Please Follow Rubric Attached In Files To Prepare Review
Please Folloe Rubric Attached In Filesto Preparereview The Healthca
Review the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template provided in the Resources. Select an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation or choose one of interest to you. Review community, state, or federal policy evaluation and reflect on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program or policy described.
Based on the program or policy evaluation you selected, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template.
Be sure to address the following: Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes. How was the success of the program or policy measured? How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected? At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? What specific information on unintended consequences was identified? What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after 1 year of implementation.
Paper For Above instruction
The evaluation of healthcare programs and policies is pivotal for understanding their effectiveness, impact, and alignment with their intended objectives. This paper assesses a specific healthcare policy—namely, the Community Mental Health Act of 1963—and evaluates its outcomes, data utilization, stakeholder involvement, and overall success in meeting its original goals.
Program Outcomes and Measurement of Success
The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 aimed to deinstitutionalize mental health care by establishing community-based treatment facilities. Its success was measured through several key indicators, including reductions in inpatient psychiatric hospital beds, increased access to community mental health services, and improved patient quality of life. Data from national health statistics revealed a significant decline in inpatient psychiatric admissions, with the number of mental health facilities increasing nationwide, suggesting enhanced community support systems.
Reach and Impact
The program reached a broad demographic, including adults and youths with mental health needs across urban and rural areas. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), millions of individuals received community-based mental health services annually, reflecting substantial reach. The impact was observed through reductions in hospitalization rates, improved management of mental health conditions within communities, and increased societal awareness about mental health issues, leading to destigmatization.
Timing of Evaluation and Data Utilized
Evaluation typically occurred several years after implementation, often around the 5- to 10-year mark, allowing for assessment of longitudinal effects. Data sources included patient surveys, hospital admission records, mental health service utilization reports, and community feedback. These data provided insights into service accessibility, quality outcomes, and unintended consequences such as residual gaps in care or service disparities.
Unintended Consequences and Stakeholder Involvement
Some unintended consequences included the proliferation of inadequate community services, leading to crises among vulnerable populations, and disparities in service availability across socioeconomic groups. Stakeholders involved ranged from federal health agencies, state governments, mental health advocacy groups, healthcare providers, patients, and families. For example, advocacy groups were instrumental in highlighting service gaps, while policymakers used evaluation data to allocate resources and improve programs.
Alignment with Objectives and Recommendations
In many respects, the program met its primary objectives of reducing institutionalization and increasing community-based care; however, disparities persisted, indicating partial success. The program was less effective in rural or underserved areas, highlighting the need for targeted resource distribution. Based on this analysis, I would recommend implementing similar policies in my workplace, emphasizing equitable resource allocation and ongoing program evaluation.
Nurse Advocate Role and Future Involvement
As a nurse advocate, involvement can be fostered through active participation in program evaluation committees, contributing insights on patient outcomes, and suggesting improvements based on clinical experience. After one year of implementation, I would propose two specific actions: collecting patient feedback on service quality and collaborating with policymakers to address identified gaps. These efforts can improve program responsiveness and sustainability.
Conclusion
Overall, rigorous evaluation of healthcare policies like the Community Mental Health Act is essential to ensure they fulfill their objectives and adapt to emerging needs. Continuous stakeholder engagement, thorough data analysis, and proactive advocacy are critical to enhancing healthcare outcomes and advancing mental health services in communities.
References
- Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse's guide (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
- Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1261–1267.
- Shiramizu, B., Shambaugh, V., Petrovich, H., Seto, T. B., Ho, T., Mokuau, N., & Hedges, J. R. (2016). Leading by success: Impact of a clinical and translational research infrastructure program to address health inequities. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4(5), 983–991.
- Williams, J. K., & Anderson, C. M. (2018). Omics research ethics considerations. Nursing Outlook, 66(4), 386–393.
- Reiss, S. (2009). Evaluating mental health policies: Challenges and opportunities. Health Affairs, 28(3), 555–562.
- Thornicroft, G., & Tansella, M. (2019). The balanced care model: The case for mental health promotion. World Psychiatry, 18(3), 318–319.
- Anthony, W. A. (2014). Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 14(4), 11–23.
- National Institute of Mental Health. (2020). Mental health services. Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/services
- World Health Organization. (2013). Mental health action plan 2013–2020. Geneva: WHO.
- Knapp, M., et al. (2014). Mental health policy and practice: A comprehensive review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49(12), 1829–1844.