Table Project details Applicant name Abbreviated project name Location of lead organisation Implementation sites Location by remoteness Project budget Aged Care and Housing Group AC Housing South Australia Adelaide cities $278,800 Bairnsdale Regional Health Service Bairnsdale Victoria East Gippsland, Victoria Outer regional $150,300 Barwon Health Barwon Victoria Geelong and surrounding areas Major cities $248,688 Anglican Aged Care Services Benetas Victoria Melbourne Major cities $735,039 Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust Blue Care BlueCare Queensland Brisbane Major cities $336,814 Roman Catholic Trust Corporation Centacare Queensland Rockhampton regional $190,785 Glenview Services Glenview Tasmania Glenorchy (outer suburb of Hobart) Inner regional $181,500 KinCare Community Services KinCare New Wales Sydney, Sunshine Coast, Adelaide Major cities $351,822 Health and Aged Care Mercy Victoria Melbourne Major cities $214,173 Community Care Northern Beaches Northern Beaches New Wales Sydney Major cities $713,517 Presbyterian Church Queensland PresCare Queensland Rockhampton Inner regional $335,529 Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust WM Brisbane Queensland Brisbane Major cities $892,620 Uniting Care WP Adelaide WP Adelaide South Australia Adelaide Major cities $783,408 Total $5,412,995.00 Note: the abbreviated project name is used to identify each project in the remainder of this report. Summary of the evaluation framework and methods The evaluation framework consisted of three levels to examine the impact and outcomes for consumers (patients, residents, clients and carers), individual providers and the system of health and aged care. The framework was based on one which has been used to evaluate a wide range of programs, modified to suit the particular focus of the program (see Appendix 14 for further details). To inform the evaluation, a glossary of relevant terms was developed including, for example, a definition of the term ‘more intensive health care’ (Appendix 15). Evaluation of the program focused on six key issues – program delivery, program impact,
Table Commonalities and differences across models Project Setting Fit with program logic Clinical focus Better health connections Main of project delivery Intensity of health care Association with hospital use Main focus of intended outcomes Bairnsdale Residential (led by residential service) Good All residents Linkage Individual providers System More intensive Direct System Barwon Residential (led by residential service) Good All residents Linkage Individual providers System More intensive Direct System WP Adelaide Residential Good Residents discharged from hospital (at risk of re-admission) Linkage Coordination Individual providers System More intensive Direct System AC Housing Community Good Those at risk of hospitalisation Linkage Some coordination Consumers Individual providers System More intensive Direct Consumers System Northern Beaches Community Not a good fit At risk of deterioration from a chronic condition Linkage Coordination Direct care from provider Consumers Providers More intensive Direct Consumers System KinCare Community Not a good fit Clients at risk of hospitalisation Hospital admissions Linkage Some coordination Direct care from provider System More intensive Direct System
PresCare Residential (1 facility) Good Subacute care (residents at risk of clinical deterioration) Linkage Individual providers System More appropriate Direct Individual providers System Glenview Residential (1 facility) Outlier Advance care planning Linkage Consumers System More appropriate Indirect Individual providers System Residential (3 facilities) Outlier Palliative care (end-of-life care) Linkage Individual providers System More appropriate Indirect Individual providers System BlueCare Community Residential Not a good fit Palliative care care) Linkage Direct care from nurse practitioner System More intensive Direct Consumers System WM Brisbane Community Residential Not a good fit Wound management Behaviour management Linkage Direct care from nurse practitioner System More intensive Direct Consumers Individual providers System Centacare Community Residential Good All clients and residents Linkage System More intensive No link System Benetas Residential Community Good All residents Focus on palliative care Linkage Individual providers System More intensive Indirect Individual providers System