The authors used a six approach to designing a MRR tool. They first selected what outcome they would measure, and then in step two, determined how they were going to gather the information. They ultimately decided upon using a paper-based tick-box response (McConnell-Henry, Cooper. Endacott, Porter, Missen, Sparks 2015) with comment areas. They also included medical abbreviations and what they stood for so everyone who was evaluating the research was on the same page with the language and how score the results. In step three, they established content validity by having nurses who were outside of the project review the MRR for clarity and relevance (McConnell-Henry, Cooper. Endacott, Porter, Missen, Sparks 2015). After pilot testing the program, they trained those who would be evaluating the forms to, again, make sure the auditors knew exactly what to look for. Finally, the authors established a sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to accurately achieve the audit aims Cooper. Endacott, Porter, Missen, Sparks 2015). The authors concluded that MRR’s, despite some of the limitations they have, an excellent mechanism for accessing issues “remain related to the safety and quality of patient care,” (McConnell-Henry, Cooper. Endacott, Porter, Missen, Sparks p. 78). Assessment This is a useful source because it lays out for the reader six that one can take when beginning an instructional design process. These steps are comparable to the ADDIE model of design because one is still analyzing the problem, developing and designing a solution, and instructing a training process that can be used by other people, in this case the auditors who would be using the medical records review. However, the major difference between the two is in the evaluation phase of the process, which is built into the ADDIE model. In the ADDIE model, you are evaluating the outcomes of the training that has been implemented, while in the design
The authors used a six approach to designing a MRR tool. They first selected what outcome they would measure, and then in step two, determined how they were going to gather the information. They ultimately decided upon using a paper-based tick-box response (McConnell-Henry, Cooper. Endacott, Porter, Missen, Sparks 2015) with comment areas. They also included medical abbreviations and what they stood for so everyone who was evaluating the research was on the same page with the language and how score the results. In step three, they established content validity by having nurses who were outside of the project review the MRR for clarity and relevance (McConnell-Henry, Cooper. Endacott, Porter, Missen, Sparks 2015). After pilot testing the program, they trained those who would be evaluating the forms to, again, make sure the auditors knew exactly what to look for. Finally, the authors established a sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to accurately achieve the audit aims Cooper. Endacott, Porter, Missen, Sparks 2015). The authors concluded that MRR’s, despite some of the limitations they have, “remain an excellent mechanism for accessing issues related to the safety and quality of patient care,” (McConnell-Henry, Cooper. Endacott, Porter, Missen, Sparks p. 78). Assessment This is a useful source because it lays out for the reader six that one can take when beginning an instructional design process. These steps are comparable to the ADDIE model of design because one is still analyzing the problem, developing and designing a solution, and instructing a training process that can be used by other people, in this case the auditors who would be using the medical records review. However, the major difference between the two is in the evaluation phase of the process, which is built into the ADDIE model. In the ADDIE model, you are evaluating the outcomes of the training that has been implemented, while in the design