SaHF DMBC Volume 1 Edition 1.1.pdf - Shaping a healthier future

The outcome of the hurdle criteria were reviewed against the key intentions to ensure they
would be achieved.
The metrics for each hurdle criteria and the application of each hurdle are described fully in
Chapter 9.
5.5.6 Stage 6 – Evaluation criteria and sub criteria
Having established a medium list by employing the hurdle criteria in stage five, further work
was required to determine a recommended option for reconfiguration. This section describes
the evaluation criteria that have been used for determining a recommended option.
Figure 5.9: Evaluation criteria and sub criteria
Stage 6 Purpose Outcome
6
Evaluation criteria
1 Quality of care
2 Access to care
3 Value for money
4 Deliverability
5 Research and education
Criteria include sub-criteria
To test in detail the medium list of
options using criteria chosen by
local clinicians and the public.
Pre-consultation this stage
identified a short list of three
options with a relative assessment
Post-consultation this stage
identified a single recommended
option with the highest relative
assessment.
The criteria were developed by clinicians and tested with wider groups and the public. The
criteria are focused on quality of care, access to services, value for money, deliverability and
the impact on research and education, see Figure 5.10.
Figure 5.10: Final set of evaluation criteria and sub-criteria as agreed by local clinicians
For each criterion, each option on the medium list is given a rating, This relative evaluation is
given to differentiate between the options on the medium list. The ratings used are shown in
Figure 5.11.
5. Process for identifying a recommendation 58