Student Name

Capella University

NURS-FPX6116 Nursing Education Assessment and Evaluation

professor Name

Submission Date

Program Effectiveness Presentation

Slide 01

I am……., and I am really pleased to be here today speaking about the “central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) prevention and management”. Anyone in the critical care field is familiar with the dire risks that are posed with central lines when infection control precautions are not consistently followed. This presentation will look at the success of the CLABSI prevention and management course in nursing education and how to enhance patient safety and outcomes.

Slide 02

Philosophical Perspectives to Evaluation

A positivist approach looks at quantifiable and objective measures to evaluate course outcomes. Observed data like pre- and post-test scores, competence checklists, simulation outcomes, and protocol compliance based on evidence are useful indicators of learning and skill development in this regard (Schlechter et al., 2024). These findings have the potential to be replicated with other students and extended to other cohorts of students to help determine if the course is ongoing to improve clinical preparedness to prevent CLABSI.

Constructivist Approach

The views and experiences of the course participants are the focus of the constructivist philosophy. Qualitative techniques, including reflective journaling, focus groups, or feedback from the participants, can be used by the evaluators to explore the participants’ perception of the applicability of the course, the barriers they foresee when implementing the course, and the organizational or cultural factors that may affect the implementation of central line care (Behrens, 2021). The focus is on the value of mutual meaning-making of teachers and students, whereby the content of the course was meaningful, relevant, and adaptable to the real-life intensive care unit (ICU) context.

Pragmatist Approach

Pragmatism accepts solutions that are practical in nature and is based on the combination of quantitative and qualitative assessment techniques. For instance, changes in test scores and clinical outcomes can be correlated with learner responses to barriers in their work setting to implementing the bundle. The two lenses are used to determine the effect of the course not only on increasing the knowledge, but also on giving the learners hands-on experience and confidence to lower the risk of CLABSI in their institution (Allemang et al., 2021). The flexibility of the approach of pragmatism makes the process of assessment flexible, goal-oriented, and directly connected with safer clinical practice and quality improvement.

The evidence presented to support the explanation

For the assessment to be more substantial, the evaluation model to use, which will include both empirical and experiential data, will be selected. A mixed method of positivist performance data and constructivist learner understandings provides a more in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of the course.

For example, Sharma et al (2024) performed a cross-sectional observation study with a validated questionnaire of physicians and nurses in the intensive care unit (ICU) to help estimate awareness and use of central line bundles. They generally had a good protocol knowledge score of 82%, with those who were trained having a particularly high score, thereby reflecting the benefit of the educational interventions on protocol adherence. Similarly, a multicenter study was completed by He et al. (2025) that involved a large population in China and evaluated the nurses of the Intensive Care Unit in 22 tertiary government hospitals. The study determined the level of knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP), and it revealed that the knowledge, attitude, and practice of 31.1%, 45.5%, and 89.9% of the nurses were good, favorable, and appropriate, respectively. Therefore, the level of knowledge may be different, but the functional behaviors are not. This could mean that the ones noted as differences may be more explainable through qualitative research, where the level of knowledge may be different.

Process for Evaluation of the Program

Slide 03

Step 1: Goal Setting and Planning

A key element of assessment is the clear description of the purpose of the course assessment. This program will aim to reinforce the learners’ understanding of the CLABSI prevention, reduce the non-adherence to the CLABSI central line care bundle, and boost the confidence in evidence-based practice. The outcomes could include improvement in pre-test and post-test scores, increased competence in simulation or clinical competency, and increased satisfaction (Ullah et al., 2024). One other challenge often faced at this stage is the need to make goals realistic, measurable, and in line with institutional priorities and resources.

The second step

This step is to choose the methods that are going to identify the quantitative and qualitative outcomes. Skill test results, adherence to protocols, and/or checklists for performance may be used to assess quantitatively. Qualitative feedback can be obtained through reflective activities, focus groups, or feedback questionnaires (Ullah et al., 2024). The factors outlined include avoiding participant bias and selecting instruments that assess experiential learning as well as cognitive learning to some extent for the course.

Step 3 Data collection

These data can be collected using online testing, simulation, assessment from electronic health records (EHR)–based case studies, and student surveys, in addition to faculty assessments. Restrictions may be that learners’ responses are incomplete, that the learners report change, but it does not actually happen, or that surveys have low returns. Consistency can be achieved through documentation and multiple data sources to enhance reliability.

Analyze data (Step 4)

The data are analyzed and aggregated to assess the knowledge acquisition and skills performance, and learner attitude. While thematic content analysis of qualitative data can be used to determine experiences, challenges, and contextual issues affecting knowledge transfer of learners, statistical data can be used to determine increases or decreases in scores or competency ratings. The restrictions might be because of the interpretation of the qualitative information or the lack of analytic instruments that the program can use.

The final step is reporting and interpretation

The results are synthesized to show the results of the course in relation to the intended results. Reports should also be clear about the progress in knowledge, skills, and confidence, and difficulties in learning and/or applying. One of the most frequently encountered challenges is communicating difficult education and clinical findings and making unbiased recommendations.

Step 6: Make an Improvement using the Results

The last process is the utilization of outcomes to improve the course and make it as effective as possible. It may mean adapting the content to new guidelines, improving pedagogic strategies, such as making them more interactive with the use of additional simulations, or offering refreshers regularly. The barriers might include resources, time, or resistance of staff to change (Ullah et al., 2024). The use of evaluation results, however, helps in ongoing improvements and assistance with the sustainability of effective education interventions.

Limitations of the Steps of the Process

Slide 04:

The obstacles encountered at each of the stages of the evaluation of the CLABSI prevention and management course may impact the validity and usefulness of the results. The planning and goal-setting process can also be challenging in terms of creating measurable learning objectives, e.g., better knowledge on central line bundles or better simulation performance, and connecting these to the time available, faculty, and institutional resources (Griffith et al., 2024). The design phase could produce threats to validity, such as sampling bias (e.g., sampling only motivated students) and the selection of appropriate tools of measurement that do not adequately address the difficulty of implementing prevention strategies in the actual situation.

Many factors can also impede the data collection process, including: students failing to submit all tests; students not completing surveys; and students not documenting their student progress uniformly. During data analysis, biased interpretation of the data in qualitative responses or any limitations of the statistical analysis may pose risks that impact the reliability of the analysis results (Yilmaz et al., 2022). Similarly, it can be challenging to summarize and report findings and results in a way that is unbiased, especially when combining the results from multiple studies to make consistent recommendations.

Lastly, faculty resistance to changing the curriculum, other institutional priorities, or resource constraints to improve the curriculum can hinder implementation of results. This current set of challenges underscores the importance of careful planning, transparency, and ongoing re-evaluation of the evaluation process to ensure that course outcomes result in the development of learners and ultimately to a goal of reducing the risk of CLABSI through education.

Program Improvement Model

Slide 05:

The plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle will be used as a step-by-step, systematic, iterative process for evaluating and improving the course for implementing CLABSI prevention and management. During the Plan step, specific objectives for the children in particular education are established, such as the number of children knowing more about the elements of central line bundles, better clinical decision making, and better outcomes for the simulation (Manandi et al., 2023). In the Do phase, the selected instructional interventions (interactive modules, simulation training, or case conferences) are implemented with a small group of learners, with the aim of assessing feasibility and acceptability.

During the Study stage, information is collected and processed to determine the efficiency of these methods. Some of the indicators are pre- and post-test scores, learners’ confidence rating, skills test score, and qualitative feedback from the participants. The step will show if the interventions have been successful in achieving the desired outcomes or not. Lastly, in the Act phase, the findings are applied to enhance the course design, rectify the identified gaps, and disseminate successful strategies to the entire learner community (Manandi et al., 2023). The cycles enable a constant improvement of the course, which will be responsive to institutional and learner needs due to its repetitive nature.

Limitations of the Model

Although the PDSA model is flexible and cyclical, and it has improved over time, there are some disadvantages to consider in light of the course evaluation. The process is time-consuming and resource-intensive in terms of faculty time, administrative support, and faculty commitment, requiring multiple cycles. Issues with data validity could also arise, such as incomplete learner participation, inconsistencies in self-reported data, or inconsistent records, which may impact data reliability (Harrison et al., 2021). In addition, it may be tiring to maintain the momentum through successive cycles if the faculty feels it’s too hard or not needed. The constraints suggest that robust leadership support, faculty development, and integrating the PDSA cycle into the existing framework of educational quality improvement are valuable. In the context of these supports, the model can play a role in improving the CLABSI Prevention and Management course in the long term and boost its influence on the competencies and practice preparedness of learners.

Analysis of Data for Program Improvements

Slides 06

Likert scales are extremely useful during the process of obtaining feedback and perceptions from the learners when evaluating the CLABSI Prevention and Management course. Through these surveys, teachers will be able to identify the attitudes of the participants towards the content of learning, how easy or difficult it was to implement the practices of central line sealing, and what barriers they saw to implementing the knowledge in practice (Jebb et al., 2021). This type of information reveals the patterns of self-assurance, involvement, and readiness of the learner and, consequently, the areas of achievement and areas for improvement.

For instance, the importance of the chlorhexidine skin preparation could be highly agreed upon by students, whereas the necessity of daily lines may not be as strongly agreed upon. This would indicate that there is a need to re-teach some skills that need some additional time or a change in curriculum. Moreover, instructors can study the impact of changes in instruction, improvements of the simulation, and the involvement of leadership on the outcomes of learning by using a Likert scale that is tracked across sequential cohorts (Ullah et al., 2024). By reflecting critically on this type of organized feedback, program directors can fine-tune their teaching practice, prioritize resources, and make sure the program is making a significant contribution to safe clinical practice.

Knowledge Gaps

Identifying gaps in knowledge is important to make sure that the CLABSI Prevention and Management course is as knowledge-enriching as possible. Gaps that may exist include inadequate research on students’ experience in applying the principles in practice in the maintenance of the central line, inadequate research on the organizational culture as a variable that could affect knowledge transfer, and the lack of post-measurement to see if the skills are retained after the course is completed. Furthermore, the efficacy of EHR-integrated tools (such as computer-generated alerts or tracking systems) to document the competency of learners and the extent to which they will follow these prevention guidelines over time remains uncertain to a great degree.

Slide 07

Conclusion

The systematic evaluation process plays a vital role in deciding the CLABSI prevention and management course. A combination of positivist and constructivist approaches in the context of PDSA involves measurable outcomes and learner feedback. Likert scales are indicators of direction of confidence and knowledge, which inform development grounded in evidence. Realizing that something is limited, that it requires resources, or that there are feasibility issues will provide course corrections in time. This process facilitates a continuous improvement of the course, competence of students, and safe practice in the ICU.