EVALUATION PLAN PROJECT: SELECT A CASE STUDY AND MODEL
Case studies are valuable tools in academics as well as in professional practice. Case studies illuminate how products or services can be applied, or how innovation or disruption can be managed. Case studies enable learners and practitioners to apply critical thinking while finding ways to develop solutions to problems.
Much like travelers might apply the lessons learned from previous visitors to their own plans to visit destinations, case studies can help researchers and practitioners to develop plans, either by applying lessons learned from past shared experiences or by practicing analysis skills necessary to develop effective plans. Similarly, case studies can help those developing health information technology (HIT) evaluation plans by guiding their application of a specific evaluation model to their own plans.
In this, reflect on evaluation models you previously examined, select one for application to your selected case study, and compare this to other potentially applicable models.
• Select a case from chapters 6 through 12 of the Lorenzi text that will serve as the basis for your evaluation plan.
• To maximize your benefit from this project, consider selecting a case study that is relevant to a healthcare organization with which you are involved.
• Review the research models covered in the Week 2 Learning Resources.
• Consider the key points of each and when they would be the most appropriate choice for an evaluation of your selected case.
In a 3- to 4-page paper, address the following:
• Provide a brief, 1- to 2-paragraph summary of your selected case.
• Describe the model selected for your evaluation of the case study you selected.
• Justify your choice by comparing your selected model to at least three of the other models presented in this week’s reading.
Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. All papers submitted must use this formatting.
• Lorenzi, N. M., Ash, J., Einbinder, J., McPhee, W., & Einbinder, L. (Eds.). (2005). Transforming health care through informationLinks to an external site. (2nd ed.). Springer.
o Chapter 6, “Bar Coding: It’s Hard to Kill a Hippo” (pp. 65–68)
o Chapter 7, “Developing an Emergency Department Information System” (pp. 69–79)
o Chapter 8, “Implementation of OpChart in West Medical Building” (pp. 81–91)
o Chapter 9, “Development of the Scientific Computing Center at Vanderbilt University” (pp. 92–100)
o Chapter 10, “Early Implementation Problems of an Integrated Information Systems Within the White Mountain University Health System” (pp. 101–113)
o Chapter 11, “Implementation of a Web-Based Incident-Reporting System at Legendary Health System” (pp. 114–120)
o Chapter 12, “Managing Change: Analysis of a Hypothetical Case” (pp. 121–135)
Evaluation Plan Project: Bar Coding in Healthcare
The purpose of this paper is to develop an evaluation plan for a selected case study from the Lorenzi text, focusing on the application of a specific evaluation model. The chosen case study is “Bar Coding: It’s Hard to Kill a Hippo” from Chapter 6. This case study is relevant to healthcare organizations, as it discusses the implementation of barcoding technology to improve patient safety and reduce medication errors. The evaluation model selected for this case study is the Kirkpatrick Model, which will be compared to three other models from the Week 2 Learning Resources.
Summary of the Selected Case
The case study “Bar Coding: It’s Hard to Kill a Hippo” (Lorenzi et al., 2005, pp. 65-68) describes the challenges faced by a healthcare organization in implementing a barcoding system for medication administration. The goal of the system was to reduce medication errors and improve patient safety. However, the implementation process faced several obstacles, including resistance from staff, technical issues, and the need for extensive training. Despite these challenges, the organization was able to successfully implement the barcoding system and achieve its goals.
Selected Evaluation Model: Kirkpatrick Model
The Kirkpatrick Model is a widely used evaluation model that assesses training programs based on four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model is suitable for evaluating the case study because it allows for a comprehensive assessment of the barcoding system implementation, including staff training, changes in behavior, and the impact on patient safety and medication errors.
Comparison to Other Models
Logic Model: The Logic Model is a systematic and visual way to present the relationships among resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes of a program (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). While this model can be useful in understanding the overall structure of the barcoding system implementation, it does not provide a detailed evaluation of the training and behavioral changes required for successful implementation.
CIPP Model: The Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) Model is an evaluation model that focuses on evaluating programs based on their context, inputs, processes, and products (Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017). Although the CIPP Model can provide valuable insights into the implementation process, it does not specifically address the training and behavioral aspects that are crucial for the success of the barcoding system.
RE-AIM Framework: The RE-AIM Framework evaluates interventions based on five dimensions: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (Glasgow et al., 1999). While this framework can be helpful in assessing the overall impact of the barcoding system, it does not provide a detailed evaluation of the training and behavioral changes required for successful implementation.
In conclusion, the Kirkpatrick Model is the most appropriate evaluation model for the selected case study, as it allows for a comprehensive assessment of the barcoding system implementation, including staff training, changes in behavior, and the impact on patient safety and medication errors. By comparing the Kirkpatrick Model to other evaluation models, it is evident that this model provides the most detailed and relevant evaluation for the case study.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Lorenzi, N. M., Ash, J., Einbinder, J., McPhee, W., & Einbinder, L. (Eds.). (2005). Transforming health care through information (2nd ed.). Springer.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Publications.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
EVALUATION PLAN PROJECT: SELECT A CASE STUDY AND MODEL