Section I. 1Annex 1b

WP risks and contingency planning

The following internal WP risks are identified:

• 
  change in key personnel among task leaders
  
• 
  delay in delivering work on time by an AP/task groups
  
• 
  lack in quality of work delivered by a AP
  
• 
  lack of clinician engagement
  
• 
  changing political imperatives within MS.
  

The contingency planning is:

• 
  these risks will be reduced through continuous monitoring of changes over the three year period in order to ensure the rapid integration of new staff, when needed, most partners have more than one co-worker specified for WP4 work
  
• 
  constant communication within WP4 on the progress of task solving will keep the WP Leader and all APs updated, and a possible delay in delivering work can be predicted early and accounted for
  
• 
  most partners have participated in previous EU-funded projects and many may substitute for each other where appropriate
  
• 
  most APs are public bodies that can handle rapid crisis management and can access extra human resources, if needed
  
• 
  in the case that total non-performing partners affiliated to a vital project task endangers the execution of the WP deliverable, the Coordinator and the EB will be involved in problem solving
  

Impact evaluation

The impact evaluation of WP4 will be focused upon:

1. 
   availability of SCP
   

1. 
   number of themes for safe clinical practices accessible via web tool
   
2. 
   number of safe clinical practices accessible via web tool
   

2. 
   participation in the exchange mechanisms
   

1. 
   total number of MS participating in the exchange mechanism, (including exchange visits hosted and attended)
   
2. 
   total number of health care professionals participating in the exchange mechanism
   
3. 
   average number of health care professionals participating in the exchange mechanism per WP4 AP with a budget for exchange mechanisms
   

3. 
   gain from the exchange mechanisms and network capacity building
   

1. 
   proportion of health care professionals who participate in the exchange mechanism, and find they gain new knowledge on safe clinical practices through the web tool
   
2. 
   proportion of health care professionals who participate in the exchange mechanism, and find the exchange mechanisms helpful for uptake of expertise in SCP
   
3. 
   proportion of health care professionals who participate in the exchange mechanism and find that the content of the exchange mechanisms can lead to operating SCP in a the local clinical setting
   
4. 
   proportion of health care professionals who participate in the exchange mechanism, and intend to implement SCP at local clinical setting
   
5. 
   proportion of health care professionals who participate in the exchange mechanism, and find their network in PS enriched through the WP4 work
   

4. 
   evaluation of the potential of the WP4 work
   

1. 
   two to four stakeholders descriptive evaluation of the potential of the WP4 work, and possible future ways of developing and sustaining it.
   

For the descriptive evaluation of the availability of SCP information will be collected by WP3 via the web platform. Information on participation in the exchange mechanisms will be collected in cooperation between WP4 and 6 and the NCP.

For evaluation of “gain from the exchange mechanisms and network capacity building” the information will be collected during the exchange mechanisms through a questionnaire with a maximum of 10 questions to be answers on a five point Likert scale. The questionnaire will be available in English The questionnaire will be handed out by the host of the activity and is to be returned during the exchange mechanism. The questionnaire will be developed in cooperation between WP2,3,4 and 6. Data management and analysis will performed by WP3.

Likewise WP4 will draft a small questionnaire with 3-5 questions for 2-4 stakeholders. The questionnaire will ask for a descriptive evaluation of the WP4 work. The questionnaire will be send and returned per mail or filled in via the WP2 web platform. WP3 will incorporate the feed back in the final impact evaluation of the WP4 work.

Work Package 5: Patient Safety Initiatives Implementation

Leader: German Agency for Quality in Medicine (AQuMed), Germany

Associated partners

In addition to AQuMed as WP Leader, 25 APs are involved in WP5.

Table 7: WP5 APs

Country	Acronym	Organisation
Austria	PMU	Paracelsus University Salzburg
Croatia	AQAH	Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care and Social Welfare
Denmark	DSPS	Danish Society for Patient Safety
Finland	THL	National Institute for Health and Welfare
France	HAS	Haute Autorité de Santé
Greece	NKUA	National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Hungary	GYEMSZI	National Institute for Quality and Organisational Development in Healthcare and Medicines
Italy	ITMoH	Ministry of Health
Italy	ULSS10	Local Health Authority n° 10, Veneto Region
Latvia	REUH	Riga East University Hospital
Lithuania	VASPVT	State Health Care Acreditation Agency
Netherlands	NIVEL	Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek van de Gezondheidszorg
Netherlands	RUNMC	Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
Norway	NOKC	Norwegian Knowledge Center for Health Services
Poland	NCQA	National Center for Quality Assessment in Healthcare
Romania	NSPHM	National School of Public Health and Health Management
Slovakia	SKMoH	Ministry of Health
Spain	MSSSI	Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality
UK	NHSIII	NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement
EU	CPME	Standing Committee of European Doctors
EU	EFN	European Federation of Nurses Associations
EU	EHMA	European Health Management Association
EU	EPF	European Patients’ Forum
EU	HOPE	European Hospital and Healthcare Federation
EU	PGEU	Pharmaceutical Group of the EU

Budget

Total WP budget is € 1.200.000

Objective

This WP aims to implement and monitor good practices in HCOs of the participating MS. A survey on existing PS practices will be conducted by the MS and stakeholder organisations in coordination with WP 4 and 6.

The general objective of this WP is to implement and monitor good practices in HCOs of the participating MS.

The specific objectives of this WP are:

• 
  Implementation of selected good practices in the HCOs of MS to implement by month 24 selected good practices in PS and related areas of QC in health care settings. Selection criteria will include demonstrated effectiveness and feasibility of the good practices / evidence base, transferability, patient involvement.
  
• 
  Evaluation of the implementation and measurement of the impact of the PS good practices implemented.
  

Milestones

Coordination meetings at month 5 and month 22

List of selected good practices for implementation in the participating MS at month 6

Starting of implementation at month 18

WP preliminary report at month 34

Deliverables

Report describing the PS good practices implementation (selection of good practices, feasibility of implementation, impact measurement)

Tested implementation tool box (reporting, learning, culture, patient involvement, assessment) for transferable and assessed PS good practices including a list of selected PS good practices and implementation tools tested for implementation in MS HCOs.

Impact evaluation

• 
  Number of MS involved in the implementation of one or more of the selected good practices
  
• 
  Number of HCOs providing data on:
  

a. patient outcomes (e.g. outcome measures)

b. adherence to good practices (e.g. process measures)

c. patient involvement

d. barriers/success factors

e. required adaptations to good practices