Evidence-based Practice Proposal (Evaluation)
According to Stanhope, and Lancaster, (2014), evaluation is a fundamental step in project management that seeks to check the alignment of the project implementation with the earlier formulated goals. As such, developing an evaluation plan in advance is important for a project to be a success. Of significance in this paper is an evaluation plan of a quality improvement project that aims to introduce a diabetes self-management educational (DSME) program for elderly diabetic patients seeking medical interventions at Cornerstone Family Healthcare. Central to the evaluation are various aspects, namely, the rationale for evaluation, methods of evaluation, statistical tools, backup strategies in case of failure, and implications.
Rationale for Evaluation Process
Primarily, the methods of collecting outcome data that the project developers will employ are laboratory blood tests and diabetes self-management assessment report tool (D-SMART) questionnaire. The blood test will target to establish the primary outcome, serum Hb1Ac levels, while the D-SMART will determine the behavioral changes after the DSME implementation. The rationale for utilizing these methods is their effectiveness in capturing the information on the desired outcomes in a comprehensive manner. For instance, the D-SMART questionnaire fundamentally captures information about secondary outcome measures (behaviors) whose measurement is not easy (Williams, 2014).
Methods of Evaluation
Precisely, evaluation of a project aims at establishing the alignment of the outcome obtained and the set objectives. Similarly, in this case, the outcome measures will indicate the extent of project goals achievement. For example, the improvement of serum Hb1Ac levels after DSME program is indicative of the attainment of the project objective of determining the efficacy of DSME program in the maintenance of glycemic control. Notwithstanding, adoption of new lifestyle behaviors such exercising and healthy eating also affirm the extent of attainment of the project objective. As such, based on these examples, it is beyond doubt that the outcome measures are suggestive of the extent of project’s objectives achievement.
Statistical Tools
In consideration of the statistical elements of the project alongside the existent evidence, it is beyond doubt that tests of validity, reliability, and applicability of the D-SMART questionnaire are not subject to contention. That is for sure as highlighted by Williams, (2014), who noted that this tool has a high test-retest reliability score (97%), content validity of greater than 90% as well as high frequency of application (1400 times). As such, the validity, applicability, and reliability of the outcome measurement method are not under any significant threat based on this information.
Strategies In Case of Failure
Also, worth noting in the evaluation plan are the strategies put in place as backups in the event the outcome measures will not lead to positive results. In this case, a failure to obtain positive results among the elements of the American Association of Diabetes Educator 7 (AADE7) self-care behaviors curriculum will either necessitate a change of the set goal by the patient or allow more time for the positive results to become apparent. Such a strategy is in line with the transtheoretical model of health behavior change, which categorizes individual’s readiness for change embracement. In this line of thinking, the unachieved positive results may be due to the lack of the patient’s readiness to embrace the change as highlighted in the pre-contemplation and contemplation stages of this change model (Prochaska, & Prochaska, 2016). As such, a revisit of the set goal or allowing more time for results to come forth is the logical backup strategy for such a failure.
Implications
Going by the gains of this evaluation plan, several implications for future research and practice are apparent. A case in point of such implications is the need of relying on the D-SMART questionnaire in the determination of behavior changes in diabetic patients. By so doing, the improvement of glycemic control and reduction of diabetes complications are inevitable (Williams, 2014). Additionally, a consideration for future research is the need for assessing the sustainability of the glycemic control after implementation of DSME. With such a consideration, the healthcare personnel will be able to establish the efficacy of DSME programs in the improvement of elderly diabetic patients’ wellbeing and the need for changes.
Conclusion
Concisely, this paper aimed at developing an evaluation plan for a diabetes self-management educational (DSME) program targeted at improving glycemic control among elderly diabetic patients seeking medical interventions at Cornerstone Family Healthcare. Indeed, the discussion has comprehensively achieved this objective since it has managed to capture all the practical details of the evaluation plan. An implication drawn from this analysis is the need for formulating an evaluation plan before the project implementation. Strengthening this need is the unequivocal role that such a plan plays during project implementation. In the absence of such a consideration, however, projects will eventually fail.
References
Prochaska, J. O., & Prochaska, J. M. (2016). Changing to thrive: Using the stages of change to overcome the top threats to your health and happiness.Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Stanhope, M., & Lancaster, J. (2014). Foundations of nursing in the community: Community-oriented practice.St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier/Mosby.
Williams, S. L. (2014). Promoting behavior changes in patients with type 2 diabetes through shared medical appointments. The University of Southern Mississippi.
