Supporting Evaluation of Promising Interventions

There are a broad array of models, programs and innovations that warrant evaluation. We encourage proposals to evaluate interventions in multiple sites, including collaborations across institutions, particularly in those instances in which single-site implementation will not involve sufficient numbers of participants to support a controlled evaluation. Examples of interventions include, but are not limited to:

• strategies that reduce the time between the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) and completion of the doctorate for students aspiring to faculty positions in nursing schools;
• initiation of new advanced degree programs designed to prepare nurses for academic faculty positions [e.g., Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), Master’s (MS) in nursing education];
• state policies that create financial incentives for recruiting or retaining nurse faculty (e.g., forgiving education loans in return for a commitment to teaching, significantly increasing salaries for all nurse faculty at state schools);
• other policy changes that create incentives for expanding teaching productivity or enhancing faculty recruitment and retention;
• use of regional simulation centers or alliances among simulation laboratories to make more efficient use of faculty time in delivering significant segments of clinical education;
• collaborations with hospitals and other delivery organizations that foster new approaches to integrating clinical and didactic education; and
• faculty development programs intended to improve faculty retention and recruitment.

Evaluations of these interventions might address the following questions:

• Impact of New Doctoral Programs to Prepare Nurses for Faculty Positions.

  Examining similar programs in multiple sites, do they typically recruit candidates who would not otherwise apply to traditional doctoral programs? How do characteristics of matriculating students compare to traditional doctoral students? What is the net effect of introducing such programs on the faculty supply? How do attrition, time-to-graduation and rates of first-time appointments in academic positions compare with traditional programs?

• Impact of Regionalized Use of Simulation Technology.

  How is heavy reliance upon simulation technology integrated into the nursing curriculum? How does it affect teaching capacity? How are the teaching functions associated with simulation best allocated among existing faculty and dedicated simulation staff? What is the net impact on the use of faculty time? How can the cost of simulation per educational output be optimized? What types of organizational relationships foster efficient use of simulation among schools or within a region? Are changes in the regulatory or policy environments necessary for fostering widespread use of such technology?

• Impact of Collaborations to Share Clinical Teaching Responsibilities.

  How do new arrangements for sharing clinical teaching responsibilities with hospitals and other delivery organizations affect the breadth of education of nursing students? What impact do they have on educational capacity? How can hospital-based clinical instructors be appropriately equipped and sustained in these roles? What are the consequences for the supervisory roles of academic faculty? What are the organizational prerequisites for effective implementation of such collaborations?

• Impact of Professional Development Programs.

  What are the costs and benefits of new professional development programs aimed at improving faculty recruitment and/or retention? Are there pay-for-performance strategies that are effective in increasing the numbers of graduated nurses per faculty FTE? What are the consequences for faculty?

Funded evaluation projects are required to address each of the following outcomes in relation to these interventions: (1) the impact on teaching productivity; (2) the effects on faculty work-life; (3) consequences for the quality of education; and (4) the additional (marginal) costs of implementing the intervention. Regardless of the main intent of the intervention, it is essential to confirm that it does not have an adverse effect on any of the first three outcomes; and it is important for replication that the costs of achieving the outcomes are known. The national program office (NPO) provides a breadth of education measure and a uniform cost-accounting strategy to incorporate into the evaluation.

EIN – Key Dates for Grant Cycles 1 and 2:

The EIN program has two grant cycles: the first began in fall 2008 and grantee awards were made in December 2009. For Cycle 1, EIN awarded four grants for up to $300,000 each.

EIN will award up to ten additional grants of similar amounts and duration as part of its Cycle 2 program activities. The second grant cycle began with the release of the CFP in October 2009;  optional web conferences, which were held on October 5 and October 26, 2009, were offered for applicants in order to introduce them to the EIN program, its eligibility requirements and to provide time for specific Q&A between applicants and NPO staff. The deadline for receipt of brief proposals was November 24, 2009. Grantee awards will be announced in October 2010.

Key Dates – 2010

CFPs CLOSED

There is no call for proposals at this time. Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 deadlines for applications have passed.