Student Name
Capella University
NURS-FPX 6111 Assessment and Evaluation in Nursing Education
Prof. Name
Date
Program Effectiveness Presentation
Hello, everyone. Welcome to this presentation on developing a standardized course evaluation template for the BSN program at Mountainside Teaching Hospital. The focus of this initiative is the course titled “Improving Palliative Care for Geriatric Patients in Long-Term Care Settings.”
Purpose
The primary objective of this presentation is to outline a comprehensive methodology for evaluating the course designed to improve geriatric palliative care skills among nurses. This evaluation will establish clear objectives, identify data collection and analysis methods, and utilize evidence-based frameworks to assess effectiveness. The overarching goal is to equip nurses with enhanced competencies in palliative care delivery, ensuring compassionate, patient-centered care that improves the quality of life for elderly patients in long-term care facilities.
Philosophical Approaches
Which philosophical approaches are used in the evaluation?
The course evaluation integrates positivist, constructivist, and pragmatic perspectives to provide a balanced assessment.
- Positivist Approach:
This approach relies on measurable, quantitative data to determine course effectiveness. Pre- and post-course standardized assessments, competency tests, and structured surveys evaluate nurses’ knowledge and skills in areas such as pain management, end-of-life communication, and ethical decision-making (Whitelaw et al., 2022). While this approach ensures reliable, reproducible results, it may not fully capture the emotional, ethical, and relational aspects critical to palliative care. - Constructivist Approach:
This qualitative methodology emphasizes experiential learning, reflection, and context-driven insights. Techniques such as reflective journals, case analyses, and patient-family feedback explore nurses’ ability to deliver holistic, empathetic care. This approach reveals practical integration of communication, ethics, and patient advocacy, although findings may be context-dependent and subject to interpretation (Fearon et al., 2021). - Pragmatic Approach:
Combining quantitative and qualitative data, the pragmatic perspective offers a comprehensive evaluation framework that maximizes the strengths of both positivist and constructivist methodologies (Ingle et al., 2022).
Evidence Evaluation
How does research support the evaluation approach?
Evidence demonstrates that palliative care education is most effective when combining multiple assessment methods. Knowledge tests, clinical simulations, real-world patient interactions, and self-assessment tools collectively enhance learning outcomes and improve patient care (Whitelaw et al., 2022). For Mountainside Teaching Hospital, this integrated evaluation strategy measures both skill development and the capacity for compassionate, patient-centered care delivery.
Program Evaluation Process
What steps are included in the program evaluation?
The course evaluation consists of six structured steps, focused on assessing nurse preparedness in delivering high-quality geriatric palliative care.
Purpose of Evaluation:
The evaluation aims to measure improvements in nursing competencies such as pain management, symptom control, end-of-life communication, and ethical decision-making. Additionally, nurse confidence and long-term patient-centered care competence are evaluated.
Evaluation Methods:
A combination of quantitative and qualitative measures ensures comprehensive assessment:
| Evaluation Component | Methodology | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge Tests | Pre/post-course multiple-choice tests | Measures cognitive learning gains | Limited insight into practical application and emotional competencies |
| Clinical Competency Checklists | Hands-on skill evaluations | Assesses practical ability | Observer bias and time-intensive |
| Reflective Journals | Self-reported reflections | Captures experiential learning and emotional growth | Subjective and prone to bias |
| Patient-Family Surveys | Feedback on care quality | Provides perspective of care recipients | Emotional distress may affect accuracy |
| Case Discussions | Group or individual analysis | Integrates ethical reasoning and decision-making | Context-dependent results |
Quantitative test scores and competency checklists are merged with qualitative data from reflective journals, case discussions, and patient-family feedback to identify trends, skill gaps, and areas for improvement (Arantzamendi et al., 2021).
Challenges:
- Subjective factors like empathy and patient rapport are difficult to quantify.
- External influences, including prior nursing experience and patient health conditions, may affect outcomes.
- Differing clinical environments complicate attribution of improvements solely to the course.
Course Improvement Recommendations:
Findings will inform enhancements to case-based training, hands-on practice, ethical workshops, and communication programs. Implementation requires faculty support, resources, and time, which may delay immediate improvements (Arantzamendi et al., 2021).
Evaluation Design
How is the evaluation structured?
The evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach aligned with Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model:
| Kirkpatrick Level | Assessment Method | Outcome Measured |
|---|---|---|
| Level 1: Reaction | Surveys, interviews | Participant satisfaction, course relevance |
| Level 2: Learning | Pre/post tests, simulations, case evaluations | Skill development, knowledge acquisition |
| Level 3: Behavior | Direct observation, self-reflection, supervisor evaluation | Application of skills in practice |
| Level 4: Results | Patient outcomes, pain management, satisfaction surveys | Improvement in care quality and adherence to best practices |
This design allows a comprehensive assessment of theoretical understanding, practical skills, and patient-centered outcomes (Liu et al., 2025).
Limitations
Despite its systematic approach, the evaluation model has challenges:
- Level 4 (Results) may be confounded by external factors like prior experience or institutional policies.
- Qualitative data at Levels 1 and 3 may include bias, and self-reports may lack objectivity.
- Resource limitations can constrain direct observation and data collection.
- Emotional and ethical complexity in palliative care makes skill application difficult to measure, requiring ongoing tool refinement (Liu et al., 2025).
Nevertheless, the combination of Kirkpatrick’s model and mixed-method assessment provides a robust framework for continuous improvement.
Program Improvement
How can data guide program refinement?
Systematic analysis of both quantitative (test scores, competency checklists, patient surveys) and qualitative (reflective journals, patient-family feedback, faculty observation) data allows identification of trends and areas for enhancement.
- Quantitative Analysis: Highlights knowledge gains and skill acquisition.
- Qualitative Analysis: Reveals insights into communication, ethical decision-making, and emotional preparedness.
- Longitudinal Tracking: Evaluates retention and real-world application of skills.
Course adjustments may include refining content, enhancing case-based scenarios, implementing innovative teaching strategies, and promoting ongoing evaluation to maintain high-quality palliative care education (McIlfatrick et al., 2021; Bayley, 2023).
NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation
Areas of Uncertainty and Knowledge Gaps
Even with robust evaluation methods, certain challenges remain:
- Isolating the course’s impact from prior experience or institutional protocols is difficult.
- Subjective feedback from patients and families may fluctuate due to emotional distress.
- Competency assessments may not fully capture emotional resilience and ethical decision-making under stress.
- Enhancing simulations, peer assessments, and standardized patient interactions would provide a more complete assessment of preparedness for geriatric palliative care (Bayley, 2023).
Conclusion
The standardized course evaluation template at Mountainside Teaching Hospital ensures a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of nurses’ competencies in palliative care. By integrating positivist, constructivist, and pragmatic approaches and utilizing Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model, the evaluation effectively measures knowledge acquisition, skill application, and patient-centered outcomes.
Continuous program improvement relies on systematic data analysis, addressing knowledge gaps, and implementing enhanced simulations, peer assessments, and longitudinal follow-ups. These strategies ultimately contribute to higher-quality palliative care and improved outcomes for elderly patients in long-term care settings.
References
Arantzamendi, M., Belar, A., Payne, S., Rijpstra, M., Preston, N., Menten, J., Van der Elst, M., Radbruch, L., Hasselaar, J., & Centeno, C. (2021). Clinical aspects of palliative sedation in prospective studies. A systematic review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 61(4), 831–844.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.09.022
Bayley, K. E. (2023). The impact on practice of authentic assessment as part of a university postgraduate taught programme of study for nursing and healthcare professionals: A literature review. Nurse Education Today, 120, 105622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105622
NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation
Fearon, D., Hughes, S., & Brearley, S. G. (2021). Constructivist Stakian multicase study: Methodological issues encountered in cross-cultural palliative care research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 160940692110150. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211015075
Ingle, M. P., Check, D., Slack, D. H., Cross, S. H., Ernecoff, N. C., Matlock, D. D., & Kavalieratos, D. (2022). Use of theoretical frameworks in the development and testing of palliative care interventions. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 63(3), e271–e280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.10.011
Liu, Y., Peng, Y., Zhu, B., Xia, Z., Yuan, Y., & Zhang, F. (2025). Implementing cancer pain management training for pharmacists using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model. Journal of Pain Research, 18, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s493936
NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation
McIlfatrick, S., Slater, P., Beck, E., Bamidele, O., McCloskey, S., Carr, K., Muldrew, D., Hanna-Trainor, L., & Hasson, F. (2021). Examining public knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions towards palliative care: A mixed method sequential study. BMC Palliative Care, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-021-00730-5
Whitelaw, S., Bell, A., & Clark, D. (2022). The expression of “policy” in palliative care: A critical review. Health Policy, 126(9), 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.06.010