NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

Name

Capella university

NURS-FPX 6111 Assessment and Evaluation in Nursing Education

Prof. Name

Date

Program Effectiveness Presentation

Hello, everyone. Welcome to our presentation on developing the standardized course evaluation template for the BSN program at Mountainside Teaching Hospital for the course “Improving Palliative Care for Geriatric Patients in Long-Term Care Settings.”

Purpose

The presentation provides an extensive methodology for evaluating the educational program “Improving Palliative Care for Geriatric Patients in Long-Term Care Settings.” We will define clear objectives. Data collection and analysis procedures will take place. The chosen evaluation frameworks will be used for assessment. The main aim of this initiative is to provide nurses with better skills in palliative care delivery. The educational approach will guarantee nurses develop the skills to deliver humane, patient-focused care. The approach will enhance the lives of elderly patients in long-term care facilities.

Philosophical Approaches

The assessment of the “Improving Palliative Care for Geriatric Patients in Long-Term Care Settings” course at Mountainside Teaching Hospital requires evaluation using positivist and constructivist, and pragmatic perspectives. The positivist approach uses measurable statistics to determine the course’s effectiveness. The evaluation process incorporates assessments before and after the course with standardized clinical competency tests and structured surveys to measure nurses’ learning about pain management, end-of-life communication, and ethical decision-making practices in geriatric palliative care (Whitelaw et al., 2022).

The method delivers reliable outcomes with consistent participant results, enabling quantitative improvements to be measured. The model lacks full representation of emotional elements, ethical and patient-centered aspects that constitute vital components for successful palliative care delivery in long-term care environments (Whitelaw et al., 2022).

The constructivist approach evaluates nursing care through qualitative methods that explore nurses’ experiential learning of palliative care principles. This assessment methodology uses reflective writing, case analysis, and patient-family direct input to determine nurses’ capabilities for holistic, compassionate care. Research using this approach helps healthcare professionals gain insight into the practice integration of communication abilities together with ethical principles and patient advocacy goals (Fearon et al., 2021). Qualitative data remains limited for broad program assessment because it depends on contextual factors and subjective interpretation of researchers. The evaluation gains maximum effectiveness through a pragmatic methodology that integrates positivist and constructivist research methods (Ingle et al., 2022).

Evidence Evaluation 

Research evidence demonstrates that palliative care education benefits from using various assessment methods because knowledge tests combined with clinical simulations and real-world patient interactions alongside self-assessment tools produce enhanced learning results and superior patient care outcomes (Whitelaw et al., 2022). The assessment model applied to Mountainside Teaching Hospital’s course will evaluate nurses’ competency development and ability to deliver high-quality, empathetic palliative care to geriatric patients in long-term care facilities.

Program Evaluation Process

The assessment process for the “Improving Palliative Care for Geriatric Patients in Long-Term Care Settings” course at Mountainside Teaching Hospital consists of six specific evaluation steps designed to measure nurse preparedness in delivering high-quality geriatric palliative care.

• The main purpose of the evaluation is to measure how well the course improves nursing competence regarding pain management, end-of-life communication, symptom control, and ethical decision-making capabilities. The assessment of nurse confidence and long-term patient-centered palliative care delivery competence forms part of the established objectives. Evaluation criteria in palliative care require continual adjustment because their complexity makes complete outcome measurement difficult (Arantzamendi et al., 2021).
• The evaluation will measure success through a combination of knowledge evaluation tests, clinical competency checklists, and qualitative feedback obtained from nurses through self-assessments and patient-family surveys. The assessment metrics will focus on symptom management proficiency, ethical judgment skills, and communication competencies. The traditional assessment tools struggle to measure subjective factors, including empathy and patient rapport, because these aspects are difficult to quantify (Arantzamendi et al., 2021).

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

• Various assessment approaches will be employed to measure knowledge development through pre/post-course assessments, hands-on clinical competency evaluation and patient-family survey feedback, and reflective journal entries for documenting nursing staff experiences and emotional transformations. The process of collecting self-reported reflections might produce biased results, while obtaining feedback from patients and their families becomes complicated because end-of-life distress affects their emotional state (Arantzamendi et al., 2021).
• The evaluation team will merge quantitative test scores and competency ratings with qualitative data from case discussions, nurse reflections, and patient feedback. The assessment seeks to detect patterns within nurse learning outcomes along with their skill execution ability and areas that need additional training. Combining subjective and objective data can prove challenging, while external factors affecting results include nurses’ experience and patient health conditions (Arantzamendi et al., 2021).
• Results from this study will reveal if the course succeeded in developing nursing practitioners’ clinical competencies and skills in ethical judgments and palliative care compassion. The analysis will demonstrate positive and negative attributes and propose course improvements. The course evaluation faces challenges due to the different clinical environments where nurses work because this makes it difficult to confirm that all improvements result from the educational program (Arantzamendi et al., 2021).
• The findings will guide changes to the course by improving case-based education and hands-on practice, strengthening ethical workshops, and enhancing communication programs. The change implementation process needs faculty backing, additional funding, and sufficient time, yet these requirements might slow down the improvement timeline (Arantzamendi et al., 2021).

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

The structured evaluation method at Mountainside Teaching Hospital provides a comprehensive and objective course assessment. The hospital can identify continuous enhancement opportunities and solve evaluation challenges in palliative care education.

Evaluation Design

The evaluation design for the “Improving Palliative Care for Geriatric Patients in Long-Term Care Settings” course at Mountainside Teaching Hospital combines mixed methodologies through Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model to evaluate program success while guiding improvement. The course’s content delivery, relevance, and participant satisfaction will be assessed through surveys and interviews at the first evaluation level. The Level 2 (Learning) assessment includes pre-course and post-course assessments, clinical simulations, case-based evaluations that measure skill development in symptom management and end-of-life communication, and ethical decision-making.

Evaluation at Level 3 (Behavior) includes direct observation, self-reflection, and supervisor evaluations to determine nurse application of learned concepts in real-world practice. Patient outcomes, including pain management improvements, patient-family satisfaction, and palliative care best practice adherence, will serve as Level 4 (Results) assessments. The structured assessment method provides a complete evaluation process that reveals successful aspects and improvement zones for strengthening theoretical knowledge and practical implementation (Liu et al., 2025).

Limitations

While Kirkpatrick’s Model provides a systematic approach, it has limitations in evaluating a palliative care program. Level 4 (Results) relies on long-term data, making it challenging to isolate the course’s direct impact from external factors such as prior nursing experience or institutional policies. Additionally, qualitative components at Levels 1 and 3—such as feedback and behavioral observations—are subject to bias, and self-reported reflections may lack objectivity.

Resource constraints can also affect Level 3 assessments, as direct observation requires time and faculty support. Lastly, palliative care’s emotional and ethical complexity makes measuring skill application and patient impact difficult, requiring ongoing refinement of evaluation tools. Despite these challenges, the Kirkpatrick Model, when combined with a mixed-method approach, remains a robust framework for guiding evidence-based program improvements (Liu et al., 2025).

Program Improvement

Data analysis is crucial in fostering ongoing program improvement for the “Improving Palliative Care for Geriatric Patients in Long-Term Care Settings” course at Mountainside Teaching Hospital. By systematically evaluating quantitative data (e.g., pre-and post-course test scores, competency checklists, and patient satisfaction surveys) alongside qualitative data (e.g., reflective journaling, patient-family feedback, and faculty observations), trends can be identified to enhance course effectiveness.

Statistical analysis of test scores can highlight knowledge gains, while thematic analysis of qualitative responses can reveal insights into communication effectiveness, ethical reasoning, and emotional preparedness (McIlfatrick et al., 2021). Longitudinal data tracking nurses’ performance post-course can assess retention and real-world application of skills. Identified gaps can be addressed by modifying course content, refining case-based training, introducing new teaching strategies, and ensuring continuous program enhancement (Bayley, 2023).

Areas of Uncertainty and Knowledge Gaps

Despite these strengths, areas of uncertainty remain. It can be challenging to isolate the course’s impact from other factors, such as prior nursing experience or institutional protocols. Additionally, subjective data—like patient-family feedback—may vary based on emotional distress, making it difficult to gauge the true effect of improved palliative care skills. More long-term follow-up data on nurses’ application of learned concepts in clinical practice would strengthen evaluations. Furthermore, while competency assessments measure technical skills, they may not fully capture nurses’ emotional resilience and ethical decision-making under stress. Incorporating more real-world simulations, peer assessments, and standardized patient interactions would provide a fuller picture of how effectively the course prepares nurses for geriatric palliative care (Bayley, 2023).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the standardized course evaluation template for “Improving Palliative Care for Geriatric Patients in Long-Term Care Settings” at Mountainside Teaching Hospital ensures a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of nurses’ competencies in palliative care. The evaluation process effectively measures knowledge acquisition, skill application, and patient-centered outcomes by integrating positivist, constructivist, and pragmatic approaches and employing Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model.

While data analysis supports ongoing program refinement, challenges such as isolating course impact, subjective feedback variability, and resource constraints highlight the need for continuous improvement. Addressing knowledge gaps through enhanced simulations, peer assessments, and long-term follow-ups will strengthen the course’s effectiveness, ultimately leading to better palliative care quality and patient outcomes.

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 

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

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

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, Volume 18, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s493936 

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 

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation