Prepare1. ReadA. Milstead (2016a) chapters on the policy processi. introductionii. agenda settingiii. legislationiv. regulationv. policy designvi. policy implementationvii. program evaluationB. Milstead and Knestrick article (1998) applying the framework to a health policy issue.C. Optional Milstead chapter in Caring for the Vulnerable (2016c):2. Choose a policy issue related to health.A. You must choose a policy topic related to your DNP Project. If you do not have an approved project topic, choose a policy topic related to an area of clinical interes. You may choose from the list provided on the next page if any of those policies are related to your DNP Project or an area of clinical interest. You must get any issue not on the list approved by faculty.B. Pick a specific example of the policy, in a particular jurisdiction. For example, vending machine regulation in Jefferson County School District. You cannot meet the requirements of the assignment without a specific jurisdiction. C. On the following page you will find a list of the health policy issues currently approved for this assignment, topics that will work for the requirements for the assignment. Remember, you must pick an issue related to your DNP Project clinical topic or an area of clinical interest. If the policy is not one already listed on the following page you need to get faculty approval for it. This is to make sure it will work for the requirements of the assignment. To sign up for a policy, go to the Health Policy Issues Sign Up page which follows.3. Consult with faculty about your plans. This is a new approach to analysis for you. It’s a bad idea to submit for scoring without first discussing your ideas with faculty. It’s like writing your first SOAP note. You need some guidance until you catch on. Most students do not catch on well without that guidance.A. At webinars, we will review content for this assignment. You can volunteer to be the example at webinars.B. There is a calendar where you can sign up for an appointment to do this on the phone.C. You can post questions in the Cybercafé, getting feedback from both faculty and classmate colleagues.AnalyzeYou will submit your analysis in two parts. Here is the first part:1. Introduce the problem briefly (in 1 paragraph). Explain why we should care about this problem. Review the nature of the clinical issues leading to the need to think about a policy issue. In the Milstead and Knestrick article, they explained the many serious sequelae with increased pediatric serum lead levels and the prevalence of the problem.A.Do not address your policy solution here. This is like your assessment statement, the “O” in the SOAP note, the explanation of the problem. The policy is the intervention, the “P” in SOAP, and comes later. The introduction is where you try to make us care about the problem, not where you persuade us you have a solution to it. There is no need to mention your solution here at all; it only takes up space more useful for giving the prevalence and sequelae of the clinical issue.B. You do not have to use studies or peer reviewed journals for this part of the paper, but your sources must be reputable.i. In addition to scholarly sources, you may also usea. governmental or non-profit agency summaries.b. Reputable and in depth newspaper accounts.c. Policy analyses, the part where they address the problem, not the policy solution.ii. Do not use:a.Some students use more general accounts (such as Wikipedia or patient education materials) to get leads on who is writing about a particular issue. Do not cite this type of source in your paper. Use sources that are professional and accountable to their readers.b. If you use a source like the CDC or WHO website do not use a consumer oriented page, or any page that does not give references. This is like citing a health education pamphlet. It is fine to use a professional page or report, which always do give their sources.2. Apply the Milstead framework to this policy (4 paragraphs). Write one paragraph for each of the four stages in the framework, similar to the analysis in Milstead (2016b & 2016c) and Milstead and Knestrick (1998).A. Agenda setting i. You don’t have to reiterate here why the problem is important. You have done that in the introduction ii. You do have to explain what players or events precipitated action on this policy.B. Government response. What government action (legislative or executive) made this policy official?C. Policy and program implementation (include funding sources). What action makes this policy real?D. Policy and program evaluation. Clearly identify both the process and outcomes measures needed to evaluate this policy, even if they were not used in an evaluation actually done. i. Process (formative) measures. Did it happen? Was this policy implemented as intended? ii. Outcomes (summative) measures. Did it work? Did this policy have the intended outcomes? This should circle back to your introduction, the problem the policy addresses.E. You can apply this framework to any policy, whether it is in the middle of this process, already in place, or only proposed. If your policy issue has not gone through all the steps, give your opinion on what you would like to see happen in those remaining. For example, if your issue has not proceeded yet to program evaluation, give some ideas on how the program might be evaluated.Here is the second part:1. Summarize the evidence (1 to 3 paragraphs). Summarize what you found out about whether this policy leads to the health outcome desired. Do we have the evidence we need to establish that? How good is it? Give a brief summary of what evidence we have for this policy solution. Draw on expertise gained in the evidence courses to search for, identify, and evaluate evidence that addresses what we know about what might resolve this problem. (This analysis is not in the Milstead and Knestrick article.)A. Your summary must include evidence for both clinical (individual level) and policy-related (population level) effectiveness. There is a presentation in the module about this distinction. Let’s use as an example reimbursement for a procedure. Here, there are at least three different areas of evidence.i. Is there evidence that the procedure itself leads to better health outcomes (clinical evidence)?ii. Is there evidence that the policy leads more appropriate use of the procedure (more utilization, which is policy evidence)?iii. Or, even better, can you establish that the policy leads to better health outcomes (policy evidence)?iv. There is a narrated slide show in the module to help you distinguish between clinical and policy related evidence. If you feel you may not have included both in your paper, consult that slide show, post a question in the course discussion, come to a webinar, or write or call your faculty. This is an important part of the paper and accounts for substantial points in the rubric.B. Search for information about evidence from scholarly sources:i. You need use only the Community Guide for Preventive Services (http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html (Links to an external site.)), Medline, CINAHL, and PsycInfo.ii. If you find a good systematic review of interventions, you do not need to go earlier than its date in Medline, CINAHL, and PsycInfo.iii. You may have to go back to around the time the problem was identified, or around the time the policy was developed. Once you find the classic articles, use their keywords to find any useful updates.C. Summarize your findings in terms of what we know about effective interventions for this problem.i. Do not summarize each individual study, just the areas of intervention for which evidence exists.ii. Be sure to include whatever evidence you find for the policy response you are examining in your paper, even if that is that there is none. If you do not comment on evidence for the policy, you will earn an “insufficient” rating for that criterion in the rubric. There is a slide presentation in the “Policy” module on evidence, explaining the importance commenting on both clinical evidence and evidence for the policy itself. Questions about what kind of evidence is needed for your policy are good ones to bring to webinars, meetings with faculty, or course discussion postings.iii. If you do not find the kind of evidence you need, look for something similar. For example, perhaps you cannot find evidence of whether reimbursement for a particular procedure leads to more appropriate utilization of that procedure or better health outcomes in an insured population. Then look for evidence of whether reimbursement of other procedures led to those outcomes.iv. Be sure to comment on the nature of the evidence you have found, particularly if you find only recommendations, or minimal research evidence to support the policy. Draw on what you learned in the course on evidence based practice, distinguishing between weak and strong evidence and commenting on what you find.2. Conclude (1 paragraph). Give your opinion on whether this policy issue has been successfully resolved or not.A. Explain your rationale.B. Include whether evidence supports the policy process to date.C. Include what steps you think most useful for the future.Generally1. Use APA style, a clear progression of ideas with topic sentences, and correct grammar and style. Papers not written clearly and correctly in APA style will be returned for revision. Re-submissions will incur a 10% penalty on the total score.2. You will also earn a score on writing style.A. Please use topic sentences and stick to one topic in each paragraph.B. You may use subheadings if you wish. But, this is a short paper and does not require them. If you do use subheadings, they do not substitute for topic sentences.C. Frontier offers you a writer’s self editing checklist to help with this, as well as the Writing Resources at the library (https://library.frontier.edu/writingresources (Links to an external site.)). You will get an half point of extra credit if you submit a completed self editing check list along with your paper.3. Post your analysis.A. Part 1 to its drop box on its due date.B. Part 2 to its drop box on its due date.C. The entire analysis to the discussion area, where you classmates will see it on the Part 2 due date. Read a few of your classmates’ analyses, particularly your teammates’.4. Here is a samplePreview the document Health Policy Analysis, used with permission from a previously submitted student analysis, with some modification.Health Policy Analysis First part was completed
