Assignment: Assessing A Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Assignment: Assessing A Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
The primary goal of a healthcare program is to prevent or control disease, injury, disability, and death. Evaluation of a healthcare program allows stakeholders to analyze its operations, including which activities took place, who conducted the activities, and who was reached as a result (Adams & Neville, 2020). Healthcare programs are evaluated to track progress toward the program’s objectives and establish whether the program’s interventions generate the expected progress on outcomes (Adams & Neville, 2020). Evaluation results are used to validate the need for additional funding and support and to identify opportunities for continuous quality improvement. This paper seeks to describe an evaluated healthcare program, including how success was measured, people reached by the program, data used for evaluation, impacted stakeholders, and my recommendations for the program.
Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation |
Better Choices Better Health Diabetes (BCBH-D) Self-Management Program. |
Description |
|
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? |
|
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? |
|
What specific information on unintended consequences were identified? | Some participants did not attend all the program’s sessions and, as a result, did not complete the program’s entire course (Turner et al., 2018). |
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 one year of implementation. | A nurse advocate can become involved in a program’s evaluation after implementation by:
|
General Notes/Comments |
|
Conclusion
Healthcare programs aim to solve complex health problems, in which the solutions must include engaging community members and organizations in a coalition. The BCBH-D Self-Management Program was an online program that enrolled 558 diabetic patients. The goal of the program was to reduce healthcare utilization and costs associated with Diabetes. The success of the program was measured using data on diabetes-specific utilization and costs. It led to decreased all-cause utilization, reduced ED and outpatient visits, reduced unadjusted total all-cause medical costs, and increased direct cost savings. I would recommend a similar program in our organization and include interventions for patients with other chronic illnesses to reduce healthcare costs and improve healthcare outcomes.
References
Adam, L., O’Connor, C., & Garcia, A. C. (2018). Evaluating the impact of Diabetes self-management education methods on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 42(5), 470-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.11.003
Adams, J., & Neville, S. (2020). Program Evaluation for Health Professionals: What It Is, What It Isn’t and How to Do It. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920964345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920964345
Issel, L. M. (2016). Health Program Planning And Evaluation: What Nurse Scholars Need To Know. Practice-Based Clinical Inquiry in Nursing: Looking Beyond Traditional Methods, 3.
Turner, R. M., Ma, Q., Lorig, K., Greenberg, J., & DeVries, A. R. (2018). Evaluation of a Diabetes Self-Management Program: Claims Analysis on Comorbid Illnesses, Health Care Utilization, and Cost. Journal of medical Internet research, 20(6), e207. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9225
One health policy that has been implemented in Michigan is The Trauma Policy. The Trauma policy promotes the understanding of trauma and the impact it leaves behind, it ensures the development of a trauma-informed system, the availability of trauma specific services (MDHHS, 20). The evaluation for this policy is done through the Trauma Performance Improvement Plan, this evaluates the care that patients receive post-trauma.
The criteria to measure trauma care is continuous, system wide analysis and multi-disciplinary peer review (Michigan, 2020). According to Michigan (2020), the peer review committee is made up of Ortho surgeon, trauma director, general surgery and more. They identify issues and try to correct them.
The social determinants for Trauma are actually none, except maybe the health care access and quality, depending on if you had a level one trauma hospital near you. But trauma could happen to anyone anytime, a car accident, lightning strike or any other trauma.
References
MDHHS. (2020). Trauma Policy . Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities Administration. https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/-/media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Folder3/Folder88/Folder2/Folder188/Folder1/Folder288/Trauma-Policy.pdf?rev=928ce68949f640cfbdce418cd872cdfb&hash=523665704845D840061276482CEF0236
Michigan. (2020). Trauma Program Performance Improvement Plan . Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/-/media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Folder3/Folder93/Folder2/Folder193/Folder1/Folder293/PI_Plan_Template_SOM.pdf?rev=b20c63fe6bdd42098ce41c373e291ef2&hash=89FB9BB9FA3EA613CC22FD6F2C76030A
Social Determinants of Health. Social Determinants of Health – Healthy People 2030. (n.d.). https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health
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. Assignment: Assessing A Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
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 and get approval to use it from your Instructor.
- Review the healthcare program or policy evaluation and reflect on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program or policy described.
By Day 7 of Week 10
Submit your completed healthcare program/policy evaluation analysis.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)†as the name.
Click the Week 10 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 10 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric†for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)†and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER!!! Assignment: Assessing A Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
NRSE 6050 Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health
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.
Module 6
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.).
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Chapter 7, “Health Policy and Social Program Evaluation” (pp. 116–124 only)
Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t we see more translation of
health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition.
American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1261–1267.
Shiramizu, B., Shambaugh, V., Petrovich, H., Seto, T. B., Ho, T., Mokuau, N., & Hedges, J. R.
(2016). Leading by success: Impact of a clinical and translational research infrastructure program
to address health inequities. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4(5), 983–991.
Williams, J. K., & Anderson, C. M. (2018). Omics research ethics considerations. Nursing
Outlook, 66(4), 386–393. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.05.003
Document: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Template (Word document)
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). The Importance of Program Evaluation [Video file].
Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Peter Beilenson: Ethics and advocacy [Video file].
Baltimore, MD: Author.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6050_Module05_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
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?
Points Range: 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
Response clearly and accurately describes in detail the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
Response accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the success of the program or policy was measured.
Response clearly and accurately describes in detail how many people were reached by the program or policy and fully describes the impact of the program or policy.
Response clearly and accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted.
Points Range: 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Response clearly and accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.
Response clearly and thoroughly explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation.
Response clearly and accurately explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation.
Response clearly and accurately explains in detail who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation.
Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.
Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Identification of the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unitended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague and incomplete, or is missing.
Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of whether the program or policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing.
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
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.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
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, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Total Points: 100
Evaluation of health policies and programs is critical as it assists in improving the outcomes and effectiveness of such initiatives on target population. Evaluation entails collections and analysis of information concerning policy features activities and results so that stakeholders can enhance the initiative. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a program on HIV/AIDS aimed at reducing the spread of the disease by the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (AIPAC) to ascertain its effectiveness
Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation | International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (IAPAC)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as a health issue has different aspects that include social, political and economic impacts. IAPAC is an association of physicians established in 1995 with the aim of representing HIV-treating doctors and allied healthcare providers across the world.
|
Description | The IAPAC program focuses on a host of components on HIV, right from treatment and prevention to developing a heterogeneous response to HIV. The aim of the IAPAC program and institution is to development of normative guidance, carrying out capacity building activities and engagement in advocacy to support efforts to control the HIV epidemic at all levels. |
How was the success of the program or policy measured? | IAPAC program utilizes its annual Adherence Conference to evaluate or assess the success of its initiatives. The objectives of the conference include assessing effectiveness of self-reports, evaluating the use of clinical trials in relation to objective adherence and use of other evidence-based interventions. Therefore, measuring the success of the program is critical to its overall effectiveness on the target population. |
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 IAPAC program has reached millions of individuals in different parts of the world living with HIV/AIDS. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) close to 40 million people were living with HIV/AIDS. Further, about 1.7 million get infected each year. All these people are potential beneficiaries of the program (IAPAC, 2021). The IAPAC has services in five regions across the world. These include Africa, which is the most affected, Asia/Pacific, Latin America, North America, and Europe. The program’s impacts include reducing AIDS-related deaths by close to 35% between 2010 and 2017, and preventing new child infections by close to 1.5 million incidents (Brazier et al., 2019). The program has allowed countries to develop effective interventions to prevent further spread of the condition among vulnerable population through resource provision. |
At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? | Evaluation of the IAPAC program is done annually through its Adherence Conference where new objectives are set for the coming year. This implies that each year, the stakeholders review the program and seek better ways to enhance its effectiveness to the targeted population (IAPAC, 2021b). |
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? | Program evaluation focuses on various aspects that include processes, resource allocation, feedback and overall impact on target population. Program implementers attain this data through surveys where they collect both qualitative and quantitative information. IAPAC program has used all these approaches to evaluate the impact of this initiative. For instance, it has conducted surveys by contracting firms to evaluate the effects of its interventions in five different regions around the world. These surveys were critical as they revealed significant information on various components like health status, adherence and tolerance to present regime and side effects of different HIV/AIDS medications, and resistance in HIV/AIDS medications. |
What specific information on unintended consequences were identified? | The program’s unintended consequences included increased stigmatization and discrimination of individuals with HIV/AIDS that reduce the use of services rolled out through the initiative. IAPAC also observes that the program’s rollout also increased isolation and marginalization of individuals with the condition. The program’s rollout also affected the ability of HIV/AIDS patients to lead healthy lives. A core aspect of the unintended effects of the program was the passage of legislations in over 32 states and two territories in the U.S. that criminalize the failure to disclose an individual’s HIV status (HIV.GOV, n.d). Before the program, many states did not have these laws. |
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. | HIV/AIDS affects different types of stakeholders and it is essential to engage, coordinate with, and mobilize them to encounter the disease. Stakeholders in such programs play different roles. Therefore, it is essential to develop, maintain, and leverage both formal and informal interactions among the different stakeholders; right from government agencies to civil society (IAPAC, 2021). The program’s stakeholders include individuals living with HIV/AIDS, healthcare workers, governments and their agencies, local community leaders, medical associations, nursing association and faith-based organizations as well as nongovernmental bodies. Individuals living with HIV/AIDS and their families, healthcare workers, and government would benefit the most from effective outcomes of this program. People living with HIV/AIDS benefit through access to better treatment regimes, healthy living information, and increased evidence on the best way to manage the condition (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2019). Healthcare workers attain benefits as they understand new treatment trends and how to deal with patients. Healthcare workers benefit from more knowledge on attainment of safety measures to counter the problem. |
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? | The program’s ambitious but achievable targets require more resources and involvement of more stakeholders. Basing on targets by the UNAIDS, the program hoped to reduce infections, increase access to antiretroviral therapy and more suppression of the virus. The program hoped to attain all these by close to 90% by 2020 (IAPAC, 2021). However, this has not happened since not close to 90% of individuals with HIV/AIDS across the world have access to quality antiretroviral treatment. For instance, the success in saving lives does not align with the overall goal of reducing new HIV infections. Further, stigma and discrimination are still a significant concern with women and girls being disproportionately impacted by the disease in different parts of the world, especially in developing countries. The program may have attained close to 75% of its original intent and requires more efforts to achieve the set objectives (IAPAC, 2021). |
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? | The program continues to register success in different countries and regions across the world because of its benefits and efforts to reduce HIV/AIDS and its effects to populations. The IAPAC developed this program for an international perspective and not for institutional implementation. Therefore, while I would recommend the program for the workplace, it is not feasibility because of its overall scope. I would not recommend it because it requires more resources and involvement of different stakeholders, which the organization lacks the capacity to rollout. |
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. | Nurses can apply similar principles in assessing the impact and effectiveness of the program just like the evaluate clinical interventions, processes and procedures (Milstead & Short, 2019). Nurses are critical players in policy planning and evaluation with the aims of promoting and illustrating leadership among professional nurses and meeting the quadruple aims of healthcare. Nurses possess knowledge, experience and skills that allow them to participate in policy evaluation in different ways that include developing interventions to assess the effectiveness of the set policies (Milstead & Short, 2019). Nurses can also leverage their skills to develop better ways of engaging stakeholders like legislators to establish policies that align with the healthcare needs of their respective populations. |
General Notes/Comments | The IAPAC program is an initiative whose mission is to enhance access to and improve the quality of life of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in different parts of the world. The program’s focus includes improving the quality of prevention, care, and intervention regimens offered to individuals living with and impacted by HIV and the associated comorbidities. The program is an initiative where the U.S. plays a critical role in providing resources from human expertise to material input to reduce the rate of infections and other components of HIV/AIDS around the world. |
Conclusion
Policy evaluation allows stakeholders to assess the effectiveness of a health care program to enhance quality and delivery of care. The evaluation of this policy shows that significant strides have been made and achieved in controlling the prevalence of HIV/AIDS across the world. The implication is that health care policies should focus on communities and individuals that require interventions to improve access to health services. The policy has played a critical role in reducing the effects of HIV/AIDS in the world, especially the worst hit areas in developing world.
References
Brazier, E., Maruri, F., Duda, S. N., Tymejczyk, O., Wester, C. W., Somi, G., … & Wools‐Kaloustian, K. (2019). Implementation of
“Treat‐all” at adult HIV care and treatment sites in the Global Ie DEA Consortium: results from the Site Assessment Survey. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 22(7), e25331. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25331
HIV.GOV (n.d). U.S. Government Global HIV/AIDS Activities.
https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/pepfar-global-aids/us-government-global-aids-activities
International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) (2021). About: History.
The U.S. Government and Global Health
International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) (2021b). Adherence 2021.
https://web.cvent.com/event/43ce2fde-9727-4b0a-81a4-6353bd5a08c6/summary
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) (2019). The U.S. Government and Global Health.
The U.S. Government and Global Health
Milstead, J.A., & Short, N.M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed). A. Derouin (Ed.). Health policy and Social
program evaluation (pp. 116-1214). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
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
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on Assignment: Assessing A Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
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
Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.