Proposed Solution, Implementation, And Evaluation

For this fourth assignment, you will present the proposed solution for your evidence-based intervention and outline the implementation and evaluation plan.

Proposal

In 100-250 words, present a detailed explanation of your proposed solution (new policy, process, procedure, or education that addresses the problem or issue you identified for your project). Include rationale for why you selected proposed solution. The proposed solution should be based on the support indicated in the literature review.

Preparing an Implementation Plan

Develop an implementation plan (500-750 words). The elements that should be included in your plan are listed below:

1. Strategies for obtaining necessary approval(s) and securing support from your organization’s leadership and fellow staff. If you are proposing a change in current policy, process, or procedure, first describe the current policy, process, or procedure as a baseline for comparison.
2. Description of implementation. (When and how will the change be integrated into the current organizational structure, culture, and workflow? Who will be responsible for initiating the change, educating staff, and overseeing the implementation process?)
3. Resources required for implementation: stakeholders; assessment tools (questionnaires, surveys, pretests and posttests to assess knowledge of participants at baseline and after intervention); technology (technological or software needs); funds (cost of educating staff, printing or producing educational materials, gathering and analyzing data before, during, and following implementation); and staff to initiate, oversee, and evaluate change

Evaluation Plan

Prepare an evaluation plan (500-750 words) supported by your critical analysis of the literature.

1. Discuss methods to evaluate the effectiveness of your proposed solution.
2. Describe what your projected outcomes will be and what variables will be assessed.
   

   Rubic_Print_Format

   Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
   HLT-490V	HLT-490V-O500	Proposed Solution, Implementation, and Evaluation	100.0
   Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%)	Satisfactory (75.00%)	Good (85.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
   Content	70.0%
   Proposed Solution	15.0%	A proposed solution is not presented. The solution is not supported by the findings in the literature review.	A partial summary of the proposed solution is outlined. It is unclear whether the solution is supported by the findings in the literature review.	A summary of the proposed solution is presented. The solution is generally based on the support indicated in the literature review.	An explanation of the proposed solution is presented. Overall, the solution is based on the support indicated in the literature review.	A detailed explanation of the proposed solution is presented and is based on the support indicated in the literature review.
   Implementation Plan: Strategies for Approval	10.0%	Proposed strategies and a baseline comparison for any proposed changes are not discussed.	Proposed strategies are incomplete. Current policy, process, or procedure is only partially discussed and a baseline comparison for any proposed changes to these areas cannot be made.	General strategies for obtaining the necessary approvals and securing support from organizational leadership and fellow staff are proposed. For any proposed change to current policy, process, or procedure an outline of the current policy, process, or procedure is presented for a baseline comparison. Some areas are vague. Some support is needed.	Key strategies for obtaining the necessary approvals and securing support from organizational leadership and fellow staff are proposed. For any proposed change to current policy, process, or procedure a description of the current policy, process, or procedure is presented for a baseline comparison. The narrative has adequate support.	Clear strategies for obtaining the necessary approvals and securing support from organizational leadership and fellow staff are proposed. For any proposed change in current policy, process, or procedure an informative description of the current policy, process, or procedure is presented for a baseline comparison. The narrative is thorough and well-supported.
   Implementation Plan: Description of Plan	15.0%	The description of the implementation plan is omitted.	The description of the implementation plan is incomplete.	A summary of the implementation plan is presented. The narrative includes some aspects of when and how the change will be integrated into the current organizational structure, culture, and workflow, and who will be responsible for initiating the change, educating staff, and overseeing the implementation process. The narrative demonstrates a general understanding of the implementation process.	A description of the implementation plan is presented. Overall, narrative includes when and how the change will be integrated into the current organizational structure, culture, and workflow, and who will be responsible for initiating the change, educating staff, and overseeing the implementation process. The narrative demonstrates an adequate understanding of the implementation process.	A well-developed description of the implementation plan is presented. The narrative includes when and how the change will be integrated into the current organizational structure, culture, and workflow, and who will be responsible for initiating the change, educating staff, and overseeing the implementation process. The narrative demonstrates a clear understanding of the implementation process.
   Implementation Plan: Resources Required	10.0%	Resources required for implementation are not discussed.	Resources required for implementation are only partially discussed.	Resources required for implementation are outlined. Some aspects related to stakeholders, assessment tools, technology, funds and staff needed to initiate, oversee, and evaluate change are outlined. The narrative demonstrates a general understanding of resources needed for implementation.	Resources required for implementation are discussed. Aspects related to stakeholders, assessment tools, technology, funds and staff needed to initiate, oversee, and evaluate change are discussed. The narrative demonstrates understanding of resources needed for implementation.	A well-developed description of the implementation plan is presented. The narrative includes when and how the change will be integrated into the current organizational structure, culture, and workflow, and who will be responsible for initiating the change, educating staff, and overseeing the implementation process. The narrative demonstrates a clear understanding of the implementation process. Resources required for implementation are thoroughly discussed. Aspects related to stakeholders, assessment tools, technology, funds and staff needed to initiate, oversee, and evaluate change are detailed. The narrative demonstrates a clear understanding of resources needed for implementation.
   Evaluation Plan: Methods for Evaluation	10.0%	Methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solution are not discussed. The proposed methods are not supported by the findings in the literature analysis.	Methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solution are only partially discussed. The methods are sometimes supported by the findings in the literature analysis.	General methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solution are summarized. The methods presented are generally supported by the findings in the literature analysis.	Adequate methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solution are discussed. The methods presented are supported by the findings in the literature analysis.Projected outcomes variables to be assessed are discussed. Overall, the narrative is supported by the findings in the literature analysis.	Realistic and effective methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solution are detailed. The methods presented are strongly supported by the findings in the literature analysis.
   Evaluation Plan: Projected Outcomes and Variables for Assessment	10.0%	Projected outcomes and variables to be assessed are not discussed. The narrative is not supported by the findings in the literature analysis.	Projected outcomes are outlined and the variables to be assessed are only partially discussed. The narrative is sometimes supported by the findings in the literature analysis.	Projected outcomes are outlned and the variables to be assessed are summarized. The narrative is generally supported by the findings in the literature analysis.	Projected outcomes variables to be assessed are discussed. Overall, the narrative is supported by the findings in the literature analysis.	The projected outcomes and the variables to be assessed are thoroughly described. The narrative is strongly supported by the findings in the literature analysis.
   Organization, Effectiveness, and Format	30.0%
   Thesis Development and Purpose	7.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
   Argument Logic and Construction	8.0%	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
   Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	5.0%	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
   Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	5.0%	Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.
   Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	5.0%	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
   Total Weightage	100%