Initiative Reports & Evaluations
Initiative Reports & Evaluations
Evaluation is a key part of the improvement process.
We collect quantitative and qualitative data on our initiatives in order to fuel our continual improvement. We also learn from participants and stakeholders, and share their experiences. These findings inform our planning for future activities and by sharing them we hope to spread the best practices and insights we have gained.
Below you’ll find a selection of recent evaluations and reports for our various initiatives.
Although this isn’t an evaluation of one of our initiatives, we thought you may be interested in this literature review on culture surveys which you may be considering for evaluations of your own.
After some of our partners shared a need for research which could identify best practices of common measurement tools, we conducted a rapid review of the literature. This report looks at seven common surveys and offers data to support their use.Read the Report
The aim of Clear Wave 3 was to reduce the rate of antipsychotic use in residents without a diagnosis of psychosis from baseline to the national average by April 30, 2019. 33 participating care homes across BC completed the collaborative. This summary report contains an overview of the evaluation results from Wave 3 which spanned from December 2017 to May 2019.Download the Report
The aim of Clear Wave 3 was to reduce the rate of antipsychotic use in residents without a diagnosis of psychosis from baseline to the national average by April 30, 2019. 33 participating care homes across BC completed the collaborative. This technical report outlines in detail the evaluation results of Wave 3 which spanned from December 2017 to May 2019.Download the Report
We’d like to share and celebrate PVN’s 2019/20 annual report! This year marked PVN’s 10-year anniversary and we’re proud to have supported 475 patient partners in 237 engagement opportunities. The network grew to nearly 1,200 patient partners and we continued to strengthen our relationship with our patient and health care partners.Read the Report
The Council supported 10 interns in the summer of 2017, in placements across BC. This evaluation reports on the experiences of both student interns and the health organizations who employed them.Read the Evaluation
Our Change Day 2017 report summarizes what we learned about harnessing the power of distributed leadership, making campaigns fun and aligning Change Day with people’s values.Read the Evaluation
Clear’s second wave ran from September 2015 through December 2016, during which it was known as the Call for Less Antipsychotics in Residential Care. 40 care homes participated and 1,001 residents saw their antipsychotics decreased or discontinued.Read the Evaluation
The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was implemented in 2011 as a measurement system to help understand the safety and effectiveness dimensions of surgical quality in BC, and is being used at 24 hospitals across the province to monitor patient outcomes for 30 days after surgery.Read the Evaluation
Quality Forum 2018 brought together more than 1,200 participants over its three days. In this report, we summarize evaluation forms submitted by participants regarding the pre-Forum sessions, main two days, and Health Talks, and provide a breakdown of participant diversity.Read the Evaluation
This five-year evaluation looks at RT2C’s impacts in BC from 2012-2017. Promisingly, it revealed improvements in all four areas of program focus: patient experience, efficiency of care, safety and reliability of care, and staff well-being.Read the Evaluation
This 12-week Action Series was launched in February 2017 with the aim of improving teamwork and communication within the BC health care system. This report summarizes the experiences of the 50 participating teams and the evaluation results.Read the Evaluation
“What Matters to You?” Day took place on June 6, 2017. To better understand the campaign’s impact, we analyzed data from multiple sources: orders and sign-ups for the campaign, stories and information shared via email, survey responses, and participant interviews.Read the Evaluation