Understanding the AMI Framework

Different donations create value in different ways. Programs are designed to achieve different results. For example, some programs deliver products around the world, and their partners trust them to delivery products that are most needed. Others combat specific diseases through a model that contains donations as a part of a complex solution. Both results are important and both deserve to be measured. AMI aligns the impact of all of these efforts into simplified and connected impact areas. Organizations will customize their use of AMI.

Qualitative information sits alongside quantitative findings and helps explain what happened, why it happened, what people experienced, what the product contribution looked like in practice, and what the numbers alone cannot show.

Keep the program purpose visible. Use qualitative evidence to understand what product availability enabled in relation to that purpose.

AMI’s enables discovery beyond what was donated, shipped, delivered, or counted and provides a practical way to understand, improve, and communicate how donated medical products contribute in three important ways around:

These areas make up AMI’s impact areas. Availability, continuity, and service capacity are distinct but connected contribution areas. AMI focuses on impact areas that are broadly applicable across donation models, products and partnerships.

Below is an overview of the impact areas and recommended priority indicators.

AMI is intentionally built around only a few shared priorities currently. These three indicators are anchors, not the only valuable measures. They were identified after review of a broad set of outputs and outcome indicators as the strongest shared place to begin across different programs, portfolios, organizations, and partnerships. Prioritization is intended to make outcome measurement more achievable, not to narrow the full story of donation impact. The impact areas are not intended to represent a continuum, and organizations do not need to measure in all areas.

AMI uses familiar measurement terms in a simple way: inputs and activities produce outputs; outcomes help show what those activities contributed to; broader impact is shaped by many actors and factors.

Organizations should continue to invest in output reporting. Outputs remain essential because they show what was done, at what scale, and with what operational reach. They also help explain the mechanisms behind outcome findings.

Where the program design, data, and contribution pathway are strong enough, organizations can add relevant health and quality outcomes. AMI does not replace those measures. Instead,

AMI does not standardize a single health or quality measure across portfolios because the appropriate outcomes and methods vary substantially by product, disease area, service, population, and program model. Therefore they are not a fourth shared impact area, nor are they required to show impact.

Not every program should measure health and quality outcomes. Use them where the evidence can credibly support the connection.

One of the most important contributions of AMI is the development of a shared language.

Organizations measure differently, operate differently, and serve different populations. However, a common framework creates opportunities for greater alignment, learning, aggregation, and comparability over time.

Comparable does not mean identical. AMI enables organizations to describe how their donated medical products consistently contribute to care.

Language is important, the AMI working group determined that the following definitions capture the collective understanding of medical donation program measurement. These are simple and straightforward definitions for measurement that every PQMD member organization can understand and utilize.

The three shared areas are a common frame, not the whole impact story. The questions below will help organizations overlay the framework to their programs and portfolios.