program evaluation in nursing education

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Systematic review of program evaluation in baccalaureate nursing programs

Affiliations.

1 Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri, 1025 Ashland Road, Apt. 102, Columbia, MO 65201, United States of America. Electronic address: [email protected].
2 Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri, Columbia, United States of America. Electronic address: [email protected].
PMID: 32819550
DOI: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.12.003

Program evaluation is a common practice in nursing education programs; however, evidence indicates that many schools only focus on program evaluation around the scheduled accreditation period, thus reducing the potential value of the evaluation. This systematic review explores the current program evaluation practices of prelicensure baccalaureate nursing programs. ERIC, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched to locate original research articles published in English. Twenty articles met the inclusion criteria. The purposes of the evaluated studies varied from needing to meet external accountability requirements to proposing conceptual frameworks and evaluation tools. However, most studies focused on summative evaluation assessing program products and on providing evidence of program evaluation based on descriptive data. Notably, few studies employed a rigorous method to evaluate and interpret program evaluation findings. Most studies solicited information from multiple stakeholder groups, with students being the most represented. Despite the wide range of data collection tools used in the reviewed studies, reporting of validity and reliability was limited. Student grade point average, graduation rate, NCLEX passing rate, and satisfaction with the learning experience were the most common variables. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of current educational program evaluation practices in nursing education.

Keywords: Baccalaureate nursing programs; Educational program evaluation; Nursing program outcome; Program evaluation; Summative evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Elsevier Science
Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Program transformation through evaluation

Assess program effectiveness using the cdc framework. .

Nurses can drive change through program evaluation to improve patient outcomes.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Program Evaluation Framework helps nurses identify program gaps and strengthen workflows.

Many healthcare organization programs promote a culture of safety and decreasing patient harm. These programs require systematic evaluation to assess their effectiveness and provide valuable data to stakeholders, which they can use to implement improvement initiatives and increase patient safety.

Continuous evaluation can help capture areas in need of immediate improvement, but which may not be feasible. An alternative evaluation approach allows stakeholders to examine who conducts program activities, how they’re conducted, and who benefits. A useful tool for this latter approach is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) framework for program evaluation. Here, I explain how I used this framework at my organization to evaluate an inpatient wound care program. After I shared pressure injury trends and nurse wound care knowledge with stakeholders, they used that data to modify the program’s technology and education activities to decrease pressure injuries.

About the organization

Mercy Medical Center Redding (MMCR), a 267-bed acute care nonprofit organization, implemented a patient safety initiative addendum to its inpatient wound care program. The original program resulted from a political, economic, social, and technological (PEST) analysis that showed a significant increase in hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

The MMCR inpatient wound care program evaluation aimed to determine its effectiveness based on specific outcomes—certification, education, and technology. The data collected during the evaluation prompted the organization to continue the program with modifications. Data included pressure injury numbers before and after implementation of new wound care nurse certification, technology, and education. The evaluation aligned with the organization’s overarching goal to promote a culture of safety, provided data important to the decision-making process, and aided standardization across multiple facilities.

CDC steps and standards

The CDC framework for program evaluation provides an effective road map for nurses because its steps and standards adhere to nursing’s goal of promoting clinical quality and patient safety. In addition, the framework emphasizes practical, continuing evaluation strategies that include all program stakeholders and is easily incorporated into the program’s daily operations. Depending on the organization and the program being evaluated, stakeholders can vary. In my evaluation I partnered with leaders and frontline staff. (See Steps and standards.)

I applied the framework strategically to avoid interrupting wound program activities while still meeting the standards. In addition, I asked questions at the beginning of the evaluation and throughout the implementation phase when assigning value and making judgments. (See Keep questioning.)

The framework’s steps can be customized to meet the needs of a specific program, its stakeholders, and the organization. The steps also can increase multidisciplinary awareness and collaboration. (See Framework steps.)

As I applied the framework, I included stakeholders in the process and updated them with weekly communication. This open communication enhanced stakeholder engagement, collaboration, and transparency. It also increased my credibility. (See CDC framework in action.)

Evaluation report

The evaluation report describes the who, what, how, and why of the program evaluation. It communicates the nurse evaluator’s findings and recommendations to help stakeholders determine program improvements.

The final step in the CDC framework—to ensure use and share lessons—requires evidence dissemination and a description of how the nurse evaluator performed the evaluation. The report format can vary based on stakeholder preferences. For example, I presented the MMCR inpatient wound care program’s evaluation report in an executive summary along with a PowerPoint presentation for a more detailed discussion. My report included the overarching goal, the need, the evaluation purpose, inpatient wound care program background, data collection, data analysis, results, conclusions, and recommendations. (See Key elements of the evaluation report.)

Meta-evaluation

Meta-evaluation reviews the methodology and findings of the evaluation report for accuracy, quality, and consistency. It can be used to improve evaluation processes after design and implementation. A meta-analysis can be conducted internally or externally, and the stakeholders and evaluators can determine the design.

The MMCR stakeholders conducted the meta-analysis to review the quality of the program evaluation standards (utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy). They used a Likert scale disseminated via SurveyMonkey to inpatient wound care program stakeholders and documented the evaluation process. Results of the Likert scale analysis determined the evaluation met utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy standards as evidenced by the following results: 86.67% very high quality and 13.33% high quality.

Results and recommendations

Nurse evaluators should discuss the motive of a program evaluation with the stakeholders. The subject can be a program, service, process, project, or condition and can focus on different aspects such as inputs, outputs, efficiency, effectiveness, and outcomes. The results can compare outcomes from previous years, compare actual outcomes with intended outcomes, focus on program specifics, promote expansion of the program, or guide stakeholders to identify gaps in education, training, or technology.

The primary motive for the MMCR inpatient wound care program evaluation focused on assessing its effectiveness via specific outcomes. The results showed a 21.5% decrease in pressure injuries associated with certification and a 25.8% decrease associated with technology. The educational activities showed a 6.2% increase in nursing wound care knowledge. My recommendations, based on the evaluation, allowed the stakeholders to research new wound care technology and promote nursing educational opportunities.

Quality tool

The CDC provides many resources to guide nurse evaluators through the framework for program evaluation process. The framework helps nurse evaluators modify organizational programs that affect their daily workflow and patient care, which promotes patient safety and optimal outcomes.

Carrie M. Fisher is a director at Adventist Health in Hidden Valley Lake, California. At the time this article was written, she was a nurse manager at Dignity Health in Redding, California.

Boulmetis J, Dutwin P. The ABCs of Evaluation: Timeless Techniques for Program and Project Managers . 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass; 2011.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Developing an Effective Evaluation Report: Setting the Course for Effective Program Evaluation . 2013.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for program evaluation in public health . MMWR. 1999;48(RR-11).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Program performance and evaluation office (PPEO) . April 9, 2021.

Harris J, Roussel L, Thomas P, Dearman C. Project Planning and Management: A Guide for Nurses and Interprofessional Teams. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2015.

Stufflebeam D. Meta-evaluation. J Multidiscip Eval . 2010;7(15):99-158.

Key words: Problem identification, Program evaluation

NurseLine Newsletter

First Name *
Last Name *
Hidden Referrer

*By submitting your e-mail, you are opting in to receiving information from Healthcom Media and Affiliates. The details, including your email address/mobile number, may be used to keep you informed about future products and services.

Test Your Knowledge

The Fundamentals of Care Framework

Hypnosis and pain

Measuring nurses’ health

Changing an imperfect system of care

CMS establishes minimum LTC staffing standards

The power of language

Taking on health disparities

Caring for adults with autism spectrum disorder

Knowledge of intravascular determination

Why Mentorship?

Virtual reality: Treating pain and anxiety

From data to action

Connecting theory and practice

Leadership style matters

Innovation in motion

IMAGES

Program Evaluation
Evaluation in nursing education
Evaluation Tool Ncm
Evaluation Models Types Levels and Scope In Nursing Education
Educational program evaluation
Purpose Scope and Resources of Conducting Evaluation In Nursing Education

VIDEO

Program Evaluation Example
BSC NURSING EVALUATION PROCESS|RGUHS EVALUATION PROCESS KANNADA|HOW TO EVALUATION PROCESS RGUHS|
Evaluation of Nursing Curriculum
Evaluation/Nursing Education/Nursing Notes in hindi
Evaluation of Guidance Program #evaluationofguidance
self and peer review/Evaluation/Nursing Education/Nursing Notes in hindi

COMMENTS

Systematic review of program evaluation in baccalaureate ...
This systematic review explores the current program evaluation practices of prelicensure baccalaureate nursing programs. ERIC, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched to locate original research articles published in English. Twenty articles met the inclusion criteria.
Program evaluation and how to achieve transformation
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Program Evaluation Framework helps nurses identify program gaps and strengthen workflows.
Program Evaluation for Health Professionals: What It Is, What ...
This article provides an overview of program evaluation and considers what it is (and is not). We detail a clear, practical framework for health professionals to use when planning and completing a program evaluation and illustrate this with examples from our work.
Program evaluation: A concept analysis - ScienceDirect
The author defined program evaluation as a systematic process of data collection by which nurse educators make programmatic judgments based on predetermined program goals, benchmarks, and accreditation standards for pedagogical revisions and programmatic improvements to transpire. Conclusion.
A roadmap for improving nursing program outcomes - ScienceDirect
This article offers a roadmap for improving nursing program outcomes, including methods to analyze factors contributing to declining performance and how to identify and use targeted, evidence-based strategies that help programs meet their intended outcomes.
Systematic review of program evaluation in baccalaureate ...
Given the importance and widespread nature of program evaluation, this paper aims to present a systematic review that explores current practices in program evaluation for pre-licensure bachelor's degree nursing programs, which includes identifying the indicators used to assess a program's quality and evaluating its effectiveness.