An evaluation of the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Demonstration

Discussion guide for stakeholder consultations

Page last updated: August 2008


Introduction about the nature of the interview. Confidentiality, privacy, recording, non-identifiable.
  • My name is <INSERT NAME> from Campbell Research & Consulting.
  • Conducting an evaluation of the Public Access Defibrillator (PAD) Demonstration Project for the Department of Health and Ageing.
  • Would appreciate a small amount of your time to discuss your views on the demonstration project to date:
    Is this something we could do now or would you like me to call back at a more convenient time?
  • CR&C is based in Melbourne and we specialise in issues and evaluation research for government and business.
  • The opinions you provide today will be used only for research purposes, and only for this project.
  • Our report will present the overall findings, aggregated findings from the research. Individual stakeholders will not be identified.


I would like to start by asking you to tell me a little bit about your organisation and your role at the organisation:
  • Nature of the organisation.
  • Role at organisation/ length of time in that role.
For PAD Demonstration Working Party Members:
  • What level of involvement has your organisation had in the PAD Demonstration Project?
  • At what level have you been personally involved in the project?
For other stakeholders (competitor organisations)
  • Are you aware of the PAD Demonstration Project currently being implemented by St John Ambulance Australia?
    (If no, provide a brief explanation of the Demo Project) Top of page


Now I would like to ask you more specifically about your views on the appropriateness of the PAD trail:
  • Is the current model being trialled the most appropriate and effective means of delivering a sustainable Public Access Defibrillation service to those Australians who experience SCA in a public setting?
  • Do you believe that Public Access Defibrillation programs make a difference to mortality from SCA in Australia?
  • Is government funding the most appropriate delivery model for Public Access Defibrillation?
    Do you believe that the private market could sustain the project if government funding was unavailable?


Now I would like to ask you about your views on the effectiveness of the PAD trail:
  • To the best of your knowledge, have the appropriate installation sites for AEDs been selected?
    (If necessary – the AEDs are currently in 149 locations around Australia including schools, shopping centres, sporting venues, zoos, airports etc)
  • Has the installation of AEDs translated into an effective response to Australians who experience SCA?
    And also translated into improvements in patient outcomes?
  • Have PADs made a difference to mortality from SCA in Australia?


Now I would like to ask you about your views on the efficiency of the PAD trail:
  • Is the current mode of delivery of the PAD Demonstration Project the most efficient?
  • Are you aware of other models that may be more relevant for the delivery of PAD in Australia
    Aware of overseas approaches that may be relevant?
    Other governance and funding models?
    Other delivery models?
  • Should the PAD be coordinated in conjunction with other emergency response services? Top of page

Issues that arose during trial

Can you identify any specific issues that arose during the trial of PAD in Australia?
  • Specifically issues that may impact on the future expansion of PADs?
  • Other issues?

Lessons that may be relevant?

What are the lessons that can be learned from the current PAD Demonstration Project?
  • In relation to current delivery?
  • In relation to potential expansion of the project?

Other issues

Is there anything else that you would like to add?


Thank you for taking the time to discuss your views and opinions on the PAD Demonstration Project with me.
Your input has been very valuable to this evaluation.