NURS 6050 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
NURS 6050 Assignment Assessing a Healthcare Program Policy Evaluation
Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
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.
Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Healthcare programs or policies can be state-based, community-based, or at the organizational level. They are formulated to address specific health programs. Evaluation helps to determine healthcare programs’ effectiveness. In most cases, evaluation is progressive if the program or policy is continuous. It can also be done at different intervals depending on the objectives. The purpose of this program evaluation analysis is to examine the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, whose main aim is to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6050 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Excellent research and topic. I had no idea about the Saves Lives Act. Remarkably, the act removed some of the legal limits on medical care so that the VA can provide to Veterans based on health care eligibility and priority groups (Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, 2021). Legal limits on medical care are insane to me, especially for those who have fought for our country. This program was beneficial and did prove effective—the number of Veterans, their spouses, and caregivers who have become vaccinated after this increased significantly. As you mentioned, the number of people eligible for covid vaccines has risen from 9.5 million to more than 33 million. I’m not great with numbers, but that is a huge spike. This legislation saved veterans’ lives and protected their families while promoting veteran employment and education opportunities (U.S Senate Committee, 2022). Not only did this policy help with the covid pandemic, but it also created new opportunities in the community.
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation | The Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program evaluation |
| Description | The REACH program started in 1999 to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). It is a national program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Generally, the program’s recipients carry out extensive local and culturally appropriate programs to address a wide range of issues faced by racial and ethnic minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians. The primary objective is to promote health disparities related to chronic illnesses, mental health, preventive health, and overall health coverage (Carratala & Maxwell, 2020). The program also seeks to improve healthy behaviors. |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured?
|
After a decade, the REACH had significant success as far as its targets are concerned. However, instead of evaluating the program generally, REACH uses data to evaluate the change in the health status of its target communities. For instance, it used data between 2014 and 2018 to assess the number of people it has helped access healthy foods, access to chronic health programs, and opportunities for physical activity. A progressive increase in the population it serves is the primary success indicator. |
| 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 evaluation between 2014 and 2018 showed that millions of people have benefitted in various ways under the REACH program. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020), over 2.9 million people had better access to healthy foods and beverages, while over 322,000 people benefitted directly from tobacco-free interventions. CDC further reported that about 1.4 million people got opportunities for physical activity, as over 830,000 people got access to chronic disease programs (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). Using these reflection points, there is no denying that the impact of the REACH program cannot be underestimated. |
| At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? | The REACH program is continuous, where evaluation is done at different implementation points. In most cases, evaluation happens after the completion of a project at the community level. As illustrated in the various CDC reports, evaluation can be after a decade or after some years, depending on the element being assessed. |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
|
Change in health behaviors was the reference data for the evaluation between 2001 and 2009. For instance, Hispanic taking medication for hypertension increased from less than half to more than two-thirds of the affected population. In the same period, vaccination rates for pneumonia increased from 50.5% to 60.5% in black communities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). The other data is the impact across REACH communities through a 2009-2012 evaluation. The data examined reduction in smoking and obesity rates in REACH communities. |
| What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
|
The program’s impact is huge as far as disparities’ reduction is concerned. However, impact evaluation showed that ethnic gaps continue being affected by societies, culture, and the environment (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). As a result, REACH must use many strategies to address health gaps to ensure that health performance in ethnic and racial minorities reaches the desired state. |
| 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. |
REACH partners with local health departments, community-based organizations, universities, and tribes. Respective partners were consulted during program evaluation to determine success and areas of improvement. On who would benefit from results and reporting of the program evaluation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be the primary beneficiary. CDC would use the report to examine the health performance in the minority groups as the basis of improving outcomes or using other interventions to supplement outcomes.
|
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
|
To a huge extent, REACH achieved the original intent using the data from the different evaluations. CDC reports reveal significant community successes, including reducing chronic illnesses and unhealthy behaviors such as smoking as access to healthy food and beverages and physical health activities increases. |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
|
I would recommend the program in my place of work. Firstly, health care organizations should partners with national and community-based organizations to reduce health disparities. Carratala and Maxwell (2020) reported that ethnic and racial minorities continue to be burdened by chronic illnesses and mental health problems. Since such illness burden at the communities has a domino effect in health care organizations, it is crucial to implement the REACH program to improve health outcomes in underserved populations.
|
| 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 I could be involved in evaluating a program after one year of implementation is by being part of the evaluation committee. Here, I can share my knowledge on the reference points to consider when determining whether a program was a success or not. The other way is to avail information concerning the program by performing individual research. My information would guide on how to conduct a summative evaluation of the program. |
| General Notes/Comments | Evaluation reliably indicates whether a program achieved the desired outcomes. Healthcare programs can be at the state, community, or organizational levels, and their evaluation can be yearly, terminal, or progressive, as considered appropriate. Nurses should advocate for program evaluation to determine their success and provide the basis for continuous improvement. |
References NURS 6050 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Carratala, S., & Maxwell, C. (2020, May 7). Health disparities by race and ethnicity. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2020/05/07/484742/health-disparities-race-ethnicity/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, Mar 10).REACH program impact. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-programs/reach/program_impact/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, Jul 15). Racial and ethnic approaches to community health. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-programs/reach/index.htm
NURS 6050 Assignment Assessing a Healthcare Program Policy Evaluation Rubric
| 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
NURS 6050 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Grading Rubric
| Performance Category | 100% or highest level of performance
100% 16 points |
Very good or high level of performance
88% 14 points |
Acceptable level of performance
81% 13 points |
Inadequate demonstration of expectations
68% 11 points |
Deficient level of performance
56% 9 points
|
Failing level
of performance 55% or less 0 points |
| Total Points Possible= 50 | 16 Points | 14 Points | 13 Points | 11 Points | 9 Points | 0 Points |
| Scholarliness
Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic topics. |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements
|
| 16 Points | 14 Points | 13 Points | 11 Points | 9 Points | 0 Points | |
| Application of Course Knowledge
Demonstrate the ability to analyze and apply principles, knowledge and information learned in the outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements
|
| 10 Points | 9 Points | 6 Points | 0 Points | |||
| Interactive Dialogue
Initial post should be a minimum of 300 words (references do not count toward word count) The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each (references do not count toward word count) Responses are substantive and relate to the topic. |
Demonstrated all of the following:
|
Demonstrated 3 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 2 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:
|
||
| 8 Points | 7 Points | 6 Points | 5 Points | 4 Points | 0 Points | |
| Grammar, Syntax, APA
Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition Error is defined to be a unique APA error. Same type of error is only counted as one error. |
The following was present:
AND
AND
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
| 0 Points Deducted | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Participation
Requirements |
Demonstrated the following:
|
Failed to demonstrate the following:
|
||||
| 0 Points Lost | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Due Date Requirements | Demonstrated all of the following:
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |
Demonstrates one or less of the following.
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |