Healthcare Program Review Tactics

Healthcare Plan Review

The author of this report is to answer three general questions relating to healthcare program evaluation. The first question asks the author of this report to examine the overall purpose of healthcare program evaluation. The second question asks the author to identify at least five different types of common healthcare program evaluation techniques. Finally, one of those methods in particular will be selected and there will be a drilling down into more detail on that single type. While the purpose and method of operations is quite similar with all program evaluation types, there are some subtle to major differences from type to type.

At its core, the purpose of healthcare program evaluation is to analyze and improve the operations and performance of a healthcare program based on a systematic and full review of what is going right, what is going wrong and what needs to be changed. The practice of healthcare program reviews came to prominence in the United States during the 1990's and has only grown since then. It is useful to healthcare executives as well as policymakers. Of course, what program is being evaluated and the root purpose of that program will literally vary from program to program. Public sector programs, for example, will differ widely from private sector programs. The paradigm is obviously going to be quite different in countries that have universal health care like Canada and Europe as compare to the United States which does not. Even so, even as the responsible party varies, the metrics and desirable outcomes do not differ all that much most of the time (Fink, 1992). Put another way than was stated above, program evaluation reasons and outcomes would include demonstration of program effectiveness to funders, improvement of the program's implementation, better management of resources that are limited and finite in nature, documentation of accomplishments that have been lodged, justification for funding levels, supporting of the need for funding increases, and ethical responsibilities to clients, policymakers and other stakeholders or regulators (MUSC, 2014).