Common use of Evaluation Framework Clause in Contracts

Evaluation Framework. Project approach This Framework will be implemented by all jurisdictions (including the Commonwealth), collectively drawing on the agreed evaluation questions and indicators as appropriate to the Parties to the Agreement. Each Party agrees to provide qualitative and quantitative data (as appropriate to the Parties) to report on the relevant indicators by 1 October 2018, to enable data compilation and analysis and the drafting of a report to the COAG Health Council. The report is intended to inform future activities that will continue to build the evidence base for joint action on coordinated care. The Evaluation Framework is based on a pre/post design. For some indicators, baseline data will be able to be collected at the commencement of the activity (for example, routinely collected data), while for other indicators, the data collected at the 12 month point will form the baseline for comparison at the end point. All Parties will participate in the development of, and agree on, the report to the COAG Health Council which will outline the progress against each of the evaluation questions, based on compilation and analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data provided by individual jurisdictions. The Evaluation Framework includes: key evaluation questions; a number of agreed indicators, as appropriate to each Party, for each core and priority area; and reporting on activities through the bilateral Agreements to support the Stage 1 roll out of the HCH model. The report to the COAG Health Council will include, but is not limited to: an overview of the current health system on coordinated care, at the commencement of the bilateral Agreement; qualitative sections on each core and priority area; and an assessment against each of the key evaluation questions, drawing on implementation reports and the qualitative and quantitative data collected by jurisdictions. In applying the Evaluation Framework against activities, the following principles will apply: The Framework has been developed at a national level and it is acknowledged that not all dimensions or indicators will be relevant to all jurisdictions and therefore reporting will vary for each jurisdiction. Core and priority activities for all Parties will be assessed against the Framework; The evaluation questions and indicators enable joint reflection and support consistent data collection across jurisdictions and aggregated data analysis and reporting; All Parties will ensure appropriate privacy, ethics, consent and data security requirements are addressed as part of any evaluation activity. In some cases this may require joint approvals; The primary focus is on outputs at the patient, workforce and system levels, reflecting that changes in outcomes can take time to be demonstrated through evaluation; The Framework does not limit or dictate the level and complexity of evaluation activities undertaken by each jurisdiction; Data will be collected and reported through a variety of existing methods as well as through specific evaluation activity undertaken at the local level by jurisdictions, which can be both quantitative and qualitative. Where appropriate the Commonwealth will provide data collected at a national level (for example, usage of My Health Record); and Where possible and appropriate, validated evaluation tools will be used in evaluating activities. The Parties agree that any changes in implementing the activities outlined in Schedule A will need to ensure that they continue to support the Evaluation Framework outlined below: Evaluation questions Dimensions Indicators* Bilateral Partnership Has there been improved collaborative and coordinated policy, planning and resourcing of coordinated care reforms? What were the barriers and enablers? What could be improved going forward?? Bilateral partner collaboration in planning and implementation Shared knowledge and information amongst bilateral partners Complementarity of bilateral activities Number and types of joint activity or coordination across sectors (e.g. Joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioning, shared LHN/PHN planning, joint governance and other types of collaboration) Qualitative analysis of implementation reporting and monitoring data Data Collection and Analysis To what extent has a linked national data set been achieved? To what extent has access to data been improved? To what extent has the quality of data been improved? How has the use of data to inform policy, planning and targeting of resources improved? Timeliness of data contribution and availability Data completeness and quality Data fit-for-purpose Ease of access Use of linked data Understanding of patient utilisation of services and pathways through the system Intermediate Mechanisms established for linkage of Commonwealth and jurisdictional data sets, including agreed governance and access arrangements Range of data sets (e.g. MBS, PBS, hospital data) linked, or in the process of being linked Number of jurisdictions contributing linked data Longer term Progress towards establishing enduring linked data sets Use of linked data for planning/commissioning activities Use of linked data to inform policy development/reforms Use of linked datasets to track/analyse the patient journey across care settings System Integration How has the sharing of health information across the system changed? How has service delivery across the system changed? Have there been improvements in patients’ access to health services? What is patient experience and satisfaction of health system improvements? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Coordination between health providers and systems Multi-disciplinary team based care Patient reported satisfaction/experience and outcomes Patient continuity of care Workforce experience and engagement Changes to service utilisation patterns Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Development of regional planning activities Development of patient care pathways Collaborative commissioning arrangements Increased use of MHR Number of MHRs Increased number of views/updates Number of uploaded discharge summaries Increased number of health professionals viewing/uploading to MHR Longer term Cost of delivering services Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)* Number and type of regional planning or commissioning models across care settings Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Referral rates Waiting times Coordinated Care How has the management of patients with chronic and complex disease improved? What is patient experience and satisfaction with care provision? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Service provider and workforce practices Systems and processes that enable sharing and coordination Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Increased engagement of health workforce in coordinated care Increased information sharing and communication between health professionals (e.g. increased case conferencing, specialist advice to GPs, recording of referrals in clinical software, reports back to GPs, and e-discharge) Information resources developed for, and used by, patients and carers Number and type of joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioned or joint activities Health professionals report increased information sharing and communication (e.g. increase in case conferencing, team care arrangements and multidisciplinary care) Longer term Patient and health professionals’ use of MHR Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)* Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Jurisdictional priority areas What impact did the activities have on system integration, service delivery or patient experience/outcomes? Collaboration in planning and implementation Appropriately skilled workforce Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of discretionary projects Collaboration between Commonwealth and jurisdictions in reforms or delivery of care Increased staff capability Information/resource developed for, and used by, patients and carers Longer term Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)* Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) * Reporting on indicators is subject to Clauses 12, 13 and 17 of Schedule B. ** Examples of potential instruments include SF-12 (Quality of Life), EQ-5D (Quality of Life), PQS (Patient satisfaction), and XXXXX (Quality of patient centred care).

Evaluation Framework. Project approach This Framework will be implemented by all jurisdictions (including the Commonwealth), collectively drawing on the agreed evaluation questions and indicators as appropriate to the Parties to the Agreementagreement. Each Party agrees to provide qualitative and quantitative data (as appropriate to the Parties) to report on the relevant indicators by 1 October 2018, to enable data compilation and analysis and the drafting of a report to the COAG Health Council. The report is intended to inform future activities that will continue to build the evidence base for joint action on coordinated care. The Evaluation Framework is based on a pre/post design. For some indicators, baseline data will be able to be collected at the commencement of the activity (for example, routinely collected data), while for other indicators, the data collected at the 12 month point will form the baseline for comparison at the end point. All Parties will participate in the development of, and agree on, the report to the COAG Health Council which will outline the progress against each of the evaluation questions, based on compilation and analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data provided by individual jurisdictions. The Evaluation Framework includes: key evaluation questions; a number of agreed indicators, as appropriate to each Party, for each core and priority area; and reporting on activities through the bilateral Agreements agreements to support the Stage 1 roll out of the HCH model. The report to the COAG Health Council will include, but is not limited to: an overview of the current health system on coordinated care, at the commencement of the bilateral Agreementagreement; qualitative sections on each core and priority area; and an assessment against each of the key evaluation questions, drawing on implementation reports and the qualitative and quantitative data collected by jurisdictions. In applying the Evaluation Framework against activities, the following principles will apply: The Framework has been developed at a national level and it is acknowledged that not all dimensions or indicators will be relevant to all jurisdictions and therefore reporting will vary for each jurisdiction. Core and priority activities for all Parties will be assessed against the Framework; The evaluation questions and indicators enable joint reflection and support consistent data collection across jurisdictions and aggregated data analysis and reporting; All Parties will ensure appropriate privacy, ethics, consent and data security requirements are addressed as part of any evaluation activity. In some cases this may require joint approvals; The primary focus is on outputs at the patient, workforce and system levels, reflecting that changes in outcomes can take time to be demonstrated through evaluation; The Framework does not limit or dictate the level and complexity of evaluation activities undertaken by each jurisdiction; Data will be collected and reported through a variety of existing methods as well as through specific evaluation activity undertaken at the local level by jurisdictions, which can be both quantitative and qualitative. Where appropriate the Commonwealth will provide data collected at a national level (for example, usage of My Health Record); and Where possible and appropriate, validated evaluation tools will be used in evaluating activities. The Parties agree that any changes in implementing the activities outlined in Schedule A will need to ensure that they continue to support the Evaluation Framework outlined below: Evaluation questions Dimensions Indicators* Bilateral Partnership Has there been improved collaborative and coordinated policy, planning and resourcing of coordinated care reforms? What were the barriers and enablers? What could be improved going forward?? Bilateral partner collaboration in planning and implementation Shared knowledge and information amongst bilateral partners Complementarity of bilateral activities Number and types of joint activity or coordination across sectors (e.g. Joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioning, shared LHNHSP/PHN planning, joint governance and other types of collaboration) Qualitative analysis of implementation reporting and monitoring data Data Collection and Analysis To what extent has a linked national data set been achieved? To what extent has access to data been improved? To what extent has the quality of data been improved? How has the use of data to inform policy, planning and targeting of resources improved? Timeliness of data contribution and availability Data completeness and quality Data fit-for-purpose Ease of access Use of linked data Understanding of patient utilisation of services and pathways through the system Intermediate Mechanisms established for linkage of Commonwealth and jurisdictional data sets, including agreed governance and access arrangements Range of data sets (e.g. MBS, PBS, hospital data) linked, or in the process of being linked Number of jurisdictions contributing linked data Longer term Progress towards establishing enduring linked data sets Use of linked data for planning/commissioning activities Use of linked data to inform policy development/reforms Use of linked datasets to track/analyse the patient journey across care settings System Integration How has the sharing of health information across the system changed? How has service delivery across the system changed? Have there been improvements in patients’ access to health services? What is patient experience and satisfaction of health system improvements? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Coordination between health providers and systems Multi-disciplinary team based care Patient reported satisfaction/experience and outcomes Patient continuity of care Workforce experience and engagement Changes to service utilisation patterns Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Development of regional planning activities Development of patient care pathways Collaborative commissioning arrangements Increased use of MHR Number of MHRs Increased number of views/updates Number of uploaded discharge summaries Increased number of health professionals viewing/uploading to MHR Longer term Cost of delivering services Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Number and type of regional planning or commissioning models across care settings Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Referral rates Waiting times Coordinated Care How has the management of patients with chronic and complex disease improved? What is patient experience and satisfaction with care provision? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Service provider and workforce practices Systems and processes that enable sharing and coordination Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Increased engagement of health workforce in coordinated care Increased information sharing and communication between health professionals (e.g. increased case conferencing, specialist advice to GPs, recording of referrals in clinical software, reports back to GPs, and e-discharge) Information resources developed for, and used by, patients and carers Number and type of joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioned or joint activities Health professionals report increased information sharing and communication (e.g. increase in case conferencing, team care arrangements and multidisciplinary care) Longer term Patient and health professionals’ use of MHR Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Jurisdictional priority areas What impact did the activities have on system integration, service delivery or patient experience/outcomes? Collaboration in planning and implementation Appropriately skilled workforce Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of discretionary projects Collaboration between Commonwealth and jurisdictions in reforms or delivery of care Increased staff capability Information/resource developed for, and used by, patients and carers Longer term Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) * Reporting on indicators is subject to Clauses 12, 13 and 17 of Schedule B. ** Examples of potential instruments include SF-12 (Quality of Life), EQ-5D (Quality of Life), PQS (Patient satisfaction), and XXXXX (Quality of patient centred care).

Evaluation Framework. Project approach This Framework will be implemented by all jurisdictions (including the Commonwealth)Parties, collectively drawing on the agreed evaluation questions and indicators as appropriate to the Parties to the Agreementagreement. Each Party agrees to provide qualitative and quantitative data (as appropriate to the Parties) to report on the relevant indicators by 1 October 2018, to enable data compilation and analysis and the drafting of a report to the COAG Health Council. The report is intended to inform future activities that will continue to build the evidence base for joint action on coordinated care. The Evaluation Framework is based on a pre/post design. For some indicators, baseline data will be able to be collected at the commencement of the activity (for example, routinely collected data), while for other indicators, the data collected at the 12 month point will form the baseline for comparison at the end point. All Parties will participate in the development of, and agree on, the report to the COAG Health Council which will outline the progress against each of the evaluation questions, based on compilation and analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data provided by individual jurisdictions. The Evaluation Framework includes: key evaluation questions; a number of agreed indicators, as appropriate to each Party, for each core and priority area; and reporting on activities through the bilateral Agreements agreements to support the Stage 1 roll out of the HCH model. The report to the COAG Health Council will include, but is not limited to: an overview of the current health system on coordinated care, at the commencement of the bilateral Agreementagreement; qualitative sections on each core and priority area; and an assessment against each of the key evaluation questions, drawing on implementation reports and the qualitative and quantitative data collected by jurisdictions. In applying the Evaluation Framework against activities, the following principles will apply: The Framework has been developed at a national level and it is acknowledged that not all dimensions or indicators will be relevant to all jurisdictions and therefore reporting will vary for each jurisdictionthe Northern Territory. Core and priority activities for all Parties will be assessed against the Framework; The evaluation questions and indicators enable joint reflection and support consistent data collection across all jurisdictions and aggregated data analysis and reporting; All Parties will ensure appropriate privacy, ethics, consent and data security requirements are addressed as part of any evaluation activity. In some cases this may require joint approvals; The primary focus is on outputs at the patient, workforce and system levels, reflecting that changes in outcomes can take time to be demonstrated through evaluation; The Framework does not limit or dictate the level and complexity of evaluation activities undertaken by each jurisdiction; Data will be collected and reported through a variety of existing methods as well as through specific evaluation activity undertaken at the local level by jurisdictions, which can be both quantitative and qualitative. Where appropriate the Commonwealth will provide data collected at a national level (for example, usage of My Health Record); and Where possible and appropriate, validated evaluation tools will be used in evaluating activities. The Parties agree that any changes in implementing the activities outlined in Schedule A will need to ensure that they continue to support the Evaluation Framework outlined below: Evaluation questions Dimensions Indicators* Bilateral Partnership Has there been improved collaborative and coordinated policy, planning and resourcing of coordinated care reforms? What were the barriers and enablers? What could be improved going forward?? Bilateral partner collaboration in planning and implementation Shared knowledge and information amongst bilateral partners Complementarity of bilateral activities Number and types of joint activity or coordination across sectors (e.g. Joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioning, shared LHN/PHN planning, joint governance and other types of collaboration) Qualitative analysis of implementation reporting and monitoring data Data Collection and Analysis To what extent has a linked national data set been achieved? To what extent has access to data been improved? To what extent has the quality of data been improved? How has the use of data to inform policy, planning and targeting of resources improved? Timeliness of data contribution and availability Data completeness and quality Data fit-for-purpose Ease of access Use of linked data Understanding of patient utilisation of services and pathways through the system Intermediate Mechanisms established for linkage of Commonwealth and jurisdictional Jursidictional data sets, including agreed governance and access arrangements Range of data sets (e.g. MBS, PBS, hospital data) linked, or in the process of being linked Number of jurisdictions Jurisdictions contributing linked data Longer term Progress towards establishing enduring linked data sets Use of linked data for planning/commissioning activities Use of linked data to inform policy development/reforms Use of linked datasets to track/analyse the patient journey across care settings System Integration How has the sharing of health information across the system changed? How has service delivery across the system changed? Have there been improvements in patients’ access to health services? What is patient experience and satisfaction of health system improvements? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Coordination between health providers and systems Multi-disciplinary team based care Patient reported satisfaction/experience and outcomes Patient continuity of care Workforce experience and engagement Changes to service utilisation patterns Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Development of regional planning activities Development of patient care pathways Collaborative commissioning arrangements Increased use of MHR Number of MHRs Increased number of views/updates Number of uploaded discharge summaries Increased number of health professionals viewing/uploading to MHR Longer term Cost of delivering services Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Number and type of regional planning or commissioning models across care settings Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Referral rates Waiting times Coordinated Care How has the management of patients with chronic and complex disease improved? What is patient experience and satisfaction with care provision? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Service provider and workforce practices Systems and processes that enable sharing and coordination Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Increased engagement of health workforce in coordinated care Increased information sharing and communication between health professionals (e.g. eg increased case conferencing, specialist advice to GPs, recording of referrals in clinical software, reports back to GPs, and e-discharge) Information resources developed for, and used by, patients and carers Number and type of joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioned or joint activities Health professionals report increased information sharing and communication (e.g. increase in case conferencing, team care arrangements and multidisciplinary care) Longer term Patient and health professionals’ use of MHR Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Jurisdictional Northern Territory priority areas What impact did the activities have on system integration, service delivery or patient experience/outcomes? Collaboration in planning and implementation Appropriately skilled workforce Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of discretionary projects Collaboration between Commonwealth and jurisdictions Northern Territorys in reforms or delivery of care Increased staff capability Information/resource developed for, and used by, patients and carers Longer term Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) * Reporting on indicators is subject to Clauses 12, 13 and 17 of Schedule B. ** Examples of potential instruments include SF-12 (Quality of Life), EQ-5D (Quality of Life), PQS (Patient satisfaction), and XXXXX (Quality of patient centred care).

Evaluation Framework. Project approach This Framework will be implemented by all jurisdictions (including the Commonwealth), collectively drawing on the agreed evaluation questions and indicators as appropriate to the Parties to the Agreementagreement. Each Party agrees to provide qualitative and quantitative data (as appropriate to the Parties) to report on the relevant indicators by 1 October 2018, to enable data compilation and analysis and the drafting of a report to the COAG Health Council. The report is intended to inform future activities that will continue to build the evidence base for joint action on coordinated care. The Evaluation Framework is based on a pre/post design. For some indicators, baseline data will be able to be collected at the commencement of the activity (for example, routinely collected data), while for other indicators, the data collected at the 12 month point will form the baseline for comparison at the end point. All Parties will participate in the development of, and agree on, the report to the COAG Health Council which will outline the progress against each of the evaluation questions, based on compilation and analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data provided by individual jurisdictions. The Evaluation Framework includes: key evaluation questions; a number of agreed indicators, as appropriate to each Party, for each core and priority area; and reporting on activities through the bilateral Agreements agreements to support the Stage 1 roll out of the HCH model. The report to the COAG Health Council will include, but is not limited to: an overview of the current health system on coordinated care, at the commencement of the bilateral Agreementagreement; qualitative sections on each core and priority area; and an assessment against each of the key evaluation questions, drawing on implementation reports and the qualitative and quantitative data collected by jurisdictions. In applying the Evaluation Framework against activities, the following principles will apply: The Framework has been developed at a national level and it is acknowledged that not all dimensions or indicators will be relevant to all jurisdictions and therefore reporting will vary for each jurisdiction. Core and priority activities for all Parties will be assessed against the Framework; The evaluation questions and indicators enable joint reflection and support consistent data collection across jurisdictions and aggregated data analysis and reporting; All Parties will ensure appropriate privacy, ethics, consent and data security requirements are addressed as part of any evaluation activity. In some cases this may require joint approvals; The primary focus is on outputs at the patient, workforce and system levels, reflecting that changes in outcomes can take time to be demonstrated through evaluation; The Framework does not limit or dictate the level and complexity of evaluation activities undertaken by each jurisdiction; Data will be collected and reported through a variety of existing methods as well as through specific evaluation activity undertaken at the local level by jurisdictions, which can be both quantitative and qualitative. Where appropriate the Commonwealth will provide data collected at a national level (for example, usage of My Health Record); and Where possible and appropriate, validated evaluation tools will be used in evaluating activities. The Parties agree that any changes in implementing the activities outlined in Schedule A will need to ensure that they continue to support the Evaluation Framework outlined below: Evaluation questions Dimensions Indicators* Bilateral Partnership Has there been improved collaborative and coordinated policy, planning and resourcing of coordinated care reforms? What were the barriers and enablers? What could be improved going forward?? Bilateral partner collaboration in planning and implementation Shared knowledge and information amongst bilateral partners Complementarity of bilateral activities Number and types of joint activity or coordination across sectors (e.g. Joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioning, shared LHN/PHN planning, joint governance and other types of collaboration) Qualitative analysis of implementation reporting and monitoring data Data Collection and Analysis To what extent has a linked national data set been achieved? To what extent has access to data been improved? To what extent has the quality of data been improved? How has the use of data to inform policy, planning and targeting of resources improved? Timeliness of data contribution and availability Data completeness and quality Data fit-for-purpose Ease of access Use of linked data Understanding of patient utilisation of services and pathways through the system Intermediate Mechanisms established for linkage of Commonwealth and jurisdictional data sets, including agreed governance and access arrangements Range of data sets (e.g. MBS, PBS, hospital data) linked, or in the process of being linked Number of jurisdictions contributing linked data Longer term Progress towards establishing enduring linked data sets Use of linked data for planning/commissioning activities Use of linked data to inform policy development/reforms Use of linked datasets to track/analyse the patient journey across care settings System Integration How has the sharing of health information across the system changed? How has service delivery across the system changed? Have there been improvements in patients’ access to health services? What is patient experience and satisfaction of health system improvements? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Coordination between health providers and systems Multi-disciplinary team based care Patient reported satisfaction/experience and outcomes Patient continuity of care Workforce experience and engagement Changes to service utilisation patterns Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Development of regional planning activities Development of patient care pathways Collaborative commissioning arrangements Increased use of MHR Number of MHRs Increased number of views/updates Number of uploaded discharge summaries Increased number of health professionals viewing/uploading to MHR Longer term Cost of delivering services Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using patient reported outcome measures—PROMs and patient reported experience measures—PREMs)** Number and type of regional planning or commissioning models across care settings Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Referral rates Waiting times Coordinated Care How has the management of patients with chronic and complex disease improved? What is patient experience and satisfaction with care provision? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Service provider and workforce practices Systems and processes that enable sharing and coordination Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Increased engagement of health workforce in coordinated care Increased information sharing and communication between health professionals (e.g. increased case conferencing, specialist advice to GPs, recording of referrals in clinical software, reports back to GPs, and e-discharge) Information resources developed for, and used by, patients and carers Number and type of joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioned or joint activities Health professionals report increased information sharing and communication (e.g. increase in case conferencing, team care arrangements and multidisciplinary care) Longer term Patient and health professionals’ use of MHR Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Jurisdictional priority areas What impact did the activities have on system integration, service delivery or patient experience/outcomes? Collaboration in planning and implementation Appropriately skilled workforce Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of discretionary projects Collaboration between Commonwealth and jurisdictions in reforms or delivery of care Increased staff capability Information/resource developed for, and used by, patients and carers Longer term Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) * Reporting on indicators is subject to Clauses 12, 13 and 17 of Schedule B. ** Examples of potential instruments include SF-12 (Quality of Life), EQ-5D (Quality of Life), PQS (Patient satisfaction), and XXXXX (Quality of patient centred care).

Evaluation Framework. Project approach This Framework will be implemented by all jurisdictions (including the Commonwealth), collectively drawing on the agreed evaluation questions and indicators as appropriate to the Parties to the Agreementagreement. Each Party agrees to provide qualitative and quantitative data (as appropriate to the Parties) to report on the relevant indicators by 1 October 2018, to enable data compilation and analysis and the drafting of a report to the COAG Health Council. The report is intended to inform future activities that will continue to build the evidence base for joint action on coordinated care. The Evaluation Framework is based on a pre/post design. For some indicators, baseline data will be able to be collected at the commencement of the activity (for example, routinely collected data), while for other indicators, the data collected at the 12 month point will form the baseline for comparison at the end point. All Parties will participate in the development of, and agree on, the report to the COAG Health Council which will outline the progress against each of the evaluation questions, based on compilation and analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data provided by individual jurisdictions. The Evaluation Framework includes: key evaluation questions; a number of agreed indicators, as appropriate to each Party, for each core and priority area; and reporting on activities through the bilateral Agreements agreements to support the Stage 1 roll out of the HCH model. The report to the COAG Health Council will include, but is not limited to: an overview of the current health system on coordinated care, at the commencement of the bilateral Agreementagreement; qualitative sections on each core and priority area; and an assessment against each of the key evaluation questions, drawing on implementation reports and the qualitative and quantitative data collected by jurisdictions. In applying the Evaluation Framework against activities, the following principles will apply: The Framework has been developed at a national level and it is acknowledged that not all dimensions or indicators will be relevant to all jurisdictions and therefore reporting will vary for each jurisdiction. Core and priority activities for all Parties will be assessed against the Framework; The evaluation questions and indicators enable joint reflection and support consistent data collection across jurisdictions and aggregated data analysis and reporting; All Parties will ensure appropriate privacy, ethics, consent and data security requirements are addressed as part of any evaluation activity. In some cases this may require joint approvals; The primary focus is on outputs at the patient, workforce and system levels, reflecting that changes in outcomes can take time to be demonstrated through evaluation; The Framework does not limit or dictate the level and complexity of evaluation activities undertaken by each jurisdiction; Data will be collected and reported through a variety of existing methods as well as through specific evaluation activity undertaken at the local level by jurisdictions, which can be both quantitative and qualitative. Where appropriate the Commonwealth will provide data collected at a national level (for example, usage of My Health RecordMHR); and Where possible and appropriate, validated evaluation tools will be used in evaluating activities. The Parties agree that any changes in implementing the activities outlined in Schedule A will need to ensure that they continue to support the Evaluation Framework outlined below: Evaluation questions Dimensions Indicators* Bilateral Partnership Has there been improved collaborative and coordinated policy, planning and resourcing of coordinated care reforms? What were the barriers and enablers? What could be improved going forward?? Bilateral partner collaboration in planning and implementation Shared knowledge and information amongst bilateral partners Complementarity of bilateral activities Number and types of joint activity or coordination across sectors (e.g. Joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioning, shared LHN/PHN planning, joint governance and other types of collaboration) Qualitative analysis of implementation reporting and monitoring data Data Collection and Analysis To what extent has a linked national data set been achieved? To what extent has access to data been improved? To what extent has the quality of data been improved? How has the use of data to inform policy, planning and targeting of resources improved? Timeliness of data contribution and availability Data completeness and quality Data fit-for-purpose Ease of access Use of linked data Understanding of patient utilisation of services and pathways through the system Intermediate Mechanisms established for linkage of Commonwealth and jurisdictional data sets, including agreed governance and access arrangements Range of data sets (e.g. MBS, PBS, hospital data) linked, or in the process of being linked Number of jurisdictions contributing linked data Longer term Progress towards establishing enduring linked data sets Use of linked data for planning/commissioning activities Use of linked data to inform policy development/reforms Use of linked datasets to track/analyse the patient journey across care settings System Integration How has the sharing of health information across the system changed? How has service delivery across the system changed? Have there been improvements in patients’ access to health services? What is patient experience and satisfaction of health system improvements? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Coordination between health providers and systems Multi-disciplinary team based care Patient reported satisfaction/experience and outcomes Patient continuity of care Workforce experience and engagement Changes to service utilisation patterns Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Development of regional planning activities Development of patient care pathways Collaborative commissioning arrangements Increased use of MHR Number of MHRs Increased number of views/updates Number of uploaded discharge summaries Increased number of health professionals viewing/uploading to MHR Longer term Cost of delivering services Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Number and type of regional planning or commissioning models across care settings Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Referral rates Waiting times Coordinated Care How has the management of patients with chronic and complex disease improved? What is patient experience and satisfaction with care provision? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Service provider and workforce practices Systems and processes that enable sharing and coordination Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Increased engagement of health workforce in coordinated care Increased information sharing and communication between health professionals (e.g. increased case conferencing, specialist advice to GPs, recording of referrals in clinical software, reports back to GPs, and e-discharge) Information resources developed for, and used by, patients and carers Number and type of joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioned or joint activities Health professionals report increased information sharing and communication (e.g. increase in case conferencing, team care arrangements and multidisciplinary care) Longer term Patient and health professionals’ use of MHR Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Jurisdictional priority areas What impact did the activities have on system integration, service delivery or patient experience/outcomes? Collaboration in planning and implementation Appropriately skilled workforce Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of discretionary projects Collaboration between Commonwealth and jurisdictions in reforms or delivery of care Increased staff capability Information/resource developed for, and used by, patients and carers Longer term Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) * Reporting on indicators is subject to Clauses 12, 13 and 17 of Schedule B. ** Examples of potential instruments include SF-12 (Quality of Life), EQ-5D (Quality of Life), PQS (Patient satisfaction), and XXXXX (Quality of patient centred care).

Evaluation Framework. Project approach This Framework will be implemented by all jurisdictions (including the Commonwealth), collectively drawing on the agreed evaluation questions and indicators as appropriate to the Parties to the Agreementagreement. Each Party agrees to provide qualitative and quantitative data (as appropriate to the Parties) to report on the relevant indicators by 1 October 2018, to enable data compilation and analysis and the drafting of a report to the COAG Health Council. The report is intended to inform future activities that will continue to build the evidence base for joint action on coordinated care. The Evaluation Framework is based on a pre/post design. For some indicators, baseline data will be able to be collected at the commencement of the activity (for example, routinely collected data), while for other indicators, the data collected at the 12 month point will form the baseline for comparison at the end point. All Parties will participate in the development of, and agree on, the report to the COAG Health Council which will outline the progress against each of the evaluation questions, based on compilation and analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data provided by individual jurisdictions. The Evaluation Framework includes: key evaluation questions; a number of agreed indicators, as appropriate to each Party, for each core and priority area; and reporting on activities through the bilateral Agreements agreements to support the Stage 1 roll out of the HCH model. The report to the COAG Health Council will include, but is not limited to: an overview of the current health system on coordinated care, at the commencement of the bilateral Agreementagreement; qualitative sections on each core and priority area; and an assessment against each of the key evaluation questions, drawing on implementation reports and the qualitative and quantitative data collected by jurisdictions. In applying the Evaluation Framework against activities, the following principles will apply: The Framework has been developed at a national level and it is acknowledged that not all dimensions or indicators will be relevant to all jurisdictions and therefore reporting will vary for each jurisdiction. Core and priority activities for all Parties will be assessed against the Framework; The evaluation questions and indicators enable joint reflection and support consistent data collection across jurisdictions and aggregated data analysis and reporting; All Parties will ensure appropriate privacy, ethics, consent and data security requirements are addressed as part of any evaluation activity. In some cases this may require joint approvals; The primary focus is on outputs at the patient, workforce and system levels, reflecting that changes in outcomes can take time to be demonstrated through evaluation; The Framework does not limit or dictate the level and complexity of evaluation activities undertaken by each jurisdiction; Data will be collected and reported through a variety of existing methods as well as through specific evaluation activity undertaken at the local level by jurisdictions, which can be both quantitative and qualitative. Where appropriate the Commonwealth will provide data collected at a national level (for example, usage of My Health Record); and Where possible and appropriate, validated evaluation tools will be used in evaluating activities. The Parties agree that any changes in implementing the activities outlined in Schedule A will need to ensure that they continue to support the Evaluation Framework outlined below: Evaluation questions Dimensions Indicators* Bilateral Partnership Has there been improved collaborative and coordinated policy, planning and resourcing of coordinated care reforms? What were the barriers and enablers? What could be improved going forward?? Bilateral partner collaboration in planning and implementation Shared knowledge and information amongst bilateral partners Complementarity of bilateral activities Number and types of joint activity or coordination across sectors (e.g. Joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioning, shared LHN/PHN planning, joint governance and other types of collaboration) Qualitative analysis of implementation reporting and monitoring data Data Collection and Analysis To what extent has a linked national data set been achieved? To what extent has access to data been improved? To what extent has the quality of data been improved? How has the use of data to inform policy, planning and targeting of resources improved? Timeliness of data contribution and availability Data completeness and quality Data fit-for-purpose Ease of access Use of linked data Understanding of patient utilisation of services and pathways through the system Intermediate Mechanisms established for linkage of Commonwealth and jurisdictional data sets, including agreed governance and access arrangements Range of data sets (e.g. MBS, PBS, hospital data) linked, or in the process of being linked Number of jurisdictions contributing linked data Longer term Progress towards establishing enduring linked data sets Use of linked data for planning/commissioning activities Use of linked data to inform policy development/reforms Use of linked datasets to track/analyse the patient journey across care settings System Integration How has the sharing of health information across the system changed? How has service delivery across the system changed? Have there been improvements in patients’ access to health services? What is patient experience and satisfaction of health system improvements? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Coordination between health providers and systems Multi-disciplinary team based care Patient reported satisfaction/experience and outcomes Patient continuity of care Workforce experience and engagement Changes to service utilisation patterns Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Development of regional planning activities Development of patient care pathways Collaborative commissioning arrangements Increased use of MHR Number of MHRs Increased number of views/updates Number of uploaded discharge summaries Increased number of health professionals viewing/uploading to MHR Longer term Cost of delivering services Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Number and type of regional planning or commissioning models across care settings Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Referral rates Waiting times Coordinated Care How has the management of patients with chronic and complex disease improved? What is patient experience and satisfaction with care provision? Have changes resulted in improved patient and clinical outcomes? Service provider and workforce practices Systems and processes that enable sharing and coordination Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of activities Increased engagement of health workforce in coordinated care Increased information sharing and communication between health professionals (e.g. increased case conferencing, specialist advice to GPs, recording of referrals in clinical software, reports back to GPs, and e-discharge) Information resources developed for, and used by, patients and carers Number and type of joint/coordinated or collaborative commissioned or joint activities Health professionals report increased information sharing and communication (e.g. increase in case conferencing, team care arrangements and multidisciplinary care) Longer term Patient and health professionals’ use of MHR Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Jurisdictional priority areas What impact did the activities have on system integration, service delivery or patient experience/outcomes? Collaboration in planning and implementation Appropriately skilled workforce Patient health literacy and/or engagement Patient reported experience and outcomes Clinical outcomes Intermediate Number, type and coverage of discretionary projects Collaboration between Commonwealth and jurisdictions in reforms or delivery of care Increased staff capability Information/resource developed for, and used by, patients and carers Longer term Patient outcomes and experience/satisfaction (using PROMs and PREMs)** Use of health services (MBS, ED presentations, hospital admissions) Relevant clinical measures (e.g. HbA1c, blood pressure) * Reporting on indicators is subject to Clauses 12, 13 and 17 of Schedule B. ** Examples of potential instruments include SF-12 (Quality of Life), EQ-5D (Quality of Life), PQS (Patient satisfaction), and XXXXX (Quality of patient centred care).