Sub Criteria

Example of Evidence

4.1 The collaboration has had impact on the collaborators, their institutions, communities, and healthcare.

Narrative and/or information of the ways in which the collaborations has had impact. Include outputs/outcomes from the collaboration that reflect shared understanding and mutual benefit. 

Narrative description of the impact on individuals, programs, organizations, and where possible, the wider community (e.g., affiliated hospitals and clinics), with quantitative and qualitative data (e.g., student ratings of teaching and/or student performance assessment; recruitment of faculty members; achievements of students and faculty members; new faculty behaviours, roles, or responsibilities; list of educational publications and presentations; administrative strengthening to support projects).

You may place this list of publications and presentations in an appendix if it exceeds the word count.

4.2 The collaboration engages in on-going and systematic evaluation of outcomes and process.

Narrative description of the evaluation system, including types and frequency of data collected and synthesized, and an example of how findings are reported.

Includes a process to gather feedback on process, including decision-making processes, to ensure that views of all collaborators are included (and that any imbalances of power/influence are addressed).

4.3 The collaboration is resourced to sustain itself and/or allow partners to function independently.

Narrative description of how funding or “in kind” commitment will continue to sustain once any grant or soft funding expires. 

Indicate how capacity has been increased with the partners to continue independently for a specifically defined collaboration.

Provide explanations if funds will no longer be needed.

If any financial information is available to indicate viability or longer-term sustainability, this can be included but is not essential.