the intervention take to implement? How has the practice of practitioners changed? How was the change achieved and what challenges/solutions did we find?

Metrics – principles around choice Balance: Tap required outcome Not too burdensome Limit number of ‘things’ we are measuring: process & outcomes Consistency across IPC sites, but also across other person centred initiatives in SW

Process measures and Qualitative interviews to capture: Unmet need - where people have had to compromise on how they used their budget Practitioner & people interviews Number of people who declined, and reason why System impact – as broad a view Characterisation – narrative from the practitioner about the nature of the complexity ‘can IPC benefit a wider group?’

Information Governance Tools Consent model and patient letters Information sharing leaflets Information sharing agreement Privacy impact assessment

Evaluation process Explicit consent model Secure data pseudonymisation and linkage by SW Commissioning Support Unit Financial analysis and modelling by SW AHSN Embedded researchers in areas to capture qualitative/formative data Share learning and solutions through Action Learning Sets Final evaluation report by University of Plymouth Leading the way nationally