Monitoring and evaluation plan for the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

The Nez Perce Tribe has proposed to build and operate the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery (NPTH) in the Clearwater River subbasin of Idaho for the purpose of restoring self-sustaining populations of spring, summer, and fall chinook salmon to their native habitats. The project comprises a combination of incubation and rearing facilities, satellite rearing facilities, juvenile and adult collection sites, and associated production and harvest management activities. As currently conceived, the NPTH program will produce approximately 768,000 spring chinook parr, 800,000 summer chinook fry, and 2,000,000 fall chinook fry on an annual basis. Hatchery fish would be spawned, reared, and released under conditions that promote wild-type characteristics, minimize genetic changes in both hatchery and wild chinook populations, and minimize undesirable ecological interactions. The primary objective is to enable hatchery-produced fish to return to reproduce naturally in the streams in which they are released. These and other characteristics of the project are described in further detail in the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Master Plan, the 1995 Supplement to the Master Plan, and the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program Environmental Impact Statement. The report in hand is referred to in project literature as the NPTH Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan. This report describes monitoring and evaluation activities that will help NPTH managers determine whether they were successful in restoring chinook salmon populations and avoiding adverse ecological impacts

What factors promote or inhibit implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition in community settings? A prospective process evaluation of the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People (INSCCOPe) project (UK).

INTRODUCTION: Malnutrition remains underdetected, undertreated and often overlooked by those working with older people in primary care in the UK. A new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition is currently being implemented by a large National Health Service (NHS) trust in England, incorporating a programme of training for staff working within Integrated Community Teams and Older People's Mental Health teams. Running in parallel, the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People process evaluation study explores factors that may promote or inhibit its implementation and longer term embedding in routine care, with the aim of optimising sustainability and scalability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Implementation will be assessed through observation of staff within a single area of the trust, in addition to the procedure development and delivery group (PDDG). Data collection will occur at three observation points: prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0); 2 months following training (T1); and 8 months following training (T2). Observation points will consist of a survey and follow-up semistructured telephone interview with staff. Investigation of the PDDG will involve: observations of discussions around development of the procedure; semistructured telephone interviews prior to implementation, and at 6 months following implementation. Quantitative data will be described using frequency tables reporting by team type, healthcare provider role group, and total study sample (Wilcoxon rank-sum and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests may also be conducted if appropriate. Audio and transcription data will be analysed using Nomarlization Process Theory as a framework for deductive thematic analysis (using the NVIVO CAQDAS software package). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study has been granted through institutional ethical review (Bournemouth University); NHS Research Ethics committee approval was not required. Dissemination will occur through presentations to academic and practitioner audiences and publication results in peer-reviewed academic journals

Implementing professional behaviour change in teams under pressure: results from phase one of a prospective process evaluation (the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People (INSCCOPe) project).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition for older people in community settings and to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation as a routine aspect of care. DESIGN: Prospective process evaluation using mixed methods with pre/post-implementation measures. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community teams (nursing and allied health professionals) within a UK National Health Service Community Trust. 73 participants were recruited, of which 32 completed both pre-implemetation and post-implementation surveys. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NoMAD survey for pre-post-intervention measures; telephone interviews exploring participant experiences and wider organisational/contextual processes. METHODS: Data prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0-survey and telephone interview) and 2 months following training (T1-follow-up survey). Quantitative data described using frequency tables reporting team type, healthcare provider role group and total study sample; analysis using Wilcoxon rank-sum (subgroup comparison) and Wilcoxon signed-rank (within-group observation point comparison) tests. Qualitative interview data (audio and transcription) analysed through directed content analysis using normalisation process theory. RESULTS: High support for nutrition screening and treatment indicated by participants. Concerns expressed around logistical, organisational and specialist dietetic support. Pre-post-training measures indicated a positive impact of training on knowledge of the new procedure; however, most implementation measures saw no significant changes between time points or between subgroups (training participants vs non-participants). Implementation barriers included the following: high levels of training non-completion; vulnerability to attrition of trained staff; lack of monitoring of post-intervention compliance and lack of access to dietetic support. CONCLUSION: Greater support necessary to support implementation in relation to monitoring of training completion, and organisational support for nutrition screening and treatment activity. Recommended changes to implementation design are as follows: appointment of a key person to support and monitor procedure compliance; adoption of training as an e-learning module within the existing organisational platform to increase participation in changeable working conditions