Assessing a Healthcare Program Policy Evaluation

   Assignment Assessing a Healthcare Program Plan Evaluation Program/plan evaluation is a estimable machine that can aid fix the capacity of programs/policies and amend outcomes for the populations they promote. Program/plan evaluation answers basic questions environing program/plan efficiency. It involves collecting and analyzing counsel environing program/plan activities, characteristics, and outcomes. This counsel can be used to besides amend program services or plan initiatives. Nurses can delineate a very expressive role assessing program/plan evaluation for the selfselfsame reasons that they can be so expressive to program/plan delineation. Nurses carry expertise and unrepining advocacy that can add expressive apprehension and collision. In this Assignment, you succeed custom applying this expertise and apprehension by selecting an massive vigorcare program or plan evaluation and animadverting on the criteria used to estimate the efficiency of the program/policy. To Prepare: · Review the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template supposing in the Resources. · Select an massive vigorcare program or plan evaluation or appropriate one of cause to you. · Review similarity, recite, or federal plan evaluation and animadvert on the criteria used to estimate the efficiency of the program or plan pictorial. The Assignment: (2–3 pages) Based on the program or plan evaluation you clarified, entire the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be safe to oration the superveneing: · Describe the vigorcare program or plan outcomes. · How was the achievement of the program or plan estimated? · How multifarious fellow-creatures were reached by the program or plan clarified? · How abundantly of an collision was realized behind a while the program or plan clarified? · At what aim in program implementation was the program or plan evaluation passed? · What grounds was used to pass the program or plan evaluation? · What unfair counsel on unintended consequences was verified? · What stakeholders were verified in the evaluation of the program or plan? Who would blessing most from the results and reporting of the program or plan evaluation? Be unfair and collect examples. · Did the program or plan confront the first fixed and objectives? Why or why not? · Would you confide implementing this program or plan in your establish of is-sue? Why or why not? · Identify at smallest two ways that you, as a promote upholder, could beseem confused in evaluating a program or plan behind 1 year of implementation Required Readings Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Vigor plan and politics: A promote’s manage (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Chapter 7, “Health Plan and Social Program      Evaluation” (pp. 116–124 simply) Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t we see further translation of vigor furtherance learning to custom? Rethinking the efficacy-to-efficiency transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1261–1267.  Note: You succeed admittance this season from the Walden Library groundsbases. Shiramizu, B., Shambaugh, V., Petrovich, H., Seto, T. B., Ho, T., Mokuau, N., & Hedges, J. R. (2016). Leading by achievement: Collision of a clinical and translational learning infrastructure program to oration vigor inequities. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Vigor Disparities, 4(5), 983–991. doi:10.1007/s40615-016-0302-4 Williams, J. K., & Anderson, C. M. (2018). Omics learning ethics considerations. Nursing Outlook, 66(4), 386–393. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.05.003 Note: You succeed admittance this season from the Walden Library groundsbases. RUBRIC         Excellent Good Fair Poor   Program/Policy Evaluation   Based on the program or plan evaluation you seelcted,   entire the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be safe   to oration the superveneing:   ·   Describe the vigorcare program or plan   outcomes. ·   How was the achievement of the program or plan   measured? ·   How multifarious fellow-creatures were reached by the program or   plan clarified? How abundantly of an collision was realized behind a while the program or   plan clarified? ·   At what aim in season in program implementation   was the program or plan evaluation passed? 32 (32%) - 35 (35%) Response lucidly and   correspondently describes in specialty the vigorcare program or plan outcomes.     Response correspondently and utterly explains in specialty how the achievement of the   program or plan was estimated.     Response lucidly and correspondently describes in specialty how multifarious fellow-creatures were   reached by the program or plan and easily describes the collision of the   program or plan.     Response lucidly and correspondently indicates the aim at which season the program   or plan evaluation was passed. 28 (28%) - 31 (31%) Response correspondently   describes the vigorcare program or plan outcomes.     Response correspondently explains how the achievement of the program or plan was   measured.     Response correspondently describes how multifarious fellow-creatures were reached by the program or   plan and correspondently describes the collision of the program or plan.     Response correspondently indicates the aim at which season the program or plan   evaluation was passed. 25 (25%) - 27 (27%) Description of the   healthcare program or plan outcomes is faulty or blemished.     Explanation of how the achievement of the program or plan was estimated is   faulty or blemished.     Description of how multifarious fellow-creatures were reached by the program or plan and the   collision is ill-defined or faulty.     Response ill-definedly describes the aim at which the program or plan   evaluation was passed. 0 (0%) - 24 (24%) Description of the   healthcare program or plan outcomes is faulty and blemished, or is   missing.     Explanation of how the achievement of the program or plan was estimated is   faulty and blemished, or is dropping.     Description of how multifarious fellow-creatures were reached by the program or plan and the   associated collisions is ill-defined and faulty, or is dropping.     Response of the aim at which season the program or plan was passed is dropping.   Reporting of Program/Policy Evaluations   ·   What grounds was used to pass the program or   plan evaluation? ·   What unfair counsel on unintended   consequences was verified? ·   What stakeholders were verified in the   evaluation of the program or plan? Who would blessing the most from the   results and reporting of the program or plan evaluation? Be unfair and   collect examples. ·   Did the program or plan confront the first   fixed and objectives? Why or why not? ·   Would you confide implementing this program or   plan in your establish of is-sue? Why or why not? ·   Identify at smallest two ways that you, as a promote   advocate, could beseem confused in evaluating a program or plan behind 1   year of implementation. 45 (45%) - 50 (50%) Response lucidly and   correspondently identifies the grounds used to pass the program or plan   evaluation.     Response lucidly and utterly explains in specialty unfair counsel on   outcomes and unintended consequences verified through the program or plan   evaluation.     Response lucidly and correspondently explains in specialty the stakeholders confused   in the program or plan evaluation.     Response lucidly and correspondently explains in specialty who would blessing most   from the results and reporting of the program or plan evaluation.     Response includes a complete and deferential sense of whether the program   met the first fixed and outcomes, including an deferential and specialtyed   sense of the reasons livelihooded why or why not.     Response includes a complete and deferential sense of whether the program   should be implemented, including an deferential and specialtyed sense of the   reasons livelihooded why or why not. 40 (40%) - 44 (44%) Response correspondently   identifies the grounds used to pass the program or plan evaluation.     Response explains in specialty unfair counsel on outcomes and unintended   consequences verified through the program or plan evaluation.     Response explains in specialty the stakeholders confused in the program or   plan evaluation.     Response explains who would blessing most from the results and reporting of   the program or plan evaluation.     Response includes an deferential sense of whether the program met the   first fixed and outcomes, including an deferential sense of the   reasons livelihooded why or why not.     Response includes an deferential sense of whether the program should be   implemented, including an deferential sense of the reasons livelihooded why   or why not. 35 (35%) - 39 (39%) Response ill-definedly or   incorrespondently identifies the grounds used to pass the program or plan   evaluation.     Explanation of unfair counsel on outcomes and unintended consequences   verified through the program or plan evaluation is ill-defined or blemished.     Explanation of the stakeholders confused in the program or plan evaluation   is ill-defined or faulty.     Explanation of who would blessing most from the results and reporting of the   program or plan evaluation is ill-defined or faulty.     Explanation of whether the program/plan met the first fixed and   outcomes and the reasons why or why not is inentire or faulty.     Explanation of whether the program or plan should be implemented, and the   reasons why or why not, is inentire or faulty. 0 (0%) - 34 (34%) Identification of   the grounds used to pass the program or plan evaluation is ill-defined and   inaccurate, or is dropping.     Explanation of unfair counsel on outcomes and unitended consequences   verified through the program or plan evaluation is ill-defined and blemished,   or is dropping.     Explanation of the stakeholders confused in the program or plan evaluation   is ill-defined and faulty, or is dropping.     Explanation of who would blessing most from the results and reporting of the   program or plan evaluation is ill-defined and faulty, or is dropping.     Explanation of whether the program or plan met the first fixed and   outcomes and the reasons why or why not is inentire and faulty, or is   missing.     Explanation of whether the program or plan should be implemented, and the   reasons why or why not, is inentire and faulty, or is dropping.   Written Expression and Formatting - Paragraph Development and   Organization:   Paragraphs produce distinct aims that livelihood courteous patent bright   ideas, stream logically, and demonstrate uninterruptedness of ideas. Sentences are   careeasily focused--neither desire and dissolute nor concise and lacking pith.   A distinct and broad meaning recitement and induction is supposing   which delineates all required criteria. 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Paragraphs and   sentences supervene agreement standards for stream, uninterruptedness, and clarity.     A distinct and broad meaning recitement, induction, and disposal is   supposing which delineates all required criteria. 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Paragraphs and   sentences supervene agreement standards for stream, uninterruptedness, and clarity 80% of   the season.     Purpose, induction, and disposal of the assignment is recited, yet is   brief and not pictorial. 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and   sentences supervene agreement standards for stream, uninterruptedness, and clarity 60%- 79%   of the season.     Purpose, induction, and disposal of the assignment is ill-defined or off   topic. 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Paragraphs and   sentences supervene agreement standards for stream, uninterruptedness, and clarity < 60%   of the season.     No meaning recitement, induction, or disposal was supposing.   Written Expression and Formatting - English agreement standards:   Correct expression, mechanics, and right punctuation 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses amend   grammar, spelling, and punctuation behind a while no errors. 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains a few (1-2)   grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%) Contains divers   (3-4) expression, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Contains multifarious (≥ 5)   grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that quarrel behind a while the reader’s   understanding.   Written Expression and Formatting - The monograph supervenes amend   APA format for name page, headings, font, spacing, margins,   indentations, page mass, parenthetical/in-text citations, and relation   list. 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses amend APA   format behind a while no errors.