Creation of an Evidence-Based Program Evaluation Design for Preceptor Programs

Abstract

The role of the preceptor in orientation and the use of preceptor development programs to teach preceptors to be effective during the orientation process are supported by the literature. The characteristics of effective preceptor programs are outlined and studied in the literature. The literature supports the use of pre and post tests to evaluate knowledge and nurse retention rates to evaluate outcomes. However, these are only two measures which provide limited information to evaluate preceptor program effectiveness. A comprehensive evaluation for a preceptor program is needed, which includes measures from the participant, stakeholder, and organizational perspectives. The purpose of this capstone project was to develop a comprehensive preceptor evaluation using Donabedian’s Structure-Process-Outcome framework (1966) combined with the theory of Nursing Intellectual Capital (Covell, 2008) as an evaluation blueprint. The goal of the project was to develop a useful comprehensive evaluation design for hospital-based preceptor programs. Method: A survey-based quality improvement project was completed to determine the usefulness of an evidence-based Preceptor Program Evaluation Blueprint. Guided by the blueprint, surveys were used to gather data regarding the Structure, Process, and Outcomes of the LifeBridge Health Preceptor Development program from four different participant perspectives. These convenience samples included twenty-two new graduate nurses, nineteen nurse educators, twenty nurse leaders, and one hundred fifty preceptors. Results: Data from stakeholders revealed an overall satisfaction with the preceptor development program from all key stakeholder groups, yet also revealed uneven perceptions regarding other outcomes such as cost savings and impact on overall new graduate nurse retention, despite data to support positive changes in these organizational metrics. As predicted by the theoretical framework used for the project, weaknesses identified in Structure (identification of individuals responsible for follow-up) were also present in the Process and Outcomes feedback. The same held true for strengths in the Structure elements (preceptor workshop design), which also were consistent throughout the Process and Outcomes data. Changes to the program will be made based on the data from four key participant groups across all three elements of the LBH preceptor program. Conclusion: The evaluation blueprint was extremely helpful in guiding a comprehensive program evaluation and highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and inconsistencies of the program. Using the blueprint, staff development educators can identify, modify, and measure, and monitor key areas both during and after preceptor programs, to help support changes and lead to further enhancements and improvement. Streamlining and simplification of the blueprint is recommended to make it more accessible and usable for educators evaluating preceptor programs.