NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

Name

Capella university

NURS-FPX 6111 Assessment and Evaluation in Nursing Education

Prof. Name

Date

Program Effectiveness Presentation

Slide 1: Hi, everyone. I am here to present a new nurse education course designed to enhance nursing students’ proficiency in administering safe and effective intramuscular injections. 

Slide 2: Assessment is a structured procedure used to determine the outcomes and efficiency of a program, course, or intervention. It concerns data gathering and analysis for ascertaining goal and objective achievement and identifying opportunities for enhancing organizational performance. Evaluation is important because of its effectiveness in proving that a particular program works, that resources are being well spent, and to aid continuous improvement (Öz and Ordu, 2021). In this intramuscular (IM) injection course, the assessment will be based on the following: competency of the students in injection processes, the effectiveness of the strategies used in teaching, the correlation of the course with the learning outcomes, and the effect of the course on patients and over the health sector. 

Purpose of the Presentation

Slide 3: This presentation aims to outline a systematic process for evaluating the effectiveness of the newly proposed IM injection course in the nursing curriculum. The evaluation seeks to determine if the course enhances student knowledge, transforms clinical performance, and addresses deficiencies in injection techniques. The review will guide improvements and ensure alignment with learning outcomes by identifying difficulties and program gaps. Additionally, the process will assess if course objectives are met, promoting efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Ultimately, the goal is to demonstrate that the course supports safe nursing practices and improves patient outcomes through evidence-based education.

Philosophical Approaches

Slide 4: Philosophically, evaluation in nursing education can be broadly categorized into four major types that determine how and what course effectiveness is measured and understood. This approach involves both the participants and evaluators in deciding where the improvements should be made, making the evaluation process more inclusive. On the other hand, the judgment perspective aims to evaluate the merits of the curriculum and the nursing program’s ability to meet some predetermined benchmarks and out-competent graduates (Borgmann et al., 2020).

The objectives-based approach links the learning outcomes to the program aims and improves the course due to measurable goals. This method guarantees that the IM injection course aligns with the program competencies across all the domains. Furthermore, the research-oriented approach uses reliable and accurate methods and tools to ensure that the evaluation results are trustworthy and focus on the evidence-based approach. Finally, the service-oriented perspective focuses on learning and student advancement and encourages the constant assessment of the learning process by nursing students.

Evidence Evaluation

Slide 5: The evidence supporting these philosophical approaches shows they are relevant to improving nursing education. Shaha and Grace (2023) emphasize that critique is central to mapping course competencies to higher purposes of nursing practice so that assessment focuses on skill acquisition, knowledge application, and moral reasoning. The best fit of the two approaches is the constructivist approach in promoting critical thinking and flexibility and the objectives approach in identifying areas of curriculum development. Validity and reliability-based research-oriented evaluations help in maintaining the consistency of the students’ assessments (Borgmann et al., 2020). However, synthesizing these philosophies may provide a richer understanding as a combination and enhance the role of the IM injection course in nursing training and patient care.

Program Evaluation Process

Slide 6: Assessing the IM injection course effectiveness logically needs to follow a step-by-step process to include all the aspects of the assessment and improvement. The evaluation process consists of four primary phases: planning, execution, termination, and communication. The first one is acknowledging the evaluation principle that switches whether the course improves nursing students’ IM injection skills, minimizes complications, and complies with programmatic objectives (Tomas et al., 2024). It is crucial to set the period for the evaluation so that the data is collected at certain points in the academic year to analyze the progress and the lack thereof. While formative assessments should be done throughout the course, summative assessments should be done at the end of the course to improve the course activities (Lajane et al., 2020).

Choosing an impartial evaluator and faculty members who have taught clinical skills ensures that the process is independent and in the best interest of the academic institutions. The next step involves selecting an appropriate evaluation design, using quantitative and qualitative evaluation designs to get all-encompassing data (Xu et al., 2024). Using assessment tools such as quizzes, practical tests, peer assessment, and feedback will evaluate the instructor’s competency. Having collected data, conclusions will be made, and appropriate areas of strength and areas of weakness shall be deemed. Informing stakeholders, including nursing faculty and curriculum committees, of the results promotes the utilization of conclusions. This step makes the course relevant, affordable, and capable of churning out competent graduates at the end of the course (De Brún et al., 2022). Assessing expenses and course effectiveness ensures sustainability and relevance to the healthcare industry.

Limitations of the Steps

Slide 7: While the evaluation process for the IM injection course is comprehensive, several limitations may affect its effectiveness. Time constraints could hinder thorough data collection and analysis, potentially limiting the scope of evaluation. Additionally, selecting evaluators with biases or inconsistent evaluation criteria may impact the objectivity of results (Xu et al., 2024). Variability in student engagement and feedback could further affect the accuracy of formative assessments. Financial constraints might restrict access to advanced simulation tools or limit the frequency of hands-on practice sessions. Addressing these limitations through standardized procedures and continuous faculty training can enhance the overall reliability of the evaluation process.

Evaluation Design

Slide 8: A contemporary evaluation framework that aligns well with the proposed IM injection course is the CIPP (Context, Input, Process, and Product) model. This model emphasizes a comprehensive and dynamic approach to program evaluation, ensuring continuous improvement through feedback at multiple stages. The Context phase involves assessing the specific needs that the IM injection course aims to address. This includes identifying gaps in nursing students’ practical skills and recognizing the need to reduce IM injection complications. The curriculum can better address competency deficiencies by aligning course objectives with institutional and clinical goals (Zhang et al., 2024). 

Resources, instructional materials, and teaching strategies are evaluated during the Input phase to ensure they meet the course goals. This involves selecting appropriate simulation equipment, incorporating evidence-based guidelines, and leveraging experienced clinical educators to facilitate learning. The input evaluation ensures the course design is robust and conducive to achieving desired learning outcomes.

The Process phase focuses on monitoring course implementation. Formative evaluations, such as student feedback and instructor observations during simulation exercises, ensure effective teaching methods. Adjustments can be made in real time, allowing for a more adaptive learning environment. Finally, the Product phase evaluates overall course effectiveness by analyzing student performance, complication rates, and feedback (Zhang et al., 2024). Summative assessments, skill check-offs, and clinical evaluations are essential to determine if the course objectives were met and if further refinement is needed to enhance program outcomes.

Limitations

Slide 9: The CIPP model offers a comprehensive framework for evaluating the IM injection course, but certain limitations must be considered. The Context phase may not fully capture external factors, such as variations in clinical settings or patient populations, which could influence course effectiveness. In the Input phase, while selecting appropriate resources is crucial, the availability of high-quality simulation equipment and expert instructors may be limited by budget constraints or institutional resources. During the Process phase, real-time adjustments could be challenging in large cohorts, and consistent evaluation across diverse groups of students may affect reliability. Finally, Product evaluation may not fully account for long-term skill retention or clinical application in real-world settings (Zhang et al., 2024).

Program Improvement

Slide 10: Data analysis is essential to continuously improving the IM injection course program. In order to evaluate the course’s efficiency and promote improved learning activities and results, it is necessary to gather data from tests, surveys and interviews, observations, documents, and focus groups. These data collection methods give important information on patterns, strengths, and opportunities for development (Forster et al., 2020). Using numerical information makes it easier to assess students’ knowledge and determine the effectiveness of the objectives formulated for a course. Quantitative data like the ranking score and the survey’s closed response, while providing some information about learners’ experience, challenges, or areas of concern, does not go deeper than the qualitative data (Smith et al., 2023).

Using both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods assists in making a holistic assessment of the effectiveness of the course. For instance, assessing the students’ practical experiences regarding the process of injections during the laboratory sessions will help identify the existing knowledge or technique deficiencies. This information can be used to change the teaching approaches or give students more information. Moreover, such an approach helps involve students in the evaluation process and guarantees that the course develops with students’ needs in mind and only gets better (Zhang et al., 2024). Thus, the ongoing data collection and analysis allow nursing educators to modify the curriculum and teaching approaches used, advancing patient safety and nursing competence in administering injections.

Uncertainty or Knowledge Gaps

Slide 11: To fill gaps in the knowledge of the effectiveness of the IM injection course, the following questions need to be answered: One of them is to what extent clinical encounters of students involving IM injections are consistent with theoretical knowledge acquired in class and the laboratory. More information concerning the changes observed in nursing practice after the course is also important to evaluate its effectiveness and impact on the patients. Moreover, there is a lack of information on how the concrete teaching methods applied within the course affect the students and whether various instructional approaches affect students differently depending on their age or prior knowledge (Forster et al., 2020).

Conclusion

Slide 12: In conclusion, evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed IM injection course is essential for ensuring nursing students acquire the necessary skills for safe and efficient injection administration. The program can be continuously improved by utilizing systematic evaluation methods, including data analysis and student feedback. Addressing areas of uncertainty, such as long-term impacts and instructional strategies, will contribute to refining the curriculum. Ultimately, this evaluation ensures that nursing students are adequately prepared, enhancing patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs related to improper injection practices.

References

Borgmann, L., Cantrell, M. A., & Mariani, B. (2020). Nurse educators’ guide to clinical judgment: A review of conceptualization, measurement, and development. Nursing Education Perspectives, 41(4), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nep.0000000000000669 

De Brún, A., Rogers, L., Drury, A., & Gilmore, B. (2022). Evaluation of a formative peer assessment in research methods teaching using an online platform: A mixed methods pre-post study. Nurse Education Today, 108, 105166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105166 

Forster, A. H., Witham, K., Depelsenaire, A. C. I., Veitch, M., Wells, J. W., Wheatley, A., Pryor, M., Lickliter, J. D., Francis, B., Rockman, S., Bodle, J., Treasure, P., Hickling, J., & Fernando, G. J. P. (2020). Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of influenza vaccination with a high-density microarray patch: Results from a randomized, controlled phase I clinical trial. Medicine, 17(3), e1003024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003024 

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

Lajane, H., Gouifrane, R., Qaisar, R., Chemsi, G., & Radid, M. (2020). Perceptions, practices, and challenges of formative assessment in initial nursing education. The Open Nursing Journal, 14(1), 180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874434602014010180‌

Öz, G. Ö., & Ordu, Y. (2021). The effects of web based education and KAHOOT usage in evaluation of the knowledge and skills regarding intramuscular injection among nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 103, 104910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104910 

Shaha, M., &  Grace, P. J. (2023). Competency frameworks, nursing perspectives, and interdisciplinary collaborations for good patient care: Delineating boundaries. Nursing Philosophy, 24, e12402. https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12402 

Smith, R. M., Gray, J. E., & Homer, C. S. E. (2023). Common content, delivery modes and outcome measures for faculty development programs in nursing and midwifery: A scoping review. Nurse Education in Practice, 70, 103648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103648 

Tomas, N., Italo, M., Eva, B., & Veronica, L. (2024). Assessment during clinical education among nursing students using two different assessment instruments. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 852. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05771-x

Xu, K., Tong, H., Zhang, C., Qiu, F., & Liu, Y. (2024). Psychometric evaluation of the chinese version of the nursing student contributions to clinical settings scale and analysis of factors influencing nurses’ perceptions of nursing students’ contributions: a cross-sectional study. BioMed Central Nursing, 23(1), 720. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02398-7

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

Zhang, Y., Li, X., Zhang, H., Liu, H., & Li, Q. (2024). Analysis of the effectiveness of the teaching reform of traditional Chinese medicine nursing courses in colleges and universities based on the CIPP evaluation model. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-0562