. Critique an evaluation plan by sharing at least one strength and one area of improvement.
- Review and evaluate the uploaded powerpoint presentation below.
- 1 page only
- Put APA citation and at least 1 reference dated 2011 to 2016.
Master Plan of Evaluation Summary
The Master Plan of Evaluation for the Southeast group as it relates to Navicent Health’s central line-associated bloodstream infection, CLABSI, project begins with the Director of Staff Development using the Quality Assurance Model to evaluate the program’s Mission, Vision and Philosophy. The Director of Staff Development will ensure the Program’s Mission, Vision, and Philosophy are congruent with that of the organization. A checklist is completed to perform this evaluation.
The next level of evaluation involves individual courses. The courses will be evaluated by the Course Facilitator. He/She will again follow the Quality Assurance Model using competency checklists to ensure the learning objectives will be met for each student. The courses containing simulation components will be videotaped. These videotapes will be evaluated by the Course Facilitator to provide simulation debriefing and objective feedback to students (Cheng et al., 2014).
At the end of the training sessions, students will be asked to complete a checklist indicating their comfort level with the material. This will enable to Course Facilitator to gather data for future course improvements. Students will also be asked to evaluate the training using the Quality Assurance Model with an ultimate goal of determining teaching effectiveness.
In order to determine the effectiveness of the overall program, CLABSI rates must be recorded and tracked. The Infection Control Department will evaluate the CLABSI rate monitoring the rates for pediatric, adult and neonatal intensive care units as well as the pediatric and adult medical-surgical units. They will know the baseline rate one year rate prior to the CLABSI program and will be able to compare the rates after the CLABSI program was implemented.
Justification of Evaluation Design
The overall evaluation philosophy that guides the development of the master plan of evaluation is driven by this program’s objective of reducing the CLABSI rate at Navicent Health (Billings & Halstead, 2016). The success of this program is tied back to this primary objective, and for that reason a Quality Assurance Model is selected to assist in evaluating the program (Billings & Halstead, 2016). The Quality Assurance Model guides the evaluator in the process of program continuous quality improvement and total quality management (Billings & Halstead, 2016). Izumi (2013), also recommends that giving quality service and striving for excellence are the ethical responsibility of professionals especially nursing staff. Quality Assurance help makes sure people have access to quality care and that customer needs and expectations are met by nursing staff to provide adequate and appropriate care. The CLABSI program at Navicent Health will help ensure these goals are achieved by providing quality, meeting the expectations of the patient, family, management and the regulatory body (Izumi, 2013).
This program is meant to evolve and continuously adapt so the CLABSI rate stays below national benchmarks. Benchmarking is an important part of this program, and involves comparing baseline CLABSI rates at Navicent Health to similar facilities nationally (Billings & Halstead, 2016). Baseline CLABSI data also serves as a benchmark to compare future CLABSI data to.
Master Plan of Evaluation Reference in Powerpoint
The master plan of evaluation for Navicent Health’s CLABSI education curriculum is located on slides 14-18.
Program evaluation is crucial in the success of a program. Formative and summative evaluation allows program educators the ability to determine teaching success and student learning outcomes for program effectiveness. Benchmarking and the Quality Assurance Model allow the program to evaluate whether it is successful at decreasing the CLABSI rate at Navicent Health. Evaluation is an essential method to provide educators with information to determine “value, worth, or quality” of the program (Keating, 2015).
Billings, D. M., & Halstead, J. A. (2016). Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Cheng, A., Eppich, W., Grant, V., Sherbino, J., Zendejas, B., & Cook, D. A. (2014).
Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Medical Education in Review, 48(7), 657-666. doi:10.1111/medu.12432
Izumi, S. (2013). Quality improvement in nursing: Administrative mandate or professional
responsibility? Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491580/
Keating, S. B. (Ed.). (2015). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Springer.