This document discusses making changes to an annual employee evaluation process. The manager of a telemetry unit was having difficulties properly evaluating each of the 130 employees due to time constraints. To address this, the manager decided to incorporate peer evaluations by the unit's lead nurses. A spreadsheet was created for the lead nurses to provide letter grades rating each employee on various core values. Incorporating peer evaluations will allow for a more objective and accurate assessment of employee performance. This new evaluation process aims to improve manager-employee relationships and nursing retention rates at the hospital.

1. Running head: ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 1
Annual Evaluation Change Project
Reina Mensink
California State University, Dominguez Hills
School of Nursing
Role Performance in Leadership and Management
BSN451, Section 58
Kathy Borland, RN, MSN
April 10, 2015

2. ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 2
Annual Evaluation Change Project
One of the most benefiting rewards an organization can provide employees is
performance appraisals (Twedell, 2014). Having a system in place that assist the manager in
providing proper feedback to employees is essential. There are a variety of methods or tools that
can be implemented that enables managers to provide accurate and appropriate feedback.
Structured tools include a graphic rating scale, which is a numerical system providing high and
low values that indicate performance as well as a rating scale that can be subjective and too
general (Twedell, 2014). Flexible methods that can be applied are behaviorally anchored rating
scales (BARS), management by objectives (MBO) and peer review (Twedell, 2014). The BARS
method is objective as in includes assessment of the employee’s critical incidences and standards
of care based on the unit specialty (Twedell, 2014). MBO is a system in which the manager and
employee create goals for the upcoming year and are then evaluated the next year (Twedell,
2014). Another flexible, contemporary, and collaborative method is peer review which allows
the manager to view performance from another nurse’s perspective (Twedell, 2014).
Problem
With upcoming annual evaluations on a telemetry unit where the manager oversees 130
employees, there lies difficulty in assessing each one individually. Although the manager know
each one by name and is able to recall some personal information that ties him to understanding
his employee’s personality, he is unable to keep track of each one individually when it comes to
properly evaluating them related to time constraints and multiple other duties involved in his job.
He understands it is unfair for his employee to be evaluated on efforts not seen by him. The
manager conveyed his dilemma and frustration with the system set in place at the time. The
system currently allowed the employee to write down goals for the upcoming year and bring it to

3. ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 3
the evaluation where it would be reviewed with the manager. Also, the manager would review,
by himself, performance based on the employee’s measurement against the organization’s core
values as well as absences. In essence, the tools used should allow for a successful evaluation,
but because of time constraints, the end result was not congruent with the employees’ true
performance.
Change required
Building trust between the nurse and manager during the evaluation meeting is the
primary objective which results in a beneficial professional, working relationship (Bensing,
2011). Since the manager was satisfied with the tools used but not in the incorporation of it,
change needed to take place. Other evaluators that interact with the nurses needed to be
included. Realizing his difficulties, incorporating peer review was going to be the solution.
Purpose of Peer- Review for Change
Since the 1980’s, the peer review process has been used for appraisals and hospitals
designated early on with Magnet status applied this with much success (Bensing, 2011).
According to Twedell (2014), a solid rating can be obtained from peers, since nurses function in
their normal pattern in the presence of each other. This method provides an objective view
rather than subjective. The hospital was designated with Magnet status and will be reevaluated
in the upcoming year. This peer review will assist in their efforts to comply with Magnet re-
designation.
The New Evaluation Feedback Tool
Understanding that the manager trusted the lead nurses on his units and that they are well
equipped in monitoring the daily practices of the staff, it was obvious they were key to the
solution. The manager wanted to continue using the core values in the evaluation. A

4. ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 4
spreadsheet was made for each of the five day lead nurses and four of the night lead nurses. The
spreadsheet had each of the staff member’s name under the proper shift, across their name was
the word for each core value: service, excellence, knowledge, community, and stability. Then
two separate boxes across each name for what they are stars at and what needs improving. The
leads were also given a one page paper on what is required from each core value. The lead
nurses are to give a letter grade on each value and turn it in to the manager by April 15. The
manager will then average out the grades for each core value which will then be presented at the
evaluation. Also, starting this year there will be more focus on crediting the staff for picking up
shifts as opposed to just stating absences. Focusing on absences can lead to frustration,
questions, and complaints (Olmstead, Falcone, Lopez, Sharpe, & Michna, 2012).
Cost
The cost involved will be from paper used for leads to fill out letter grades. In the future,
maybe informatics can be involved to create a system that allows each one to grade and averages
out the score to decrease the time needed from the manager.
Time
There will be time required from the lead nurses, but can easily be done during work.
Two weeks were allotted to finish grading each employee on their shift.
Impact
Each manager from all units were presented with the process and spreadsheet was shown.
All were pleased to know how to incorporate a more beneficial and objective evaluation of their
staff. The impact will be noticed with higher nursing retention and better manager-nurse
relationships. Time will only tell and results will be interesting.

5. ANNUAL EVALUATION CHANGE 5
Reference
Bensing, K. (2011). Nurse performance appraisals: What purpose do they serve? Advance
Healthcare Network for Nurses. Retrieved from
https://nursing.advanceweb.com/Regional-Content/Articles/Nurse-Performance
-Appraisals.aspx
Olmstead, J., Falcone, D., Lopez, J., Sharpe, L., & Michna, J. (2012). Perioperative employee
annual evaluations: A 30-second process. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses
Journal, 96(6), 627-633. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2012.09.023
Twedell, D. M. (2014). Selecting, developing, and evaluating staff. In P. S. Yoder-Wise (Ed.).
Leading and managing in nursing (5th ed.), (pp.295-308). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby