Delivering an independent qualitative evaluation of PICP Phase 2 to understand the difference it had made and how, why and when from the perspective of those involved. Including:

• Carrying out focus groups and interviews with 97 older people and semi-structured in-depth interviews with 77 professional stakeholders and 12 volunteers involved in the programme’s delivery. The wonderful Chris Bird undertook the professional stakeholder interviews in three areas as part of his MSc research.
• Analysing the evidence captured, synthesising the findings and producing an in-depth written report (including recommendations to improve the model in practice).

Delivering an independent blended evaluation of PICP Phase 2, which involved drawing together the programme’s existing evaluative evidence and performance-management data:

• Stage 1: Analysing, synthesising and triangulating diverse evaluative evidence and performance-management data collected nationally and locally up until the end of Phase 2 (this included the findings from the qualitative evaluation and changes in older people’s wellbeing scores as measured by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale).
• Stage 2: Triangulating the findings from Stage 1 with those of the evaluation by the Nuffield Trust (which reported after Stage 1) and with wider published evidence about the impact of community-based interventions on healthcare services.

I also undertook in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from each of the Phase 2 local Age UKs to explore whether and how the PIC service had been sustained and the legacy of their involvement in the programme.

• Summary and full blended evaluation reports (including recommendations)
• A legacy report focused on the sustainability of the model in the Phase 2 areas, reflections on the impact of the service on hospital activity and lessons learned about spreading and scaling the PIC model
• Tailored summaries of findings from the Nuffield Trust evaluation for each Phase 2 area
• Presentation of the key lessons learned at session B of the King’s Fund Innovation In Health and Care Conference together with Age UK’s Director of Services
• Presentation of the findings at a learning event for Age UK, its partners and local stakeholders involved in the programme.

My Blended Evaluation reports and learning session provided:

• Age UK and local Age UK’s with an evidence base to help understand both whether and how the PICP had contributed to improving outcomes, and lessons learned to help improve the PIC model
• Local Age UK partners with a timely evidence base to help support the subsequent commissioning or funding of the service ahead of the publication of the Nuffield Trust evaluation.

My legacy report and tailored summaries of the later Nuffield Trust findings provided Age UK and its local partners with insights into:

• Whether and how the pilot model had been sustained in local areas
• The contextual factors that could influence the programme’s impact on hospital activity to help understand the findings from the Nuffield Trust evaluation and the ‘so what, what does this mean for us?’

More generally, the findings from my Blended Evaluation provided:

• Lessons learned about designing, delivering and spreading and scaling a holistic social prescribing model
• Insights into the factors that are likely to influence whether and how such models contribute towards positive sustainable outcomes for older people, practitioners and health and care services.