Design a Program Evaluation Addressing Community Needs for Initiative on Cardiovascular

Design a program evaluation addressing community needs for initiative on cardiovascular disease

            Program evaluation is a combination of steps taken to address certain community needs. Steps to be followed include  engagement of stakeholders, description of the program, focusing on the evaluation design, gathering credible evidence, justifying conclusions, ensuring the use, and sharing of lessons learnt. Effective program evaluation ensures that it has served the needs of information for its intended users; it is realistic, diplomatic, and prudent. It is also accurate and legal.

Program evaluation on cardiovascular disease

It begins with identification of the case and contacts, diagnose of the disease, prescription of effective treatment, starting of treatment, complete of treatment and establishment of cure case to reduce cardiovascular cases and improve population. Infrastructure components include health information systems, trained staff, community trust, effective organization, and research results (University of Chicago Medical center, 2016). Heart disease prevention programs are conducted because cardiologists have found problems which if left untreated could end up in heart diseases. Some risk factors include, hypertension, high cholesterol, smoking, obesity, related family history and personal history of vascular diseases.

Evaluation tests

Evaluation process includes review of medical history, performance of examination, ordering if required tests such as cholesterol tests, reading of blood pressure, homocysteine test, electrocardiogram(ECG/EKG), ad echocardiogram. Homocysteine test measures levels of specific amino acids in the blood (University of Chicago Medical Center,2016). It is related to higher risk of coronary heart diseases, peripheral vascular disease and stroke. Electrocardiogram tests electrical activity of the heart performed as patients run or perform certain activities. Echocardiogram test uses sound waves to study the function and anatomy of the heart.

Steps in program evaluation addressing community needs for initiative on cardiovascular disease

Engaging stakeholders

Stakeholders for this program include general community, board members, patients suffering from cardiovascular diseases, partnerships and other interested parties. They enable researchers to understand their personal perspectives. In addition, sponsors and funding officials of heart disease patients are included. Academic institutions, neighborhood organizations and advocacy groups are necessary (UAB school of medicine, 2015. Primary intended users of the evaluation are responsible for making decisions with the findings.

Description of the program

Cardiovascular diseases are among common diseases that are causing high number of deaths in the world. The program intends to address community needs for initiative on cardiovascular disease. The main goal is to reduce the number of infected patients and sensitize them on best living styles that would reduce chances of contracting heart diseases. Moreover, patients will benefit from the program through advice given by clinicians on best practices.

Expectations: The program expects to cover most parts of our province addressing their needs on cardiovascular disease and help them on how to solve them (UAB school of medicine, 2015).

Activity: The program aims at promoting adoption of food service guidelines together with nutrition standards that include sodium. It also promotes adoption of physical education and physical activities in schools and early child care centers and sites of work. It also promotes reporting rates of hypertension and A1C,team-based care. Promote high blood pressure awareness among patients and pre diabetes among people at risk of Diabetes type 2. Promote participation in American Diabetes Association and self management programs.

Resources: The program will devote its time, equipment, money, information, and talent to conduct the program.

Focus the evaluation design

It includes prior planning regarding the progress of the program and the steps that will be involved. It avoids wastage of resources and time. The purpose of a conducting an evaluation test is to gain insight on whether to use a different approach, to improve the way things are done and the effects of the program. To affect participants through empowering them, supplement the programs through use of questionnaires; promote development of staff on its collection, analysis and interpretation of the program (Kansas University, 2015). Lastly, it contributes to growth of organizations.

Proposed pilot study

The proposed pilot study will make use of questionnaires regarding family histories to get patients at risk of contracting inherited cardiovascular disease. The questionnaire will have 21 questions developed according to the experience of a cardiovascular genetic counselor. It will be administered to 39 patients at university based cardiology practice that reflects general and specialized aspects of cardiovascular medicine (Kansas University, 2015). The pilot study will identify those at high or low risk of contracting heart diseases, those with histories of hypertension, coronary artery disease, arrhythmia disorders and diabetes.

Description of your proposed evaluation of the pilot study including a tool (Six Sigma, TQM, etc…) to improve the proposed piloted processes

The pilot study will be evaluated using perceptions of students and the faculty, evaluation of course materials and through administering Team Effectiveness Tool(TET). Wilcoxon test will be used to analyze the results.

Description of what other health care organizations and/or nongovernmental organizations have done to address your initiative

Cardiovascular disease residency evaluation committee established in January 200 reviews the performance of each cardiology patient. Members include training program director, director of the division of cardiovascular disease, chief cardiology fellow and faculty representatives. The committee assesses competence level of residents evaluating each faculty as it is in their files. The assessment is done in writing and recorded in program files for future reference.

Evaluation process

Each fellow valuation is done in each clinical rotation by supervising member of faculty, which is completed in rotations of every six months. Research mentors conduct research every six months. They meet with their program directors semi-annually to review every evaluation done, report on their research and clinical progress, and offer feedback on their fellowship program structure and content (Kansas University, 2015). Cardiology people can fully access their evaluation done in their trainings soon after completion.

Program evaluation

At this stage fellows evaluate cardiology fellowship program with their program directors during semi-annual meetings and through evaluations of anonymous rotations and attending. Evaluations are accessible to attendants who use constructive feedback to better their skills in teaching, division directors use them during faculty reviews. Feedback is used in certain rotations to make changes and improvements to contents of programs and logistics.

Follow up: Cardiology fellows maintain communication with directors of programs, teaching faculties and research sectors. Program directors and trainees hold group meetings to disseminate information, receive timely feedback, address concerns, and provide feedback (Kansas University, 2015).

ABIM Tracking: Program directors submit annual evaluations of fellows to IBM, which comprise of performance in their teaching conferences, identified strengths and weaknesses and personal interactions with program directors.

Recommendations

Specialists give out recommendations after performance of cardiovascular tests. Clinicians recommend medications that control high blood pressure reduce levels of cholesterol and improve heart pumps. They recommend ceasing smoking. Weight control programs and exercise programs as well as stress management program (University of Chicago Medical center, 2016).

Justifying conclusions

Evidences in evaluation should be justified compared to gather evidences and judgment conducted according to values that are agreed upon. Principle elements involved include use of proper standards that reflect values held by stakeholders regarding the program. They judge the success and failure of certain programs.

Analysis and synthesis

They discover and summarize evaluation findings. They detect evidence patterns by analyzing or synthesis of information. Mixed method evaluations demand separate analysis of each element. It helps in making decisions on how to compare, organize classify and display various information.

Interpretation: Interpretation gets the meanings of figures and helps understand their importance. Recommendations are considered from results found (UAB school of medicine, 2015). They strengthen evaluations. Recommendations are relevant and received appropriately from sharing their draft recommendations, soliciting reactions from many stakeholders and presenting options rather than directive advice.

Ensure use and share of lessons learnt: Evaluators should ensure that intended lessons are learnt and used appropriately. Strategic thinking and vigilance in search for opportunities to influence and communicate. The process should be done in all stages (UAB school of medicine, 2015).

Standards for good evaluation

A good evaluation is measured according to four standards, utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy.

Utility standards ensure that stakeholders are identified, their credibility is valued, information gathered addresses pertinent questions and identifies values. The report is clear in its description of the program under evaluation.

Feasibility standards argue that evaluations maintain minimum disruptions, costs and be efficient in production of valuable information for justification (UAB school of medicine, 2015).

The evaluation program should match with propriety standards, which are service orientation, formal agreements, rights of human subjects, human interactions, complete and fair assessment, disclosure of findings, conflict of interest, and fiscal responsibility.

Accuracy standards ensure correctness of evaluation findings. These are clear documentation of program, context analysis, description of procedures and purposes, defensible information sources, valid information, reliable information, analysis of quantitative and qualitative information, meta evaluation, guard against distorted and impartial information.

References

University of Chicago Medical center.(2016). Evaluation and recommendation for heart disease prevention . The university of Chicago medicine. Retrieved from http://www.uchospitals.edu/specialties/heart/services/prevention/evaluation.html

UAB school of medicine. (2015). Methods of evaluation. Division of cardiovascular disease. Retrieved from http://www.uab.edu/medicine/cardiovascular/curriculum/121-fellowship/96-methods-of-evaluation.

Kansas University.(2015).Section 1.A Framework for program evaluation: A Gateway to tools.Community tool box. Retieved from tb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/evaluate/evaluation/framework-for-evaluation/main