Norris Stewart Ch 10 Power Point


Published on

An evaluation of the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA) by both the Brinkerhoff Success Case and Kirkpatrick Four Level Evaluation Methods

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Norris Stewart Ch 10 Power Point

  1. 1. An evaluation of a web-based <br />learning program using:<br /><ul><li>Kirkpatrick’s Four Level training evaluation </li></ul>and<br /><ul><li> The Success Case Method.</li></ul>David Norris and Michael Stewart<br />IDT 700<br />
  2. 2. An evaluation of the: <br />Health Insurance Portability and <br />Accountability Act (HPIAA) <br />online training program using the<br />Brinkerhoff Success Case Method <br />training evaluation model.<br /><br />
  3. 3. The Business Scenario: <br /><ul><li> Provide annual HIPAA compliance</li></ul> training overview<br /><ul><li> Inform individuals who deal with</li></ul> Protected Health Information (PHI)<br /> of the rules and regulations as well<br /> as the consequences of violations<br /> to HIPAA<br />
  4. 4. The Training Scenario:<br /><ul><li> Provide a self-paced online training</li></ul> module for individuals to complete<br /> their annual HIPAA compliance training<br /><ul><li> Provide checks on learning throughout</li></ul> the module for learner comprehension<br /> and also a summary review at the end<br /> of the module<br /><ul><li> Provide the individual with a certificate</li></ul> of completion to keep on record as<br /> proof of their completion of the<br /> compliance training<br />
  5. 5. The Success Case Design:<br /><ul><li> Record all completions by required</li></ul> date with a goal of 100% compliance<br /><ul><li> Set a minimum passing score on</li></ul> the summary review that must be<br /> achieved to receive their certificate<br /> of completion<br />
  6. 6. Key Findings:<br /><ul><li> Training module can be clicked through</li></ul> without consequence<br /><ul><li> The checks on learning were a good</li></ul> addition but minimal and ineffective<br /><ul><li> Training lacked in interactivity, the learner</li></ul> could easily become bored and possibly<br /> indifferent with the training<br /><ul><li> The training provided the bare minimum</li></ul> of compliance training<br />
  7. 7. Key Findings: (continued)<br /><ul><li> The summary review was lacking in that only five questions were developed </li></ul> for the entire piece<br /><ul><li> No accountability, individuals can miss every question in the training and </li></ul> still receive their certificate of completion<br />
  8. 8. Conclusions: <br /><ul><li> The training needs to be developed</li></ul> further in the area of interactivity and <br /> learner involvement<br /><ul><li> Incorporate narration and establish </li></ul> scenarios that the learn can relate to<br /><ul><li> Increase the number of checks on </li></ul> learning throughout the training<br /><ul><li> Increase the number of questions on </li></ul> the summary review with a minimal <br /> passing score<br /><ul><li> Accountability needs to be implemented </li></ul> to increase overall comprehension<br />
  9. 9. Results: <br /><ul><li> Although compliance standards were</li></ul> met, the training needs improvement to<br /> ensure comprehension and <br /> understanding of the severity of <br /> consequences if the content is not <br /> practiced<br /><ul><li> Continued development of training with </li></ul> items such as quarterly updates and a <br /> form of current events with headlines of <br /> HIPAA violations to keep learners aware <br /> and compliant<br />
  10. 10. An evaluation of the: <br />Health Insurance Portability and <br />Accountability Act (HPIAA) <br />online training program using <br />Kirkpatrick’s Four Level <br />training evaluation model.<br /><br />
  11. 11. Level 1 Evaluations: <br />Reaction and/or Attitudes of Participants <br /><ul><li> Program weakness
  12. 12. No Level 1 Evaluations are a part </li></ul> of this training program<br />
  13. 13. Level 2 Evaluations: <br />What Participants Actually Learned<br /><ul><li> Module 1
  14. 14. Program strength
  15. 15. Several, well-placed quizzes </li></ul> throughout module<br /><ul><li> Examination at end of module
  16. 16. Multiple Choice only</li></li></ul><li>Level 2 Evaluations: <br />What Participants Actually Learned(continued)<br /><ul><li> Module 2
  17. 17. Program weakness
  18. 18. Nine separate training paths </li></ul> based on job description<br />
  19. 19. Level 2 Evaluations: <br />What Participants Actually Learned(continued)<br /><ul><li>NoLevel 1 or Level 2 Learning </li></ul> Evaluations of any kind in any of <br /> the job specific paths of Module 2<br /><ul><li> Potentially rapidly advancing </li></ul> through slides without reading gets <br /> same course completion certificate <br /> as if learner effectively and actively <br /> participated in the learning. <br />
  20. 20. Level 3 Evaluations: <br />Transfer of Learning to <br />On-the-Job Behavior<br /><ul><li> Program weakness
  21. 21. Numerous legally-required behaviors </li></ul> and behavior changes mentioned <br /> throughout the program<br /><ul><li> No encouragement or other mention </li></ul> of Level 3 Evaluations in program<br />
  22. 22. Level 4 Evaluations: <br />Did the Learning Lead to “Final Results?”<br /><ul><li> Program weakness
  23. 23. Numerous legally required behaviors </li></ul> mentioned in program<br />
  24. 24. Level 4 Evaluations: <br />Did the Learning Lead to “Final Results?”<br />(continued)<br /><ul><li> Results of inappropriate behaviors:
  25. 25. Civil penalties up to $25,000/year.
  26. 26. Criminal penalties up to 10 years in </li></ul> prison and $250,000 fines.<br /><ul><li> No encouragement or other mention of </li></ul> Level 4 Evaluations in program<br />
  27. 27. End of review<br />