Program Planning Evaluation
Program Planning Evaluation
Joanne Glenn
University of Phoenix
DHA 732
June 28, 2021
Introduction
As a new Potential Blogger and scholar learner practitioner, this assignment in the Doctoral
the journey led me to quite a bit of research and synthesizing to understanding the real definition and
meaning of blogging that will facilitate access and the sharing of information and meaningful experience.
Looking at the evaluation process and understanding the value of information, experience, process, and
protocols, as well as the ongoing need for change in health care to address disparities, inequities, and
bias is a primary focus of mine as a Clinician and Advocate.
The purpose of the evaluation is to see if something is working, a program, class, or policy? As a
leader, evaluations can include surveys, questionnaires, focus groups, observation, or experience.
The intent is to have factual information that adds validity and understanding to the process for
all stakeholders.
The following groups listed below can benefit from the evaluation process.
- Community leaders
- County board members, elected officials
- Colleagues
- volunteers,
- collaborators
- funders
- Media
- Grantors
- Agencies
- interest groups
Potential Questions for Evaluations:
Who can benefit from the program?
What stakeholders actually participate in the program? At what level of involvement?
Who benefits from the program? What do they gain?
What is the particular expertise/niche of the organization, and is it supportive?
Effective Communication and dissemination of an evaluation, information, or report are
important. Listed below is a number of sources for the effectiveness of the intended message for
distribution:
- summary briefs
- statement
- videotape, short film
- Pictures, photo
- Charts, bulletin boards
- Slide-tape presentations
- Graphs and visuals
- Media releases
- Internet postings
- Written report
The statement, “We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.” is important and can be
applied with a significant meaning during program evaluation planning. As a Clinician and an individual
with great imagination coupled with some interesting and amazing experiences, the only way to see things
through my lens is based on results, outcomes, and opportunities or lack of. What is experience, regardless
of intent, is the reality of its’ existence.
Program Evaluation for health professionals is important to ensure staying up to date with
changes in research, validity, and community needs. According to Adams and Neville (2020),
the aspect of “What It Is, What It Isn’t, and How to Do” supports the opportunity to get it right,
acknowledging the diversity within the health professional community and should be part of the
evaluation process because of knowledge, attributes, and skills to evaluate the impact of the
services they provide. “Easy Evaluation” provides guidelines for its implementation of proper
evaluation, which many professionals are not included in that process. The framework presented
distinguishes program evaluation from research. This is where health professionals value
judgment can apply an evaluative lens representing merit, worth, and significance of
effective programs, including quality initiatives.
Easy Evaluation comprises six key phases.
According to Bowen et al (2019), and in agreement there is evidence that implementing through
relationships are predictors used in research to enhance collaborations, partnerships and add value to the
design in health service organizations. In support of the need to retool and rethink, while reflecting on the
saying “We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are,” another example of how some barriers
remain in place and the lack of experienced leadership interventions show evidence of informed practices
continuing to marginalize operations and still receive funds for research. Roger et al. (2019) add and
recognizes that designing and evaluating health professions education programs and training should
support the skill set and be recognized as an attribute to program planning and evaluation.
There continues to be a focus on systematic program evaluations and outcomes that compare
industry benchmarks and continuous quality improvement (CQI) as a measure of success.
Leaders realize and accept the need for more engagement of the interprofessional team for
guidance and teamwork to achieve the standards and expectations of the industry. Throgmorton et al.
(2016) highlighted a subject addressed earlier in the discussion channel regarding physician leadership,
which also has a significant role in programs; as part of the interdisciplinary team, all strategies
are important and part of the design for program planning evaluation. Here lies another opportunity to
enhance physician learning, engagement, and relationship building.
Recognizing the digital edge with technology and social media both have a high and interactive roles in
healthcare, governance, ethics, and research must be a synergy between the various stakeholders for
support and ongoing training. The need for evidence-based practice and developing institutional policies
that benefit patients, clinicians, public health practitioners, and industry alike continue to be of high
priority. Grajales et al. (2014). Below is a chart illustrating Program evaluation, description, and
prevention as an example of activities occurring within the industry (Honeycutt et al. (, 2015).
Table 1
Description of Prevention Research Center Evaluations of Initiatives to Change Policies,
Systems, and Environments
The quote that is normally attributed to the writer ANAÏS NIN, “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are,” is also a Talmudic idea about dream analysis: People can only dream about things they have encountered or thought about. So their dreams consist not of reality — whatever that is — but is instead a version filtered through the lens of the dreamer’s experiences.
This clue at 36D jumped out at me in the midst of solving David Phillips’s Saturday crossword because it’s so similar to the way we solve — or try to solve — crossword puzzles. Anecdotally speaking, I could run a clue that involves wordplay by 10 different solvers, and I would probably get at least three unique interpretations of the clue, maybe more.
There’s nothing wrong with that on the surface, except that there can only be one officially correct answer for each entry (unless it’s a Schrödinger puzzle, but I digress.) Some solvers will immediately see the “correct” answer — or at least the answer meant to fit in the slot that day — and others will have to make their way to it by sheer dint of imagination.
We Don’t See Things As They Are, We See Them As We Are
Anaïs Nin? Babylonian Talmud? Immanuel Kant? G. T. W. Patrick? H. M. Tomlinson? Steven Covey? Anonymous?
Comments
Post a Comment