Professional Capstone Project: Lung Transplant Program
Project evaluation represents a wide spectrum of measures and reporting mechanisms within institutions. Evaluation programs should be based on measurable and priority indicators that reflect the spirit and vision of the organization at the given time of project appraisal. The proposed changes in the lung transplant program can be evaluated on the basis of a number of strategic functional metrics. These could be based on the effectiveness of the human resource preparedness and qualification, institutional facilitation for the given program, general managerial effectiveness of the program and count of successful operations rated against national statistics. Institutional excellence can also be rated on the basis of macroeconomic and microeconomic variables attributed to its operations. This particular analysis for the modality of evaluation embraces a wide spectrum of evaluation metrics applicable to the medical institution in question.
Keywords: Program evaluation, communication of program implementation modalities, lung transplant program, management and project appraisal, formative and summative evaluation
Change Evaluation Details
Program evaluation forms the very core of effective project management, because without effective measurement of program progress and appraisal, useful output benchmarks and success variables are hard to manage and achieve. The lung transplant project, therefore, must be evaluated on the basis of institutional factors, microeconomic viability and macroeconomic viability. Moreover, evaluation of project progress can also measure the overall effectiveness and profitability of the project. Nonetheless, it must be stressed that project leadership and leadership performance account for the greatest degree of project excellence (Peat & Barton, 2008).
There are a variety of project appraisal indicators that should be given priority treatment. The indicators can be classified into categories. The best indicators must be able to yield timely data about the key priorities of the organization, its stakeholders and the wider community within which the program operates. In theory, program evaluation indicators need to be direct, practical, useful and adequate as well as culturally appropriate. The lung transplant project appraisal need to measure the degree of preparedness of the hospital and all the staff for the operations. The organization need to rate its institutional facilities against national statistics; measure the level of competencies of its staff in the particular project and capacity of operations.
The theory of program appraisal should capture a precise intellectual modality and justification of the proposed project operations. It is against such justification that program activities can be rated to attain desirable goals or not. It is also widely appreciated that each project defines a few self-elicited performance indicators. In addition, there are crucial attitudinal and performance indicators that must be crafted through a thorough analysis of the program.
Program evaluation teams need to analyze the performance of the practitioners against effectively configured simulations. Effective simulation can be modeled to also promote adherence to crucial benchmarks of performance. Moreover, the institution could rely on response tests to have data about the feelings and observations of key officers and managers. Such critically positioned individuals within the organization often reveal the degree to which institution is being progressive or redundant in the activities of its projects.
Institutions can determine the degree to which their programs attain the objectives based on daily management metrics. Strategic measures of profitability or financial performance could also be applicable to the rating of institutional progress. Furthermore, the organization could prioritize the quality of its output and measure project outcomes on that rationale. It is advisable that organizations be tolerant to a considerable degree of failure, because it is the greatest source of learning and development (Nowack, 2005).
Effective project evaluation is often undertaken on the basis of gauging critical excellence benchmarks. Every program has its unique paradigms of appraisal and evaluation that embrace both the theoretical or philosophical basis of the project, and the specific microscopic factors attributable to activities and operations deployed thorough the project. In addition, constructed project response tests attributed to the employees or outsiders can also capture a great deal of the manner of progress the project teams have attained through the implementation process. Suffice it to say, a wide spectrum of measures must be implored to capture a complete view of the project outlook at various stages as well as the final stage of project termination.
Hospitals manage a number of programs concurrently. Such a mixed approach to programs sometime demands the participation of the employees on formative and summative basis of evaluation. Evaluator performance indicators are a set of variables that are pre-set for the specific program. Their outcomes can be statistically evaluated for the given outcomes they are intended to measure. Furthermore, extant data exist within organizations which can be adapted to a variety of evaluation operations (Mertens & Wilson, 2012). For instance, recovery rates of patients, time taken for medication and the profitability of key programs can give a snap shot of the manner of excellence the organization can achieve. In addition, sociometric procedures can be deployed to measure the extent to which the personnel of the organization respond to the introduced changes.
Plan for Disseminating Proposal Details
In project administration and institutional administration parlance, communication takes the format that limits duplication of roles and preserves mechanisms of hierarchy and systems of authority. An effective communication system within the organization ought, therefore, to promote collaboration, open debate and participation both horizontally within departments and laterally.
The first step to the introduction of the proposal to the institution is through a structured consultation with the key administrative offices and departments. Therefore, the managers should then be facilitated to present the proposal to the other critically affiliated persons like directors and key investors. However, once such persons have given the proposal an approval, the managers then constitute the program implementation teams. The broad communication of the implications of the project to all the employees can be done through seminars, team building workshops and departmental meetings. These modalities need to be implemented concurrently to ensure that there is no competition or disagreement between the departments. According to Dobbels et al. (2006), the success of the project implementation process heavily relies on the modalities of communication, institutional collaborations, and the effectiveness of the human resource in the organization.
The manner of the escalating demand for the lung transplant operations across the United States is an indicator of the fact that such a program for institutional preparedness is timely and appropriate. Despite the government’s huge engagement in the public health programs through the ratified health bill, private institutions still must play a key role.
Dobbels, F., Verleden, G., Dupont, L., Vanhaecke, J., & De Geest, S. (2006). To transplant or not? The importance of psychosocial and behavioral factors before lung transplantation. Chronic respiratory disease, 3(1), 39-47.
Hellstrim, T. (2011). Homing in on excellence: Dimensions of appraisal in center of excellence program evaluations. Evaluation, 17(2), 117-131.
Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. The Guilford Press.
Nowack, K. M. (2005). Longitudinal evaluation of a 360 feedback program: Implications for best practices. In 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Los Angeles, CA.
Peat, J., & Barton, B. (2008). Medical statistics: A guide to data analysis and critical appraisal. BMJ Books.