7 ih
‘ ©

PROGRAM REVIEW CRITERIA

These revised criteria constitute the major factors to be taken into account
in the national review process, including site visits, in assessing or
evaluating Regional Medical Programs. They are aimed at assessing a Region's
overall progress and current status ~~ in short, its performance to date --
and only secondarily the merits of its overall proposal or the Region's

future prospects except insofar as directly reflected by its past performance
and present strengths. Moreover, their focus is essentially on program rather
than projects. :

These criteria are in large measure a synthesis of several earlier but similar
efforts, including those of individual Review Committee members. An earlier
version of them was utilized and tested in the course of the several site

visits made in December.

These criteria are being incorporated as an integral element of the national

- review process. A critical assessment flowing from that process, in turn, is ~~

whether a given Regional Medical Program has:

(1) Demonstrated outstanding program quality and maturity as reflected
by its performance and overall progress to date.

(2) Shown satisfactory program progress.

(3) Performed poorly and reflects unsatisfactory progress. and program
' status. OO

‘The review criteria to be employed are as follows:

(1) Goals, Objectives and Priorities. Are these - _

. explicitly stated?
. specific?
- , reasonable and relevant?
. based on assessment of regional needs, problems and resources?
. congruent with national priorities? ~
peeeeeeeer . wm: . on
_y iforguood, apd accepted by othgagifg*OF dperational propossist °™

(2) Organizational Effectiveness.

a. Coordinator. Has he been successful in developing and main-
taining a -

-.

. strong sense of program direction and cohesion?
. effectively functioning core staff? "

b. Core Staff. Does it reflect a -

. broad range of professional and discipline competence?

. adequate administrative and management capability?

. balanced relationship between central, field, and insti-
tutional components?
(3)

(4)

(5)

. eo 7 |
c. Grantee Organization (or Organizational Base). Does it provide
and permit - --

 

. adequate support, including administrative and housekeeping
services?

. sufficient degree of freedom, especially in distinguishing
between its administrative role and the RAG's policy-
making onc?

d. Regional Advisory Group, including the corollary planning, review,
and other committees. Does this advisory structure have -

 

. participation of key regional groups and interests?
. policy control over the program?

. creditability within the program and region? |

', adequate technical review structure and process?

e. Subregionalization. Is an adequate commmity organization and
planning capability being developed by the region, separately
or in conjunction with CHP and others, at the local ( or
sub-regional) level?

Involvement of Regional Resources. To what extent are the Region's. ~
health and related interests, institutions, groups, and agencies
actively involved in and comited to RMP; or, conversely, has the

RMP in effect been captured or co-opted by a single major interest?
Among others - oe

 

. practicing physicians and organized medicine?

, community hospitals, including their boards as well as staff?

. nursing and allied health professions?
. medical schools and centers?
. voluntary and official health agencies?

| CHP and other related health and planning programs?

. consumers and community groups?
. region's political and economic power structure?

Assessment of Needs, Problems and Resources. To what extent are these

 

. the result of a systematic identification and analysis based on
data?

. related to Region's objectives and priorities?

. reflected by the scope and nature of core and operational activities’

Program Implementation and Accomplishments.

 

a. Core Activities. Have these resulted in -

. action-oriented planning?

. development of community organization and planning at the local
level?

. coordinated, cooperative, and conjoint activities with others
(e.g., OEO, CHP, Appalachia)?

. adequate surveillance of ongoing operational activities?
(6)

” ' on , . -« . -

“b. Operational Projects.. Have these -

 

. reflected Region's present objectives and priorities?
. strenghtened or utilized linkages between and among insti-
tutions, groups and agencies?
.« been of high quality and generally productive?
. resulted in a turnover of funds? ,
_. been phased out where unsuccessful or now irrelevant?

Evaluation. Is (or are) there - . - -

. a formal evaluation plan or strategy?

. adequate staff and other resources available?

. assessment of the-overall program as well as evaluation of projects?
. a feedback mechanism relating program and project evaluation to the
_ RAG?

. ongoing monitoring and surveillance of projects?

co