Assessment of Proposed Solutions
The proposed project evaluates clinicians’ levels of stress, burnout, exhaustion, compassion fatigue, and other mental disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The project’s feasibility needs to be assessed to attain reliable results and make the overall process effective. Indeed, effectiveness is one of the primary criteria in project evaluation (Glodzinski, 2018). The two methods that will be used to assess this research’s feasibility are horizontal and vertical approaches.
The horizontal technique focuses on evaluating methodology, while the vertical method incorporates the influence of the stakeholders. Specifically, the horizontal approach assesses project performance in terms of social and environmental aspects, resources, responsibilities, investments, budgeting, and risk assessment (Glodzinski, 2018). The vertical technique concentrates on project maturity, governance, benefits, and inputs from stakeholders (Glodzinski, 2018). The proposal can be appraised for its effectiveness using these two approaches because the goals, resources, methods, and stakeholders are known. Thus, the pilot testing can be conducted with fewer participants through video calls. The questionnaire will be sent to all pilot study participants to receive their feedback and implement their suggestions for improvement.
If the project starts and something is not working as I envisioned, I will make specific changes to adapt to these challenges. For example, if the participants cannot come to offices, the therapy sessions may be conducted through calls or video conferences to ensure that the sample size is maintained as initially planned and everyone receives consultation. Feedback is considered an objective way to demonstrate whether the proposed solutions are helpful (Martin et al., 2019). The participants’ feedback after each session will be the primary strategy to see if the project goals are met.
If the original strategy is not working, I plan to change and adapt the project according to the stakeholders’ needs. Specifically, I will ask nurses, physicians, and therapists to provide their suggestions for altering the study design. Lastly, at this point, the objectives of this research should remain the same, but if significant issues with the completion of tasks appear, the goals should be revised.
Plan B
Healthcare professionals have always been under increased stress, but the COVID-19 pandemic elevated this pressure. Therefore, this project strives to identify the exact number of healthcare workers with mental health issues and the quality of help. However, if the original plan for this study does not work, an alternative solution should be implemented that will require performing the entire project in an online mode using digital platforms.
The new approach will allow to save budget and conduct the study even if the participants do not have the opportunity to visit consultation offices. Plan B is to perform all interviews, data collection, and help sessions using video calls, social media, and telemedicine platforms (Vizheh et al., 2020). In fact, the hospital where the study will be conducted utilizes online consultation; hence, the new approach aligns with organizational strategies. Furthermore, various mobile health applications can be introduced to remind clinicians to engage in self-care practices like mindfulness, meditation, and yoga (Vizheh et al., 2020). Notably, this plan should only be implemented in case of financial restraints and the unwillingness of many participants to go to consultation offices.
Risk Assessment
Since this project is focused on collecting sensitive data from healthcare workers, legal and regulatory matters should be considered to prevent the study participants’ privacy violation. This information is delicate because individuals with depression and anxiety may feel stressed about revealing their problems due to the fear of being stigmatized and discriminated against in the workplace (Taylor & Blackford, 2020). Legislative aspects should be revised since the law’s primary goal is to define and enforce citizens’ rights, and it is critical not to violate them in this study (Wing & Gilbert, 2007). Moreover, this project requires adequate risk assessment and strategies to make the study more effective. Thus, the confidentiality of participants’ personal information will be ensured through number coding, and the three-step risk evaluation will be performed.
Confidentiality is one of the essential ethical obligations of researchers and clinical workers; hence, specific measures will be taken to ensure that the study participants’ privacy is not violated. Specifically, the names of the participants will receive the corresponding identification number that will be used in the analysis of results. This measure should be taken to prevent medical identity theft, resulting in the participants’ information being used by third parties (Showalter, 2017). Moreover, potential dangers to the project should be determined using systematic risk management that consists of three elements: risk assessment and classification, analysis, and mitigation (Barghi & Sikari, 2020). Firstly, the potential risks in the case of using plan A include assaults, terrorist attacks, environmental disasters, and civil disturbances (Colling, 2001). Secondly, each threat should be assessed and ranked in the order of probability. Thirdly, the possible action plan in each situation should be proposed to ensure the study participants’ safety. Overall, adherence to the law and risk assessment is critical to achieving the study goals legally and safely.
Literature Review
The main databases that will be used for this literature review are the online school library and Google Scholar. The search strategy that will be used is searching with keywords. The following key terms will be used: “project assessment,” “clinicians’ mental health,” “healthcare legislation,” and “risk assessment.” The sources that included these terms and were related to psychological health and project management were considered, while irrelevant papers were excluded. Furthermore, the CRAAP test, which stands for currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose, will be used to evaluate the research literature quality.
Badshah et al. (2021) focus on assessing the mind of healthcare workers in Oman during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article was written by researchers from Oman and the United States. The study included 500 nurses and physicians from several hospitals in Oman to determine the prevalence of psychological problems (Badahdah et al., 2021). They utilized the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, Perceived Stress Scale, and WHO Well-Being Index (Badahdah et al., 2021). The results showed 75% of healthcare workers experienced mild anxiety, and 25% had moderate to severe stress (Badahdah et al., 2021). The authors recommend helping clinicians through mindfulness practices and cognitive behavioral therapy. This paper is reliable because it was published recently in a peer-reviewed journal.
Barghi & Sikari (2020) discuss qualitative and quantitative methods for project evaluation. Specifically, they developed a hybrid risk assessment tool that was tested by 15 participants (Barghi & Sikari, 2020). The results showed that this technique was effective in risk identification (Barghi & Sikari, 2020). This paper was published by qualified researchers in an international peer-reviewed journal less than two years ago; thus, it can be considered credible.
The book by Colling (2001) focuses on security in healthcare organizations. It discusses the basics of hospital safety, methods of clinic protection, and workplace violence management. Moreover, the author provides a review of particular security concerns and emergency planning. Even though this book was written two decades ago, it is still credible and relevant because the fundamental principles of security in healthcare institutions have not changed.
Glodzinski (2018) presents the study results related to the project assessment framework. This research observes 13 financial, IT, and development projects in Poland. The results showed that the multidimensional approach used to evaluate these projects allowed for obtaining qualitative and quantitative data about their effectiveness. Since the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal by a credible author within the last five years, it can be viewed as reliable.
Although the paper by Martin et al. (2019) was not related to healthcare workers, it was still included because it contained essential information about project assessment. This study focused on developing the online course using advice from award-winning teachers (Martin et al., 2019). The most relevant information in this article for my project is the use of feedback to check if the intended goals are met. This paper can also be considered credible because it was published within the past five years in a peer-reviewed journal by reputable authors.
The book by Showalter (2017) provides an extensive review of the legislation related to healthcare administration. Indeed, this source objectively represents the United States’ laws and regulations about hospitals, patients, and healthcare workers. Specifically, the information about the rights and responsibilities in public healthcare, private and federal medical insurance programs, and regulations passed from the 1970s to the most recent times. The CRAPP test showed that this source is credible because it is recent, relevant, accurate, published by a reliable author, and coincides with the purpose of the project.
The paper by Sultana et al. (2020) discusses the problems of burnout among clinicians during the ongoing pandemic. It identifies such stressors as workplace-related stress, long shifts, and working in quarantined areas that are responsible for sleep disturbances, anxiety, and depression among healthcare workers (Sultana et al., 2020). The authors suggest promoting mental health awareness and mindfulness practices in hospitals to reduce the prevalence of burnout and stress. This article is reliable since it was published recently by qualified researchers in a peer-reviewed journal.
Taylor et al. (2020) present their ideas about mental health problems in front-line healthcare workers during the pandemic. This paper highlights that the fear of stigmatization and discrimination prevents many clinicians who are stressed from seeking help (Taylor et al., 2020). Thus, the authors recommend spreading the message that healthcare workers who struggle with mental disorders can receive the proper support. This article is credible since it was published in a peer-reviewed journal less than two years ago.
The systematic review by Vizheh et al. (2020) presents a broad representation of the prevalence of various psychological issues among healthcare workers during the coronavirus crisis. The authors included 100 articles related to mental health problems among doctors and nurses. The results showed that the prevalence of anxiety ranged from 24% to 45% in different studies, and 12%-50% of healthcare workers had depression (Vizheh et al., 2020). The paper recommends governments and hospital administrations provide emotional support to clinicians to reduce stress. This article is credible since reputable researchers published it in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is recent.
Lastly, the book by Wing & Gilbert (2007) extensively reviews public health laws. The information presented ranged from the structure of the legal system and citizens’ rights to abuse of rules and malpractice. Furthermore, the authors provide reading suggestions at the end of the chapter to understand some regulations deeper. Although this book was published about 15 years ago, it still can be considered credible because many healthcare system regulations passed in the United States previously are still relevant today. Lastly, the authors are reputable, and the source is relevant to the project’s goals.
References
Badahdah, A., Khamis, F., Al Mahyijari, N., Al Balushi, M., Al Hatmi, H., Al Salmi, I., Albulushi, Z., & Al Noomani, J. (2021). The mental health of health care workers in Oman during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 67(1), 90-95.
Barghi, B., & SIkari, S.S. (2020). Qualitative and quantitative project risk assessment using a hybrid PMBOK model developed under uncertainty conditions. Heliyon, 6(1), 1-22.
Colling, R. (2001). Hospital and healthcare security (4th ed.). Elsevier Science.
Glodzinski, E. (2018). Project assessment framework: Multidimensional efficiency approach applicable for project-driven organizations. Procedia Computer Science, 138, 731-738.
Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34-43.
Showalter, J. S. (2017). The law of healthcare administration. Health Administration Press.
Sultana, A., Sharma, R., Hossain, M. M., Bhattacharya, S., & Purohit, N. (2020). Burnout among healthcare providers during COVID-19: Challenges and evidence-based interventions. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 5(4), 308-11.
Taylor, W. D., & Blackford, J. U. (2020). Mental health treatment for front-line clinicians during and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A plea to the medical community. Annals of Internal Medicine, 173(7), 574-575.
Vizheh, M., Qorbani, M., Arzaghi, S. M., Muhidin, S., Javanmard, Z., & Esmaeili, M. (2020). The mental health of healthcare workers in the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 19(2), 1967-1978.
Wing, K.R., & Gilbert, B. (2007). The law and the public’s health (7th ed.). Health Administration Press.