Table 1.
Overview of methods employed in the study, matched to study objectives
| Objective | Data source | Sample | Collection time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Measure changes in the profile of services delivered to patients across the spectrum of risk, focussing on emergency admissions to hospital |
Anonymised routine linked data (including Prism data) |
All patients from participating practices |
Baseline |
| 6 months | |||
| 18 months | |||
| Questionnaire data: Client Services Receipt Inventory (CSRI) |
Random sample of patients from participating practices (n = 800 at each time point) |
Baseline |
|
| 6 months | |||
| 18 months | |||
| 2. Estimate the costs of implementing Prism and costs of resulting changes in the utilisation of health and social care resources |
Questionnaire data: Client Services Receipt Inventory (CSRI); SF12 |
Random sample of patients from participating practices (n = 800 at each time point) |
Baseline |
| 6 months | |||
| 18 months | |||
| Structured telephone interviews |
Prism users from all participating practices (n = up to 40) |
18 months |
|
| 3. Assess the cost effectiveness of Prism by estimating cost per quality-adjusted life year based on changes in patient health outcomes |
Questionnaire data: SF12 |
Random sample of patients from participating practices (n = 800 at each time point) |
Baseline |
| 6 months | |||
| 18 months | |||
| Structured telephone interviews |
Prism users from all participating practices |
18 months |
|
| 4. Describe processes of change associated with Prism: how it is understood, communicated, adopted and used by practitioners, managers, local commissioners and policy makers |
Focus groups |
GPs, practice nurses and managers from participating practices (n = 4); local health services managers and community staff managers (n = 1) |
Baseline |
| Interviews |
GPs from participating practices who are unable to attend FGs (n = 12); |
Baseline |
|
| health board managers from sites not participating in main study (n = 6); policy makers and national health service managers (n = 5) | |||
| Interviews |
Prism users from half of all participating practices, purposively sampled |
3 months and 9 months after going live |
|
| Questionnaire |
Prism users from remaining half of all participating practices |
3 months and 9 months after going live |
|
| Focus group |
Local health services managers and community staff managers (n = 1) |
18 months |
|
| Interviews |
Health service managers from ABMU (n = 3) |
18 months |
|
| Structured telephone interviews |
Prism users from all participating practices (n = up to 40) |
18 months |
|
| 5. Assess the effect of Prism on patient satisfaction |
Questionnaire data: Quality of Care Monitor |
Random sample of patients from participating practices (n = 800 at each time point) |
Baseline |
| 6 months | |||
| 18 months | |||
| 6. Assess the technical performance of Prism |
Prism data |
Prism risk data for patients at participating practices |
Baseline |
| 6 months | |||
| 18 months | |||
| Anonymised routine linked data |
Routine health data |
Baseline |
|
| 6 months | |||
| 18 months | |||
| Structured telephone interviews | Prism users from all participating practices (up to 40) | 18 months |