Integration and comparison of evaluation data on P3C
Research type
Research Study
Full title
The integration and comparison of findings from multiple evaluations of person centred coordinated care (P3C) interventions
IRAS ID
217844
Contact name
Pam Baxter
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Plymouth
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
4.21.008 (funder's ref - AHSN) , Somerset Practice Quality Scheme (SPQS); 14/15-411 (University ethics reference), ; 4.21.010 (funder's ref - AHSN), Integrated Care Exeter (ICE); 14/15/455 (University ethics reference), ; 15/16-588 (University ethics application), ; 4.21.016 (funder's ref - AHSN), Integrated Personal Comissioning (IPC); 14/15-428 (University ethics number), Newton Abbott Complex Care Hub; 4.21.005 (Funder's reference number), ; 15/16-594 (University ethics number), Person Centred Coordinated Care Metrics project; Funder was NHS England, no reference number given, (Implementation interviews was a sub-project of the above); IRAS application number is 208147, Torbay Integrated Care Organisation (ICO); Medical Research Fund No (TMRF) 120,
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 0 months, 0 days
Research summary
The person centred coordinated care (P3C) programme at Plymouth University has created a testable theoretical model of the key constituent components necessary for the delivery of P3C. Based on the merits of this work, Plymouth University were commissioned to evaluate the following programmes:
• The Newton Abbot Complex Care Hub
• Somerset Practice Quality Scheme
• Somerset Test and Learn Pilots
• Integrated Care Exeter
• Integrated Personal Commissioning
These evaluations are at different stages of completion. They all have a mixed methods design using a variant of the P3C core evaluation framework that explores key implementation processes and issues. Data collection methods include: interviews, structured questionnaires on experiences of care/delivering care, observations of key processes within the programmes e.g. multi-disciplinary team meetings and system-wide metrics service use data.
Analysis has, and will be, investigating the core components of the specific intervention models as well as seeking to understand implementation barriers and facilitators that have impacted on the programme’s success. Interim, as well as end of evaluation, findings will be/have been fed back to programme staff, so that findings can inform the programmes as early as possible.
In addition, for our ‘implementation stories’ study we interviewed Clinical Commissioning Group members and researchers to find out about their experiences of using patient reported measures, a frequently used evaluation tool. This research informed our understanding of how these measures can be used most effectively during our own evaluation work and by the programme staff once the evaluations end.
The purpose of this application is to request permission to: a) interview NHS staff about their use of patient-reported measures, b) integrate and compare the current and future data collected for these multiple evaluations and studies during secondary analyses, c) publish findings in scientific journals, d) present findings at conferences and e) use the findings to inform educational initiatives.REC name
North East - Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/NE/0143
Date of REC Opinion
10 May 2017
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion