ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050
Sample Answer for ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050 Included After Question
Program/policy evaluation is a valuable tool that can help strengthen the quality of programs/policies and improve outcomes for the populations they serve. Program/policy evaluation answers basic questions about program/policy effectiveness. It involves collecting and analyzing information about program/policy activities, characteristics, and outcomes. This information can be used to ultimately improve program services or policy initiatives.
Nurses can play a very important role assessing program/policy evaluation for the same reasons that they can be so important to program/policy design. Nurses bring expertise and patient advocacy that can add significant insight and impact. In this Assignment, you will practice applying this expertise and insight by selecting an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation and reflecting on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program/policy.
To Prepare:
- Review the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template provided in the Resources.
- Select an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation or choose one of interest to you.
- Review community, state, or federal policy evaluation and reflect on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program or policy described.
The Assignment: (2–3 pages)
Based on the program or policy evaluation you selected, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be sure to address the following:
- Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
- How was the success of the program or policy measured?
- How many people were reached by the program or policy selected?
- How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
- At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
- What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
- What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
- What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
- Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
- Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
- Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after 1 year of implementation.
By Day 7 of Week 10
Submit your completed healthcare program/policy evaluation analysis.
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050
Title: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050
The purpose of this work is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the New York State Medicaid program’s Children’s Design Evaluation. This involves a detailed examination of the program’s implementation, outcomes, and impact on the health of children and youth under age 21 in New York State. The goal is to identify the program’s strengths and areas for improvement, assess its effectiveness in meeting its original objectives, and provide recommendations for future policy and program development. This analysis will contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve healthcare services and outcomes for children and youth in New York State. As a nurse advocate, the insights gained from this analysis will inform advocacy efforts and guide interventions to enhance the health and well-being of this population.
In conclusion, the program represents a significant effort to improve the health outcomes of the target audience. The program’s focus on early intervention and prevention is commendable, and its potential impact is substantial. However, the program has faced challenges in its implementation, and these challenges highlight the importance of careful planning, resource allocation, and ongoing evaluation in implementing such a program.
The analysis of the program’s evaluation has provided valuable insights into its effectiveness and areas for improvement. As a nurse advocate, these insights can inform your advocacy efforts and guide interventions to enhance the health and well-being of this population. Despite the challenges, the program has the potential to make a significant positive impact on the health outcomes of children and youth in New York State. With ongoing evaluation and adjustment, the program could make significant strides in achieving its objectives.
This work underscores the importance of program evaluation in healthcare policy and program development. It highlights the role of healthcare providers, particularly nurses, in this process. Their experience and patient advocacy can enhance health outcomes for the populations they serve. Moving forward, it is crucial to continue evaluating and refining healthcare programs and policies to ensure they effectively meet the needs of their target populations. This will contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve healthcare services and outcomes for the target population.
New York State Medicaid program’s Children’s Design Evaluation Analysis Template
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation | New York State Medicaid program’s Children’s Design |
| Description | The program is an amendment to the existing 1115 waiver program. It was implemented on August 2, 2019. It simplified care for kids and teens below age 21 who need home- and community-based physical and behavioral health treatments. The state could move services covered by the consolidated Children’s Waiver from fee-for-service to Medicaid managed care (MMC) and target eligibility to medically needy family-of-one children who meet clinical criteria and are enrolled in the waiver but do not qualify for Medicaid due to family income (Harry et al., 2021). |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured?
|
The success of the program was measured through an ongoing evaluation process. It assessed how well special needs children could access primary care practitioners who understood them and the magnitude to which enrollees were accessing home- and community-based services (HCBS) promptly resulting in improved health care outcomes (Harry et al., 2021). |
| How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected? | The program was aimed at providing health insurance for children without insurance who were ineligible for Medicaid. The interim review revealed that parents of children with chronic diseases exhibited considerable satisfaction with their primary care providers. However, they expressed lower levels of satisfaction with their ability to obtain specialized equipment and therapies, as well as coordination efforts across numerous healthcare providers. Initially, the levels of quality indicators for children were relatively stable, except for certain primary care indicators for small children, which showed improvement. Improvements were also shown in various indicators, such as the frequency of preventive visits, rates of immunization, utilization of the medical home for healthcare, adherence to preventative instructions, and the parent-reported health status of the child. |
| At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? | Evaluation is still ongoing but, the interim evaluation was conducted after the program’s implementation (Rand.org, n.d). |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? | Data on quality indicators for children, satisfaction levels of parents of children with chronic conditions, and perceptions of stakeholders were used to conduct the policy evaluation |
| What specific information on unintended consequences were identified? | Stakeholders found the transition to the Children’s Design to be difficult and expressed specific concerns around the impact on children’s families in terms of accessing care and the potential decrease in service availability. This implies that although the program has achieved certain favorable effects, there might still be room for enhancement to fully achieve its planned results. Subsequent assessments will yield more extensive understanding of the program’s influence (Harry et al., 2021). |
| What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples. | Stakeholders identified in the evaluation include providers, advocates, Medicaid Managed Care plan representatives, and government partners. The stakeholders, as well as the families and children who are recipients of the program, would derive the most advantages from the outcomes and documentation of the program evaluation. The evaluation results can inform improvements to the program that directly impact their health outcomes. For example, the evaluation identified specific areas where service accessibility or quality is lacking, the program can be adjusted to address these issues, leading to better health outcomes for the children and youth involved.
In addition, healthcare providers and the New York State government can also benefit significantly from the evaluation results. The providers can use the results to improve their practices and workflows, while the government can use the results to make informed decisions about funding and policy directions. |
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? | Based on the interim findings from the independent evaluation, the program met its original intent of streamlining care for kids and teens who are below the age of 21. However, there were challenges in the transition to the Children’s Design, particularly concerning the burden of accessing care on children’s families and reductions in service availability.
These findings suggest that while the program has made some progress towards its objectives, there are areas where it has not fully met its original intent. The challenges in transitioning to the new design and the concerns about access to care and service availability indicate that there is room for improvement in the program’s implementation. However, the improvement in some primary care indicators for young children is a positive sign that the program is having some impact. |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? | Yes, I would recommend this program in my place of work. The program’s focus on early intervention and prevention aligns with the goals of many healthcare facilities to provide comprehensive and proactive care. The program has potential benefits in streamlining care for children in need. Yet, it’s important to consider the challenges identified in the evaluation and develop mitigation strategies. |
| Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation. | As a nurse advocate, I could contribute to the policy evaluation by:
|
| General Notes/Comments | The initiative aimed to enhance clinical and recovery health outcomes for children and teenagers who require behavioral health and Home and Community Based Services (HCBS). Additionally, its objective is to enhance prompt availability of programs that cater to early childhood requirements, preventing them from escalating into more expensive and intricate issues in maturity. Despite some challenges, the program has the potential to make a positive impact on the health outcomes of these individuals. However, its success depends on careful implementation, ongoing evaluation, and the commitment and involvement of healthcare providers. As a nurse advocate, I would play a key role in this process by providing feedback on the program’s effectiveness based on my observations and experiences, and by advocating for the needs of the children and youth involved in the program. |
References
Rand.org (n.d) Health Care Program Evaluation. Retrieved February 3, 2024, from https://www.rand.org/topics/health-care-program-evaluation.html
Liu, Harry H., Joshua Breslau, Stephanie Rennane, Lisa Wagner, Annie Chen, Gabriela Alvarado, Ingrid Estrada-Darley, and Andrew W. Dick (2021), Independent Evaluation of the New York State 1115 Waiver Amendment: The Children’s Design: Interim Findings, RAND Corporation, RR-A782-1, 2021. As of January 25, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA782-1.html
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Name: NURS_6050_Module05_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
[Control]
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Program/Policy Evaluation
Based on the program or policy evaluation you seelcted, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be sure to address the following: · Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes. · How was the success of the program or policy measured? · How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected? · At what point in time in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? |
32 (32%) - 35 (35%)
Using sufficient evidence, response clearly and accurately describes the healthcare program or policy outcomes. Response accurately and clearly explains how the success of the program or policy was measured. Response accurately and clearly describes how many people were reached by the program or policy and accurately describes the impact of the program or policy. Response accurately and clearly indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted. |
28 (28%) - 31 (31%)
Using sufficient evidence, response accurately describes the healthcare program or policy outcomes. Response accurately explains how the success of the program or policy was measured. Response accurately describes how many people were reached by the program or policy and accurately describes the impact of the program or policy. Response accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted. |
25 (25%) - 27 (27%)
Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate or incomplete. Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate or incomplete. Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the impact is vague or inaccurate. Response vaguely describes the point at which the program or policy evaluation was conducted. |
0 (0%) - 24 (24%)
Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate and incomplete or is missing. Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate and incomplete or is missing. Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the associated impacts is vague and inaccurate or is missing. Response of the point at which time the program or policy was conducted is missing. |
|
| Reporting of Program/Policy Evaluations
· What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? · What specific information on unintended consequences was identified? · What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit the most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples. · Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? · Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? · Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after 1 year of implementation. |
45 (45%) - 50 (50%)
Response clearly and thoroughly explains in detail: -specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation. -the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation. -who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation. -whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. -whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. -at least two ways that the nurse advocate could become involved in the evaluation of the program or policy after 1 year of implementation. |
40 (40%) - 44 (44%)
Using sufficient evidence, response accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation. Response explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation. Response explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation. Response explains who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation. Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. Response includes an accurate explanation of two ways that the nurse advocate could become involved in the evaluation of the program or policy after 1 year of implementation. |
35 (35%) - 39 (39%)
Response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation. Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague or incomplete. Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate. Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate. Explanation of whether the program/policy met the original intent and outcomes, and the reasons why or why not is incomplete or inaccurate. Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete or inaccurate. Explanation of ways that the nurse advocate could become involved in the evaluation or policy after 1 year of implementation is incomplete or inaccurate. |
0 (0%) - 34 (34%)
Identification of the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate or is missing. Response includes vague and incomplete or is missing explanation of: -specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation. -the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation. -who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation. -whether the program or policy met the original intent and outcomes, and the reasons why or why not. -whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not. -ways that the nurse advocate could become involved in the evaluation or policy after 1 year of implementation. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, low logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. |
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. |
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. |
3 (3%) - 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%- 79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) - 2 (2%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is incomplete or missing. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
3 (3%) - 3 (3%)
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
0 (0%) - 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting:
The paper follows correct APA format for title page, font, spacing, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list). |
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors. |
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors. |
3 (3%) - 3 (3%)
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors. |
0 (0%) - 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥5) APA format errors. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
Name: NURS_6050_Module05_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050
Title: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050
Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis
Introduction
The problem of readmissions was becoming a major setback in the year 2012. The center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)came up with a policy, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) which aims at reducing cases of readmissions by penalizing hospitals that readmits patients within 30-day risk standard cases (Catalyst, 2018). The program aims to encourage good communication between healthcare facilities and patients.
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation |
Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) |
| Description | The program was initiated by CMS to combat cases of unnecessary readmission to prevent costs that are incurred unnecessarily. The focus of Medicaid and Medicare was to ensure patients are covered in a better and cheaper way. This helps significantly in the reduction of cases (Gai & Pachamanova, 2019). This policy was all about imposing a fine for all facilities that had a higher readmission rate as compared to the region on the cases standardized. |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured?
|
The program was successful in terms of reducing cases of readmission and promoting better care given to the patients. Readmission cases also significantly reduced across the country hence saving the CMS a lot of money. |
| How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
|
The readmission cases have significantly reduced since the policy was implemented. The readmission reduced by 10% on average for all people insured by Medicaid and Medicare (Bailey et al., 2019). This is the huge realization that saves healthcare insurance programs from unnecessary spending. |
| At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
|
The program was conducted in the year 2012 and successfully implemented in 2013. This was achieved across all the states. |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
|
The program utilized the costs incurred as a result of readmission based on diseases that were best preventable through the guidance of nurses and doctors as well as good communication between patients and nurses (Gai & Pachamanova, 2019). |
| What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
|
The intended consequences identified include increasing costs of readmissions which were expensive for the insurance of medical coverage. |
| What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
|
The stakeholders identified patients, nurses, doctors, and insurance firms. The people who benefited more are patients and insurance healthcare firms (McIlvennan, Eapen & Allen, 2015). For instance, nurses were given extra work of educating patients while insurance firms were able to save on money spend on readmissions. |
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
|
The program met the original intended objective of reducing readmissions. |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
|
I recommend implementing the policy in every healthcare facility since it is in line with preventive care which is much cheaper and safer for all people. |
| Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation.
|
One way of evaluation of the program is having a common regulator of medical insurance to ensure the safety of the patients. The best way to implement the program of reducing readmission is by the introduction of education and guidelines to all nurses at the training level. |
| General Notes/Comments | The program was helpful for Americans and insurance firms. |
Conclusion
Cases of readmission have been significantly reduced since the program was implemented. This has been a useful program for the center for Medicaid and Medicare in cutting medical costs. Also, the patients have benefited significantly from the policy since the readmission was reduced, the risk of diseases was reduced as well.
References
Bailey, M. K., Weiss, A. J., Barrett, M. L., & Jiang, H. J. (2019). Characteristics of 30-Day all-cause hospital readmissions, 2010–2016: Statistical Brief# 248. https://europepmc.org/books/nbk538941
Gai, Y., & Pachamanova, D. (2019). Impact of the Medicare hospital readmissions reduction program on vulnerable populations. BMC health services research, 19(1), 1-15. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-019-4645-5
Catalyst, N. E. J. M. (2018). Hospital readmissions reduction program (HRRP). NEJM Catalyst. https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/cat.18.0194
McIlvennan, C. K., Eapen, Z. J., & Allen, L. A. (2015). Hospital readmissions reduction program. Circulation, 131(20), 1796-1803. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?output=instlink&q=info:YaEUFTWjnlUJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&scillfp=14450481527059171840&oi=lle