Did Fewer New Nurses Leave? A Four-Level Program Evaluation Plan for a Preceptor Development Program, With Baselines From the Needs Assessment
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
NSG/531: Program and Course Development
Week 6 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, its data and the program are a composite written for a model paper.
Over five weeks, I have built a preceptor development program for the medical-surgical units of our community hospital, from a needs assessment that found 32% first-year turnover among new graduates through theory, standards, objectives and methods. The chief nursing officer approved the program's paid time with a clear question: will fewer new nurses leave? This paper plans how the program will be evaluated.
The Evaluation Model
I will use Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model separates whether preceptors valued the training, whether they learned, whether they changed their precepting and whether the organization's outcomes changed. The chief nursing officer's question is a level 4 question, but the earlier levels explain what happened on the way.
Level 1: Reaction
What: preceptors' views of relevance, usefulness and the learning environment.
How: a short survey at the end of the workshop and after the first three preceptor circles, with one open question: "What will you do differently with your next orientee?"
Target: at least 85% of preceptors agreeing that the workshop was relevant to their precepting.
Use: comments will shape the next workshop groups and circle topics.
Level 2: Learning
What: knowledge and skill against objectives 1 through 7.
How: a ten-question knowledge check on transition and clinical judgment before and after the workshop; a role-play checklist for feedback and escalation conversations; and review of a practice orientation plan and progress record.
Baseline: the Week 1 preceptor survey, in which only 9 of 33 preceptors had received any training.
Target: every preceptor meeting the role-play checklist and producing a complete practice plan before precepting.
Use: preceptors who do not meet the checklist repeat the role-play with the educator before precepting.
Level 3: Behavior
What: precepting behavior at the bedside against objectives 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8.
How: the educator's structured observation of each preceptor within two months of the workshop, recording the number of clinical judgment questions asked, instances of thinking aloud, feedback episodes using the three-part structure and tasks performed by the orientee rather than the preceptor. Review of weekly progress records and competency documentation for every orientation. Orientees' ratings on the two survey items about explanation and feedback.
Baseline: Week 1 observation, in which preceptors rarely asked orientees to explain their thinking and gave mostly general end-of-shift feedback, and orientee ratings of 2 on both items.
Target: at least four reasoning questions per observed shift; specific feedback at least three times per week; complete progress records for every orientation; orientee ratings of at least 3 on both items.
Use: individual observation results are shared privately with each preceptor as coaching. Patterns across preceptors shape circle topics.
Level 4: Results
What: the program's effect on new graduates and the organization.
How: first-year turnover among new graduates hired onto the medical-surgical units, tracked for every hire in the two years after the program begins and compared with the 32% baseline; the proportion who leave between months four and nine, when most departures occurred before; new graduates' overall experience on the adapted Casey-Fink survey at six and twelve months, a tool developed to measure how graduate nurses experience their first year (Casey et al., 2004); and preceptor retention in the role, compared with the 17 of 33 who said they would not precept again.
Interpretation: turnover is influenced by pay, scheduling, staffing and leadership as well as by precepting. The evaluation will record other changes during the period, including the policy changes recommended in Week 3 for reduced assignments and fewer preceptor changes. The honest claim, if turnover falls, will be that the program and its supporting policies together were associated with the improvement, not that training alone caused it. Research on transition programs supports the expectation that structured support with trained preceptors is associated with better outcomes for new nurses (Spector et al., 2015), which gives the evaluation a reasonable benchmark without promising a result.
Data Sources and Their Limits
Each data source has limits the evaluation will acknowledge. Observation by the educator may change how preceptors behave on the observed shift, so observed behavior may be better than usual; repeated observation and orientee reports help check this. Orientee surveys depend on the orientees who respond, and those who are struggling may be less likely to answer; follow-up reminders and anonymity will improve response. Turnover numbers are small, so a change of two or three departures will look large in percentages; results will be reported as numbers as well as rates. Finally, the first cohort of new graduates precepted after the program will not reach their first anniversary until well into the second year, so the level 4 answer will take time. Stating these limits in advance prevents over-reading early results in either direction.
A Balancing Measure
Any change can have unintended effects, and the plan includes one balancing measure: preceptor burnout. Preceptors will complete a two-question well-being check at each circle. If the program adds stress rather than support, it will show up there before it shows up in preceptor turnover.
Responsibility and Timeline
The educator collects level 1 and 2 data at the workshop, conducts level 3 observations in months 2 through 6 and reviews progress records quarterly. Human resources provides turnover data every quarter. New graduates complete the survey at six and twelve months of employment. The educator reports to the chief nursing officer at six, twelve and twenty-four months.
Protecting Participants
Observation findings are used for coaching, not for performance evaluation of preceptors, and survey responses from new graduates are anonymous. Protecting both groups keeps the data honest.
Using the Results
If preceptors learn the skills but do not use them, the problem is transfer, and the response would be more observation and coaching or a review of workload. If precepting improves but turnover does not, the cause may lie outside precepting, and the findings will be taken to leadership. If both improve, the program will be extended to other service lines.
Reporting to Different Audiences
Results will be reported differently for each audience. The chief nursing officer will receive a two-page summary with turnover, survey results and costs. Nurse managers will receive unit-level results to guide scheduling decisions. Preceptors will hear results at a circle meeting, framed around what their work has changed. New graduates will see a short summary of how their survey responses shaped the program, which encourages future cohorts to respond.
Conclusion
This plan evaluates the preceptor development program at four levels, tied to its objectives and to baselines from the needs assessment, and it answers the chief nursing officer's question as honestly as the data allow. It completes the systematic framework followed throughout the course: a need documented, a program designed to meet it and a plan to learn whether it did.
References
Casey, K., Fink, R., Krugman, M., & Propst, J. (2004). The graduate nurse experience. Journal of Nursing Administration, 34(6), 303-311. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200406000-00010
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
Spector, N., Blegen, M. A., Silvestre, J., Barnsteiner, J., Lynn, M. R., Ulrich, B., Fogg, L., & Alexander, M. (2015). Transition to practice study in hospital settings. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 5(4), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(15)30031-4
How this NSG 531 Week 6 example is structured
The NSG/531 description asks learners to differentiate the strategies used to develop, implement and evaluate educational programs, and many sections end with an evaluation plan. This paper applies a named model to the program built over the course, ties each measure to an objective from Week 4, uses the Week 1 needs assessment as the baseline and explains how results will be used. Students search this week as NSG 531 Week 6, NSG531 Wk 6 or NSG/531 Wk 6; all three are the same assignment.
NSG/531 Week 6 questions, answered
What does NSG/531 Week 6 usually ask for?
The course description includes evaluating educational programs. Many sections close with a program evaluation plan that measures whether the program met its objectives and how results will be used.
How long should a preceptor program be evaluated?
At least a full year, because first-year turnover can only be judged after new graduates reach their first anniversary. Shorter-term measures, such as orientee survey results, give earlier signals.
Can a preceptor program alone reduce turnover?
It can contribute, but turnover also depends on staffing, pay, scheduling and leadership. An evaluation should describe other changes happening at the same time rather than credit the program with everything.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.