ChangeProject
- 1. Running head: ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 1 Annual Evaluation Change Project Reina Mensink California State University, Dominguez Hills School of Nursing Role Performance in Leadership and Management BSN451, Section 58 Kathy Borland, RN, MSN April 10, 2015
- 2. ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 2 Annual Evaluation Change Project One of the most benefiting rewards an organization can provide employees is performance appraisals (Twedell, 2014). Having a system in place that assist the manager in providing proper feedback to employees is essential. There are a variety of methods or tools that can be implemented that enables managers to provide accurate and appropriate feedback. Structured tools include a graphic rating scale, which is a numerical system providing high and low values that indicate performance as well as a rating scale that can be subjective and too general (Twedell, 2014). Flexible methods that can be applied are behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), management by objectives (MBO) and peer review (Twedell, 2014). The BARS method is objective as in includes assessment of the employee’s critical incidences and standards of care based on the unit specialty (Twedell, 2014). MBO is a system in which the manager and employee create goals for the upcoming year and are then evaluated the next year (Twedell, 2014). Another flexible, contemporary, and collaborative method is peer review which allows the manager to view performance from another nurse’s perspective (Twedell, 2014). Problem With upcoming annual evaluations on a telemetry unit where the manager oversees 130 employees, there lies difficulty in assessing each one individually. Although the manager know each one by name and is able to recall some personal information that ties him to understanding his employee’s personality, he is unable to keep track of each one individually when it comes to properly evaluating them related to time constraints and multiple other duties involved in his job. He understands it is unfair for his employee to be evaluated on efforts not seen by him. The manager conveyed his dilemma and frustration with the system set in place at the time. The system currently allowed the employee to write down goals for the upcoming year and bring it to
- 3. ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 3 the evaluation where it would be reviewed with the manager. Also, the manager would review, by himself, performance based on the employee’s measurement against the organization’s core values as well as absences. In essence, the tools used should allow for a successful evaluation, but because of time constraints, the end result was not congruent with the employees’ true performance. Change required Building trust between the nurse and manager during the evaluation meeting is the primary objective which results in a beneficial professional, working relationship (Bensing, 2011). Since the manager was satisfied with the tools used but not in the incorporation of it, change needed to take place. Other evaluators that interact with the nurses needed to be included. Realizing his difficulties, incorporating peer review was going to be the solution. Purpose of Peer- Review for Change Since the 1980’s, the peer review process has been used for appraisals and hospitals designated early on with Magnet status applied this with much success (Bensing, 2011). According to Twedell (2014), a solid rating can be obtained from peers, since nurses function in their normal pattern in the presence of each other. This method provides an objective view rather than subjective. The hospital was designated with Magnet status and will be reevaluated in the upcoming year. This peer review will assist in their efforts to comply with Magnet re- designation. The New Evaluation Feedback Tool Understanding that the manager trusted the lead nurses on his units and that they are well equipped in monitoring the daily practices of the staff, it was obvious they were key to the solution. The manager wanted to continue using the core values in the evaluation. A
- 4. ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 4 spreadsheet was made for each of the five day lead nurses and four of the night lead nurses. The spreadsheet had each of the staff member’s name under the proper shift, across their name was the word for each core value: service, excellence, knowledge, community, and stability. Then two separate boxes across each name for what they are stars at and what needs improving. The leads were also given a one page paper on what is required from each core value. The lead nurses are to give a letter grade on each value and turn it in to the manager by April 15. The manager will then average out the grades for each core value which will then be presented at the evaluation. Also, starting this year there will be more focus on crediting the staff for picking up shifts as opposed to just stating absences. Focusing on absences can lead to frustration, questions, and complaints (Olmstead, Falcone, Lopez, Sharpe, & Michna, 2012). Cost The cost involved will be from paper used for leads to fill out letter grades. In the future, maybe informatics can be involved to create a system that allows each one to grade and averages out the score to decrease the time needed from the manager. Time There will be time required from the lead nurses, but can easily be done during work. Two weeks were allotted to finish grading each employee on their shift. Impact Each manager from all units were presented with the process and spreadsheet was shown. All were pleased to know how to incorporate a more beneficial and objective evaluation of their staff. The impact will be noticed with higher nursing retention and better manager-nurse relationships. Time will only tell and results will be interesting.
- 5. ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 5 Reference Bensing, K. (2011). Nurse performance appraisals: What purpose do they serve? Advance Healthcare Network for Nurses. Retrieved from https://nursing.advanceweb.com/Regional-Content/Articles/Nurse-Performance -Appraisals.aspx Olmstead, J., Falcone, D., Lopez, J., Sharpe, L., & Michna, J. (2012). Perioperative employee annual evaluations: A 30-second process. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses Journal, 96(6), 627-633. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2012.09.023 Twedell, D. M. (2014). Selecting, developing, and evaluating staff. In P. S. Yoder-Wise (Ed.). Leading and managing in nursing (5th ed.), (pp.295-308). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby