Evidence-Based Practice Proposal – Section F: Evaluation of Process

Evidence-Based Practice Proposal – Section F: Evaluation of Process

In 500-750 words, develop an evaluation plan to be included in your final evidence-based practice project. Provide the following criteria in the evaluation, making sure it is comprehensive and concise:

1. Describe the rationale for the methods used in collecting the outcome data.
2. Describe the ways in which the outcome measures evaluate the extent to which the project objectives are achieved.
3. Describe how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the evidence. Address validity, reliability, and applicability.
4. Describe strategies to take if outcomes do not provide positive results.
5. Describe implications for practice and future research.

You are required to cite three to five sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA 7 Style Guide. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE !!

Solution

Evidence-Based Practice Proposal – Section F: Evaluation of Process

Introduction

When conducting a research project evaluating the reliability, validity, and applicability of both the project implementation tools and the outcomes of the project is an important step. This paper will explore the rationale of the methods used in collecting data in the trauma-informed care interventions project and the validity, reliability and applicability of the outcomes of the project. Finally the paper will explore the implications of the trauma-informed care interventions project to nursing practice and future research.

Rationale for the methods used in collecting the outcome data.

The public health nurses will use the ‘my worst experience scale’ (MWES) to monitor the implementation of trauma-informed care intervention among children with trauma in the health department.  The MWES was developed by Hyman et al. in 2002 (Oh et al., 2018). The tool helps gather information about children’s traumatic events between 9 to 18 years from their point of view. The tool also assesses the developmental issues that may be facing children who have gone through traumatic events and symptoms associated with the traumatic events. Therefore, a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis can be made using the MWES tool (Eklund et al., 2018). The public health nurses will utilize the MWES tool to assess any improvements among children with trauma after implementing trauma-informed care interventions.

The Ways in Which the Outcome Measures Evaluate the Extent to which the project Objectives Are Achieved.

The project’s outcome measures will include a reduction in traumatic events symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. An evaluation of the children with trauma will be conducted using the MWES tool before and after the implementation of trauma-informed care interventions. A reduction in traumatic events symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after an evaluation using the MWES tool will indicate that the trauma-informed care interventions are effective among the targeted children. Therefore, the outcome measures in the project will determine whether the project objectives of the effective treatment of trauma among children are achieved.

Describe How The Outcomes Will Be Measured And Evaluated Based On The Evidence Address Validity, Reliability, and Applicability.

The project outcomes will include a reduction in trauma among children showing traumatic event symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. The project outcomes will be measured using the MWES tool, which is effective in assessing PTSD and traumatic events symptoms (Campbell, 2016). The MWES tool provides valid results in that it accurately measures symptoms related to traumatic events and post-traumatic stress disorder. According to Shenk et al. (2016), the MWES tool produces valid measurements that are reliable and accurate when it comes to measuring traumatic symptoms among children. On the other hand, the MWES tool is reliable in that its outcome results can easily be reproduced when an assessment is repeated under the same conditions. The MWES tool produces consistent results across time, making the tool reliable (Shenk et al., 2016). The outcomes produced by the MWES tool will also be applicable. This is because a reduction in traumatic event symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among children will indicate the effectiveness of trauma-informed care interventions.

Strategies to Take If Outcomes Do Not Provide Positive Results.

Suppose the outcomes in the implementation of the trauma-informed care interventions project do not provide positive results. In that case, the stages in the project implementation will be repeated using the Iowa model. Following Iowa, the model includes identifying the trigger for the EBP change and determining if the introduction of trauma-informed care intervention will be a priority for the health care department. The other steps in the Iowa model include reconstituting the team to implement trauma-informed care interventions in the healthcare department and gathering and analyzing scholarly research data to back the implementation of trauma-informed care interventions. The final steps are critiquing and synthesizing the research supporting the proposed change and implementing the proposed change (Hanrahan et al., 2019).

Implications for Practice and Future Research.

The implications of implementing the trauma-informed care interventions project in the health department to nursing practice will be the introduction of a more effective treatment approach for children with trauma. Past scholarly studies have shown that traditional approaches of treatment of trauma among children, such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and prolonged exposure are not to be effective among children (Maynard et al., 2019). Therefore, the implementation of the trauma-informed care interventions project will provide evidence to support the adoption of this new approach among children.

Conclusion

The public health nurses will use the ‘my worst experience scale’ (MWES) to monitor the implementation of trauma-informed care intervention among children with trauma in the health department. A reduction in traumatic events symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after an evaluation using the MWES tool will indicate that the trauma-informed care interventions are effective among the targeted children. Therefore, the outcome measures in the project will determine whether the project objectives of the effective treatment of trauma among children are achieved.

References

Campbell, M. (2016). School victims: An analysis of ‘my worst experience in school’ scale.

Eklund, K.,  Rossen, E.,  Koriakin, T., Chafouleas, S., & Resnick, C. (2018). A systematic

review of trauma screening measures for children and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly. 33. 30-43. 10.1037/spq0000244.

Hanrahan, K. Fowler, C., & Mccarthy, A. (2019). Iowa Model Revised: Research and Evidence-

based Practice Application. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 48.10.1016/j.pedn.2019.04.023.

Maynard, B. R., Farina, A., Dell, N. A., & Kelly, M. S. (2019). Effects of trauma‐informed

approaches in schools: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(1-2). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1018.

Oh, D. L., Jerman, P., Purewal Boparai, S. K., Koita, K., Briner, S., Bucci, M., & Harris, N. B.

(2018). Review of Tools for Measuring Exposure to Adversity in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Health Care. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2018.04.021.

Shenk, C. E., Noll, J. G., Griffin, A. M., Allen, E. K., Lee, S. E., Lewkovich, K. L., & Allen, B.

(2016). Psychometric Evaluation of the Comprehensive Trauma Interview PTSD Symptoms Scale Following Exposure to Child Maltreatment. Child maltreatment, 21(4), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559516669253.