Encouraging Best Practice in Residential Aged Care Program: Final Evaluation Report
4.7 - Achievement of project outcomes
- Key Messages
- Executive Summary
- About This Report
1 - Introduction- 2 - Evidence, Changes in Practice and the EBPRAC Program
- 3 - Program Delivery/Implementation
4 - Program Impact- 5 - Capacity Building
- 6 - Generalisability
- 7 - Sustainability
- 8 - Dissemination
- 9 - Appropriateness
- 10 - Cost Implications for Government and Aged Care Providers
- 11 - Perceptions of High-Level Stakeholders
- 12 - Discussion and Conclusions
- 13 - Recommendations
- References
- Appendices 1 to 6
- Appendices 7 to 12
- Appendices 13 to 17
Each lead organisation was asked to identify the main intended project outcomes for each level of the program evaluation – residents and families, staff and facilities (up to four outcomes at each level). The main intended outcomes are listed in the summary of each project included in appendices 1-13. At the completion of each project the lead organisations (as part of completing Economic Evaluation Questionnaire 2) were requested to provide qualitative or quantitative findings to demonstrate the extent to which the outcomes had been achieved. The data was reviewed by the program evaluation team and the main intended outcomes categorised as ‘met’, ‘partially met’ or ‘not met’. For some intended outcomes data had not been collected to determine whether the outcome had been met. In those cases the intended outcome was categorised as ‘not measured’. The results across the 13 projects are summarised in Table 17.
Table 17 Achievement of main intended project outcomes
Evaluation level | Degree to which outcome met | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of outcomes met | No. of outcomes partially met | No. of outcomes not met | No. of outcomes not measured | ||
| Residents and families | 11 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 34 |
| Staff | 15 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 31 |
| Facilities | 18 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 34 |
Total | 44 | 23 | 20 | 12 | 99 |
In the introduction to the section on program implementation (Section 3.1) it is noted that in almost all project plans the indicators of achievement were either not quantified or not readily quantifiable. The same applies to the main intended outcomes. Many were expressed in quite vague terms, making it difficult to determine the extent to which outcomes had been achieved.
Of the 34 resident/family level outcomes 11 were met (32%), with a greater level of achievement for staff level outcomes (15/31, or 48%) and facility level outcomes (18/34, or 53%). The incidence of outcomes not being measured was higher for resident/family level outcomes (8/34, or 24%) than for the other two levels, which is probably a reflection of how difficult it can be to measure resident outcomes.
Top of page