Bradshaw’s Taxonomy of Social Needs

Download Report

Transcript Bradshaw’s Taxonomy of Social Needs

Institutional Assessment
Dana Burns, Kailey Hamrick, Holland Porter and Abby Ward
November 1, 2013
Introduction

Assessment Theories

Nature of Change

Stakeholders

Focus of Change

Change Theories

Vested Interest

Drivers & Resistors

Resource Implications

Evaluation Theories
Bradshaw’s Taxonomy of Social
Needs
4
Categories of Needs:
Normative Need
2. Expressed Need
3. Comparative Need
4. Felt Need
1.
Bradshaw’s Taxonomy of Social
Needs
4
Categories of Needs:
Normative Need
2. Expressed Need
3. Comparative Need
4. Felt Need
1.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
 Fundamental/Basic

Need:
See, read, and understand written and
verbally presented materials regarding
disease management techniques.
 The
remaining four levels of needs cannot
be addressed if patients cannot effectively
manage their disease.
Nature of the Change
New
Behavior
Simple vs. Complex
Stakeholders
 Health
Providers
 Employers
 Payers
 Patients
Focus of Change
 Not
a national policy, standard or mandate
but a national priority.
 A report by the Institute of Medicine
indicates:
 “ Efforts to improve quality and reduce cost
and reduce disparities cannot succeed
without simultaneous improvements in
health literacy” (Health Literacy, 2013)
Focus of Change
 “From
a 2003 study conducted by the US
Department of Education, approximately 80
million adults in the United Stated have
limited health literacy” (Health Literacy,
2013).
Conceptual Frameworks for
Change
 Rosswurm
and Larrabees’
 Lewins’ Change Management Theory
Rosswurm and Larrabees’ Model
1.
Assess the need for change in practice.
2.
Link the problem with interventions and
outcomes using standardized classifications and
language.
3.
Synthesize best evidence.
4.
Design change(s) in practice.
5.
Implement and evaluate the change.
6.
Integrate and maintain the practice change.
Lewins’ Change Management
Theory
 Unfreezing
 Change
 Refreezing
Applying Lewin’s Theory
Unfreezing- What is wrong? Why change is needed.
 Change- Introducing new education guides.



Sticking to One Idea

Focus on Need

Avoid Lengthy List

Use Active Voice

Limit Jargon
Refreezing- Enforcement of change and continued
education and resources available to stakeholders.
Vested Interest


Gain
 Patients
 Physician
 Nurses
 Office Staff
Loss
 Physician
 Nurses
Drivers and Resistors
 Human
Drivers
Nurses
Office Staff
 Human Resistors
Physician
Resource Implications
 Time
 Educational
Material
Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Model

“Donald Kirkpatrick, Professor Emeritus at the University of
Wisconsin and past president of the American Society for
Training and Development (ASTD), first published his FourLevel Training Evaluation Model in 1959, in the US Training
and Development Journal. The model was then updated in
1975, and again in 1994, when he published his best-known
work, ‘Evaluating Training Programs’” (Kirkpatrick's FourLevel Training Evaluation Model, 2013).
Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model

Four Levels of Evaluation
Reaction
2. Learning
3. Behavior
4. Results
1.
Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Motivating Factors
Intrinsic
 Extrinsic

Conclusion

Institution:


Assessment Theory:


Improve Health Literacy
Change Theory


Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Nature of Change:


Primary Care Clinic
Lewins’ Change Management Theory
Evaluation Theory

Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model
References
Best, D., Day, E., McCarthy, T., Darlington, I., & Pinchbeck, K. (2008). The hierarchy of needs and care
planning in addiction services: What Maslow can tell us about addressing competing priorities? .
Addiction Research & Theory, 16(4), 305-307. doi:10.1080/16066350701875185
Carver, N., Ward, B., & Talbot, L. (2008). Using Bradshaw's taxonomy of needs: Listening to women in
planning pregnancy care. Contemporary Nurse, 30(1), 76-82. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=83a49b0
b-ae75-4b35-a722-c42454aec4bc%40sessionmgr113&hid=105
Cognitive Evaluation Theory. (2013). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from Changing Minds:
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_evaluation.htm
Facchiano, L., Snyder, C., & Núñez, D. E. (2011). A literature review on breathing retraining as a selfmanagement strategy operationalized through Rosswurm and Larrabee's evidence-based
model. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 421-426. doi:10.1111/j.17457599.2011.00623.x
References
Health Literacy. (2013, October 3). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from National Network of Libraries of
Medicine: http://nnlm.gov/outreach/consumer/hlthlit.html
Kaminski, J. (2011). Theory applied to informatics - Lewin's change theory. CJNI: Canadian Journal of
Nursing Informatics, 6(1). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://cjni.net/journal/?p=1210
Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Training Evaluation Model. (2013). Retrieved October 20, 2013, from Mind
Tools: http://www.mindtools.com/AboutMindTools.htm
Lewin's Change Management Model. (2013). Retrieved October 20, 2013, from Mind Tools:
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_94.htm
References
Rempher, K. J. (2006). Putting theory into practice: Six steps to success. American Nurse Today, 41-42.
Retrieved October 21, 2013, from
http://www.americannursetoday.com/assets/0/434/436/440/5120/5122/5136/5142/73b32c8a
-b00a-42ee-8ac5-638619fe8752.pdf
Stirling, C., Andrews, S., Croft, T., Vickers, J., Turner, P., & Robinson, A. (2010). Measuring dementia
carers' unmet need for services: An exploratory mixed method study. BioMed Central, 10(122),
1-10. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-122
Theories of Motivation. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2013, 2013, from Analytic Technologies:
http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/motivation.htm
Thurston, N. E., & King, K. M. (2004). Implementing evidence-based practice: Walking the talk. Applied
Nursing Research, 17(4), 239-247. doi:10.1016/j.aphr.2004.09.003
Ziv, G. (2013). Simple vs. complex revisited: Israeli prime ministers and the question of a Palestinian
state. Foreign Policy Analysis, 9, 203-222. doi:10.1111/j.1743.8594.2012.00180.x