Search

Offers guidelines for conducting outcomes assessment research, particularly communication alumni surveys. Recommends what to do before starting, suggests some step-by-step guidelines, and notes the aftermath and conclusions of the 1991 Boise State University Outcomes Assessment Project. (SR)

Offers both the questionnaire and the subject calling card from the 1991 Boise State University (BSU) alumni outcomes assessment survey, as a general model for assessing communication alumni. Makes suggestions regarding the design of an effective survey instrument based on the BSU experience. (SR)

Discusses outcomes assessment. Describes the Boise State Project, a comprehensive outcomes assessment study of alumni of the Department of Communication spanning a 20-year period, 1970-1989. Discusses conceptualization and design, methodology, analysis of data, general survey findings, and conclusions. (SR)

Background Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS. Methods A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities. Results Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients). Conclusions The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study of urban divorced individuals reveals that nine conflict variables remain problematic in a ten-year marriage. Poor interpersonal communication between spouses is a major problem area. The findings reinforce the four phases of marital dyadic interpersonal conflict identified by Bradford in 1978. Alcohol and drug abuse are other major problems leading to divorce.

Organizational ethics programs can help senior health care leaders align an institution’s decision-making to its stated mission and values. The optimal ways organizational ethics can and should support senior leaders, however, are evolving. To inform that conversation, we discuss how organizational ethics has supported senior leaders in two tertiary hospitals during institutional responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. This real-time process of organizational ethics program development has helped characterize the types of support organizational ethics can provide to senior leaders and has identified how organizational ethics can be embedded in leadership processes to ensure the recognition and management of ethical challenges in health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents information related to alumni outcomes assessment. When the Department of Communication at Boise State University received its mandate from the Idaho State Board of Education to conduct an outcomes assessment study of its 1970-1989 alumni, the departmental faculty decided that a telephone survey methodology should be employed. Of all the necessary procedures required to conduct an effective outcomes assessment survey, none is more critical and time consuming in both design and refinement than the questionnaire itself. While several publications can provide a program with valuable insights, experience suggests that each department ultimately must customize its own evaluation instrument to reflect particular needs and political-academic contexts. One should avoid, if at all possible, the committee approach to writing the survey instrument. After attaining both faculty and alumni feedback, one should allow the project director to design the questionnaire. One should consider a departmental committee to help in critiquing this process, but questionnaires-by-committee waste time and often create hardships.

This article presents information related to outcomes assessment research. While the issue of accountability through systematic outcomes assessment research may engender lively debates among many academics, one fact seems indisputable--program accountability will remain a preeminent higher education issue throughout the 1990s. Unfortunately, two general mistakes often preclude affecting such research--first, department faculty often develop a mindset that outcomes assessment research is the university's responsibility, and some departments simply wait until some external authority mandates accountability. Departments that merely wait for a mandate might be forced by external constraints into a reactive, rather than, proactive approach. As a rule, communication departments that wait until assessment is mandated have simply waited too long. One should utilize one member of the faculty with research experience for the role of project director. This does not preclude the use of a faculty outcomes assessment committee, but ultimately the responsibility for the outcomes assessment project should be given to one faculty member.

This article presents information related to the alumni outcomes assessment in Boise State University Survey. Alumni outcomes assessment is not a recent development in social science research. Historical precedents are evidenced by a variety of outcomes assessment studies, including the seminal 1937-38 General College Survey conducted by the University of Minnesota, the 1947 Time Survey of College Graduates in the U.S. and Bryn Mawr's extensive 1970-71 survey of its alumni and former students from 1896 to 1970. Outcomes assessment research is not without its own philosophical and pragmatic difficulties among university administrators and faculties. In the latter part of the 1980s, the Department of Communication at Boise State University conducted a self-study as it designed a proposal for graduate level accreditation. Results of this study indicated that whereas the department was doing rather well in assessing outcomes for students still enrolled in its program, only informal methods of assessing outcomes of its graduates existed.

Focuses on the use of an automated medstation as a replacement of the manual controlled substances system. Reviewing past systems; Establishing the station; How to use the medstation; Time savings with the medstation.

Background: Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS., Methods: A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities., Results: Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients)., Conclusions: The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

With the evolution from single healthcare entities to health systems, the role of the system chief nurse executive (SCNE) has evolved. The SCNE leads at the highest executive level in the system and has continuum of care accountability. To effectively support the scope and breadth of the SCNE role, the organizational structure must contain key elements to ensure success. This article outlines the key elements of a system nursing organization and serves to aid in the development, improvement, and sustainability of successful system nursing structures., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)