NURS 6050/5050 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Walden University Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation– Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
The introduction for the Walden University Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
How to Write the Body for Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
After the introduction, move into the main part of the Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Healthcare programs and policies form the basis of effective care provision for healthcare organizations and providers. Imperatively, assessing a healthcare program is a valuable tool that helps to strengthen its implementation and attainment of set goals. The assessment also ensures that such programs improve outcomes for the targeted populations. As a core part of healthcare provision, nurses play a critical role in evaluating the programs or policies to ensure that they meet patients’ and health population’s needs. Nurses bring insight and expertise based on their clinical experience as they interact with patients and health populations that benefit from such programs. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) hospital readmission reduction program (HRRP).
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation | Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
|
| Description | At the core of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is to lower the number of readmissions that facilities can have within 30 days after discharging patients. The CMS launched the program in 2012 with the aim of improving the healthcare provider’s quality of care to incentivize reimbursement. According to the American Hospital (AHA), the CMS penalizes hospitals when they have “excess” readmissions when they compare them to the expected numbers. Additionally, Figueroa et al. (2022) assert that the overall aim of the HRRP was to encourage hospitals in developing effective policies to enhance their discharge planning, care transitions and coordination of care after discharge to reduce the increased cost burden for patients and their families Under HRRP, the CMS tracks readmission of patients admitted for certain conditions that include heart attack, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pneumonia as well as elective hip and knee replacement.
|
| How was the success of the program or policy measured?
|
The success of this policy is critical to ensuring that patients get quality and safe healthcare services. Studies and reports have measured the success of the program by reporting on changes in the readmission rates and the amount in penalties that facilities have been fined for not complying with the provisions. The program’s success entails looking at the reduction in readmissions and improvement of quality for patients with the targeted conditions. The American Hospital Association (AHA) asserts that since its inception hospitals have prevented over 565,000 readmissions. Several studies have demonstrated that many patients have not had to get readmitted due to effective discharge planning and care provision |
| 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 HRRP initially targeted individuals with three chronic conditions that include COPD, pneumonia, and heart failure. However, the program expanded to reach more people with other conditions like heart attack and elective hip and knee replacement. As such, a majority of Medicare patients have benefited from this program. In their study, Ibrahim et al. (2018) explores the effects of HRRP on readmissions in surgical settings among Medicare beneficiaries. The study show that HRRP is an effective program that has had significant impacts on quality of care and better patient outcomes. Gai et a; (2019) opine that the program has developed the right incentives for facilities to reduce readmissions not just for the targeted population but also for others leading to significant societal benefits. The impact of HRRP is substantial with reduced costs of care and better quality services for patients. |
| At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? | The evaluation of the program is continuously and happened after its effective roll out by the CMS. The policy was evaluated after about 1 year of implementation to determine its effectiveness. The evaluation occurs each year and where there is a need for better information at any time, the evaluation of the policy happens to meet stakeholders’ needs. |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
|
Evaluation of the program used data from different entities to determine the credibility. Data from hospital records, especially admission records, was used in evaluating the policy. Using this approach, stakeholders can conduct the evaluation at different levels, from organizational to federal level. Again, the stakeholders used official government data and reports to evaluate the program. The evaluation is important as it illustrates areas working in the program and those that need corrective measures. |
| What specific information on unintended consequences were identified?
|
The specific information about the unintended consequences of the program include penalties against healthcare organizations to encourage them to embrace the practice. Again, while the program targeted three chronic conditions, its unintended effects included having more individuals come for treatment as opposes to advice only. The other unintended effect is that healthcare organizations and facilities are concentrating on reducing readmissions instead of accepting patients and offering care as required. |
| 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 in the evaluation process included patients and their families, healthcare providers like nurses and physicians, healthcare agencies, especially the CMS. The evaluation would benefit a host of stakeholders (Qiu et al., 1000). The results and reporting of the evaluation will benefit patients and their families since they will know that one can only be discharged based on the provisions of the act (Figuero et al., 2019). Again, healthcare organizations, especially those under CMS with benefit as it will mean that they would not incur addition costs for certain conditions and diseases. Again, reporting the findings will benefit healthcare agencies and non-profit organizations that are keen on providing quality care to their patients.
|
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
|
The HRRP program met the initially intention and objectives. The original intent of the program was to penalize facilities for having high readmission rates. Since its execution the rate of readmission has declined with more hospitals embracing its provisions to reduce their susceptibility to adverse outcomes. The number of penalized facilities have also increased leading to development of EBP interventions to reduce readmissions and offer quality patient care to all populations |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? | The model is a critical part of attaining quality patient outcomes and reducing readmissions. Imperatively, I would recommend implementing this program since it is effective in dealing with the increased rates of readmissions in hospitals. I would recommend the program to improve quality of care and patient safety. The program incentivizes facilities to develop effective quality measures to reduce readmission through better discharge plans and care coordination. Recommending this program will also help develop new approaches and measures to deliver quality care in the current workplace. |
| 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 as patient advocates are a core part of the healthcare system. As a nurse, one can be becoming involved in evaluating a program within one year after its implementation by conducting surveys and documenting data about the changes in their settings. The second way is to be a member of the review team and participate in the evaluation of all aspects of the program (Qiu et al., 2022). AS patient advocates, nurses can lobby for the program’s increased deployment in healthcare facilities.
|
| General Notes/Comments | The HRRP by the CMS demonstrates that hospitals can reduce the associated costs of readmissions by having sufficient resources and investing in facilities, especially the expansion of existing ones. The implementation of the HRRP will lead to better interactions among healthcare providers. Therefore, while it incentivizes facilities for treating patient and reducing admissions, the program is delicate but superb for end users. |
Conclusion
Policy valuation is an important part of understanding program’s efficacy as it allows stakeholders to assess the influence or impact of their suggested solutions. Policy evaluation leads to changes and ensuring that facilities focus on quality care as opposed to having patients who return. The implication is that policy or program evaluation enables organizations to identify possible areas that require interventions.
References
American Hospital Association (n.d). Hospital Readmission Reduction Program.
https://www.aha.org/hospital-readmission-reduction-program/hospital-readmission-reduction-program
Figueroa, J. F., & Wadhera, R. K. (2022). A decade of observing the Hospital Readmission Reductions Program—time to
retire an ineffective policy. JAMA Network Open, 5(11), e2242593-e2242593. DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42593
Gai, Y., & Pachamanova, D. (2019). Impact of the Medicare hospital readmissions reduction program on vulnerable
populations. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 1-15.
Ibrahim, A. M., & Dimick, J. B. (2019). A decade later, lessons learned from the hospital readmissions reduction program.
JAMA network open, 2(5), e194594-e194594. DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4594
Qiu, L., Kumar, S., Sen, A., & Sinha, A. P. (2022). Impact of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program on hospital
readmission and mortality: An economic analysis. Production and Operations Management, 31(5), 2341-2360.
https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13724
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation |
The Effects of Affordable Care Act(ACA) on Diabetes Biomarkers |
| Description |
The Affordable Care Act main aim was to extend insurance coverage to uninsured America by expanding private and public insurance. The insurance policy is aimed at advocating for the employer to cover their workers except for small employers in paying penalties. The implementation of the Affordable Care Act has led to greater improvements in diabetes-related biomarkers by facilitating appropriate care to the biomarkers. |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured? |
The success of determining the effect of the Affordable Care Act was measured by the use of electronic health record data based on the retrospective observational cohort study based on 178 communities’ health centers. The main focus was on comparing the newly insured and continuously insured patients based on the pre to post Affordable Care Act. The primary outcomes were based on the change of 24 months of pre and post ACA in diastolic blood pressure, glycosylated hemoglobin, systolic and LDL cholesterol levels. |
| 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 people that were reached ranged between the ages of 19 to 64 years who had been diagnosed with diabetes when Medicaid expansion was modified to the use of ACA. The program was inclusive of all genders and intended at determining the change that has been influenced since the adoption of the Affordable Care Act based on a patient with diabetes biomarkers. The impact that was realized includes that the newly insured patients exhibited a reduction in the glycosylated hemoglobin which was different for a patient with continuous uninsured patients. Additionally, newly insured patients identified a reduction based on the systolic as compared to the continuously uninsured patients. |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? |
The data used to determine the effect of the Affordable Care Act on the patient with diabetes biomarkers was obtained from the electronic health record. The electronic health record provided data for 10 states that expanded Medicaid on 1 st January 2014. |
| What specific | The specific information on unintended consequences that were identified is that the newly insured patients
experienced a greater increase in diabetes-related biomarkers as compared to the continuously uninsured |
| information on unintended consequences was identified? | patients. The improvement was attributed to the appropriate diabetes care that came as a result of acquiring Affordable Care Act-based diabetes-related biomarkers. |
| 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 in the evaluation of the policy included the newly insured patient with diabetes biomarkers and the continuously uninsured. Those that benefited most from the evaluation are the newly insured patient by the Affordable Care Act. For instance, the newly insure patient receives appropriate diabetes care leading to an increase in diabetes-related biomarkers. |
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? | The program met the intended and the objective since it was easy to determine the effect of the Affordable Care Act on the patient with diabetes biomarkers.In the end, it was determined that it is important to adopt the use of the Affordable Care Act which helps in reducing the rate of mortality and morbidity caused by diabetes. |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work?
Why or why not? |
I would recommend the implementation of the Affordable Care Act to cover patients with diabetes biomarkers thus reducing the cases of death as a result of the disorder. The program will encourage more newly insured patients with diabetes which will lead to efficacy in service delivery and determine improvement for the patient with blood pressure and lipid levels and is an effective way to promote the operation and attract more customers. |
| 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 will be involved in evaluating a program and policy after the year by engaging the stakeholders to ensure that the evaluation process is successful and involve all the participants .Additionally, a nurse advocate would support the patient in developing their self-care by providing the guidance instructed by that registered nurse. |
| General |
| Notes/Comments | Although some changes might seem small base on an individual level, the adoption of the Affordable Care Act leads to an improvement to the patient with diabetes biomarkers.For instance, a decrease in the rate of morbidity and mortality is significant since a patient with diabetes can access appropriate care by being insured. Affordable Care Act helps patients exhibited a reduction in the glycosylated hemoglobin which was different for a patient with continuous uninsured patients |
References
Marino, M., Angier, H., Springer, R., Valenzuela, S., Hoopes, M., O’malley, J., … & Huguet, N. (2020). The Affordable Care Act: effects
of insurance on diabetes biomarkers. Diabetes Care, 43(9), 2074-2081. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-1571
Shiramizu, B., Shambaugh, V., Petrovich, H., Seto, T. B., Ho, T., Mokuau, N., & Hedges, J. R. (2017). Leading by success: Impact of a clinical and translational research infrastructure program to address health inequities. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health . https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40615-016-0302-4
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.
| 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
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
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Program/Policy EvaluationBased 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? |
|
|||||
|
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. |
|
|||||
|
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, low 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. |
|
|||||
|
Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
|
|||||
|
Written Expression and Formatting:The paper follows correct APA format for title page, font, spacing, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list). |
|
|||||