To support learning, evaluations of crisis management efforts must be effective and lead to actionable recommendations that are implemented. However, little is known regarding what approaches are currently employed to evaluate crisis management efforts, the degree of implementation of recommendations, or if certain approaches are associated with a higher degree of implementation. This study explored these areas by analysing 24 evaluation reports from a Swedish regional public healthcare organisation and examining the implementation status of the presented recommendations.

The analysis of the evaluation reports showed that evaluations can be improved in terms of methodology and presentation, for example, by providing arguments for methodological choices and more clearly stating the purpose of evaluations.

A focus group categorised all 202 recommendations from the analysed evaluation reports to assess their implementation. The results showed that 28 % of the recommendations had been implemented with a clear connection to a specific evaluation, while 45 % were implemented with an unclear connection. Only 12 % were categorised as unimplemented, and 15 % were categorised as unknown. This suggests that evaluations of crisis management efforts have an impact. However, questions regarding their direct impact remain, given that most recommendations were categorised as implemented with unclear connections to specific evaluations.

Combining the results from the analysis of the evaluation reports with the categorisations by the focus group showed that including stakeholders in evaluations and providing arguments for why recommendations should be implemented can increase the direct impact of evaluations of crisis management efforts.