Part 1
For the objectives of a particular project to be achieved, there is the need for carrying out an assessment of how far the program has moved. In this direction, therefore, it is important that program evaluation be done which is a crucial step towards checking on the efficiency and the effectiveness of that project. Program evaluation is an essential step in any program since it produces timely, credible, relevant and objective findings of a project by making use of reliable and valid data collection and analysis (Posavac, 2015). Additionally, carrying out program evaluation lays down the framework for which the program can be improved, check whether there are alternatives to the established procedures, and confirm whether the program is worth the cost outlay, whether there are other unintended results and generally whether the objectives of the project are in line with its progress.
Types of program evaluation
The assessment program that a particular organization picks in trying to address its needs is based on the specific requirements of the organization. As such, the commonest program evaluation methods in accordance with the demands of making sure that the VAP bundles work towards lowering VAP rates include goal-based, process-based and outcomes-based evaluation. Goal based evaluations are useful in assessing the extent to which the project is meeting its objectives of addressing VAP rates amongst intubated patients. This method aims at assessing whether the project has been rolled out according to the resources, priorities, and timelines and future projections of the undertaking (Posavac, 2015). The process-based evaluation on the other hand takes into consideration the efforts put in achieving the required results. The primary focus is on the role that nurses need to play in realizing the objectives of the program, the different mix of bundles that each patient needs to be provided with to address the cases of VAP and the possible complaints from the care providers. This process is fundamental to achieving the program’s overall objectives. Lastly, the outcomes-based approach puts a lot of focus on whether the critical care unit is adhering to the VAP bundle regimen which is a significant step in realizing the outcomes of the intervention. The outcomes that are expected in intubated patients are whether they experience faster discharge rates from the critical care unit in addition to improved VAP rates. These efforts are geared towards having patients emerging with desirable outcomes.
Variables to be assessed
Since this program is aimed at reducing VAP rates amongst mechanically-ventilated patients, the items that need to be evaluated will be the effectiveness of the VAP bundles. Therefore, the first assessment in line with the needs of the addressing VAP is determining whether sedation holds have been effective in addressing the conditions of the patient. The anxiety levels of the patient in addition to their comfort will form the yardsticks on which VAP rates will be addressed (Speck et al., 2016). Secondly, the extent to which graduated compression stockings and weight heparin will have addressed the problem of pulmonary embolism will show the effectiveness of this bundle.
The dosages of Sucralfate that a patient requires in a day will determine the success of stress ulcer prophylaxis. The lower the levels of this drug used, the higher the success rate of this intervention. Fourthly, in the event that the critical care nurses report reduced oropharyngeal contents in the lungs of an intubated patient, it will mean that the adoption of the head of the bed at an angle of between 30° and 45° will have played a significant role in improving VAP rates amongst mechanically ventilated patients. As such, this realization will serve as a yardstick for determining the workability of the program (Speck et al., 2016). The last variable to be assessed is whether using 0.12% chlorhexidine has achieved its objective of improved oral hygiene in intubated patients. Improved rates of VAP from a patient under this care are an indication that the process has been successful.
Questionnaire
1. How often do you employ these ventilation bundles in the care provision process?
2. What strategies do you use in sticking to sedation hold?
3. What methodologies do you employ in checking DVT rates?
4. Which medications do you provide to your patients to prevent stress ulcers?
5. What steps do you follow in elevating the patients’ bed?
6. What is your frequency of providing oral care to your patients?
References
Posavac, E. (2015). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies. Routledge.
Speck, K., Rawat, N., Weiner, N. C., Tujuba, H. G., Farley, D., & Berenholtz, S. (2016). A systematic approach for developing a ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention bundle. American journal of infection control.
