The Development of the Better Hearing for Farming Families Project - Example

Project Evaluation and Analysis xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Executive summary The report is tailored to analyze and evaluate the development of the Better Hearing for Farming Families Project. A brief introduction of the project will be given through the project overview, objectives and scope. A deeper understanding of the project’s activities will be given by a deeper overview of the stakeholder’s analysis, the strategies employed in the management and the outcomes of the project. The development of the project has been viewed as successful as it has been able to address the health and safety of the agricultural families. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 1.0.Introduction 4 1.0.1. Overview 4 1.0.2. The Aim 4 1.0.3. Objectives 4 2.0.Needs identification 5 3.0.Project stakeholder analysis 5 3.0.1. Management strategies 6 3.0.2. Costs and sustainability 6 3.0.3. Risk identification 7 4.0.Critical analysis of the project outcome 8 5.0.Recommendations 9 1.0. Introduction 1.0.1. Overview The Hearing for Farming Families Project was a Commonwealth department of Health and Ageing initiative that was aimed at complementing the objectives of the National Injury Prevention Program. The project was aimed to run from June 2007 to May 2008. The initiative was overseen by interested stakeholder’s groups from a broadly based reference groups from the target project areas of the New South Wales (Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety). The main overseers of the initiative included the Australian Center for Agricultural Health and Safety which is under the Department of Health and Ageing (Better Hearing). 1.0.2. The Aim The sole aim for the project was to reduce the noise injury impact on the farming family members across the rural suburbs of Australia. This was mainly done through the implementation of demonstration programs in the three target areas of the NSW community (Better Hearing). 1.0.3. Objectives The key objective of the project was to improve the awareness of the priority preventions for the noise injury health practices in relation to hearing. This included the creation of awareness of the specific issues that place the farm families at the greater hearing loss risk. The project also aimed at the provision and creating awareness to the families on the existing and accessing of the available care givers on the hearing services through the provision of health advice. These included advice on screening, management and assessment for the target communities. The accessibility included both financial and physical including the stepping up of the advocacy on the provision and availability of better services and the proposing of filling of the identified gaps. In addition, the project also geared to the improvement of the networking of the services within the local communities with a view of increasing the project’s sustainability (Better Hearing). 2.0. Needs identification The project sought to identify the needs through the prioritization of the issues that had been identified by earlier studies and information from the hearing screening in NSW to be affecting the local indigenous communities. The studies reveal that an estimated 22-27% of the agricultural farming community is affected by the noise injury. The needs were prioritized through an examination of the contribution of the effects of being exposed to the noise from the agricultural community groups that the indigenous community in the Australian NSW work in. the project had to identify the preventive, supportive and treatment interventions that will be able to assist the target community which had to be in collaboration with the Aboriginal Medical Services. The identification and prioritization of the needs further identified the preventive and supportive programs to be implemented (Better Hearing). 3.0. Project stakeholder analysis The main stakeholders of the initiative included the Australian Center for Agricultural Health and Safety which is under the Department of Health and Ageing. The sites targeted for the project were considered on the basis of their geographical locations, the size of the population, locally available support and the nature of the agricultural production existing in the area. These areas included: the Broken Hill, Casino and the Tamworth (Better Hearing). 3.0.1. Management strategies The management was to establish a reference committee that was to oversee the project. The committee consisted of stakeholders who included the audiometrists from the Australian college, the NSW farmers, the National Acoustic Laboratories and the Commonwealth Department of Health. The management convened 3 advisory groupings from the locality. The advisory groupings were to provide the farmers with the knowledge that are to be considered in the implementation of the suggested interventions. The project was to mark its success based on the indicators that are to be identified through the steps attained through the coverage provided by the market initiatives, the utilization data and the network linkages attained. The project was successful as the clinical implications and approaches were defined to identify its sustainability. 3.0.2. Costs and sustainability The individual patients through the initiative are expected to pay less as compared to the $3,314 per person estimated fee. For the project to be sustainable the personal treatment is to be subsidized from by the partnering groups and funding from grants. The sustainability costs for the project were marginally low as many stakeholders in the target community wee identified and trained to be able to offer awareness and supportive services to the community. The preventive campaign was successful in the sustainability of the project as it had a multiplier effect. Most of the community members were able to get the reliable information from their peers and family members and thus spreading the information at meaningfully lower costs (McCullagh, M Lusk & Ronis 2002). 3.0.3. Risk identification The project had to identify a contingency plan that would reduce the impact of progress of the project. The project identified stakeholders who included high school agricultural teachers, doctors, agricultural retailers and other farming organization members that were trained on the sustainable methodologies of creation of awareness and support service provisions to the community. The project identified the support center through which the awareness campaigns are to be strategically monitored (Rural and Remote Health). A planning and evaluation strategy was identified that was able to identify the arising gaps and thus able to identify the risks before they would impact heavily on the project. The key stake holder in the training and provision of support services in this regard was the Royal Flying Doctors services. The firm was able to provide patient material and support services through its developed electronic resources that had been added to its patient portfolio materials (Palmer, Harris, Coggon 2008). 4.0. Critical analysis of the project outcome Due to the realistic identification of the farming family needs in relation to the noise injury, the project was able to realize a meaningful increase in the persons who accessed the noise injury curative and supportive services. This is witnessed from a reported increase of 26% from the recorded data. It was evident that the right choice of strategies has had an impact on the community as a larger percentage was aware of the support and curative services that are provided in this respect (Chia 2007). The project has also realized considerable impact on the networks that have been developed that are aimed at increasing the level of awareness on the effects and preventive measures for the noise injury. The impact is visible as considerable positive impact on the hearing health of the farming communities. The rate of health awareness of the stakeholders has significantly improved (Williams, Kyaw-Myint, Crea & Hogan 2008). The prioritizing of the needs was significant in the identification of the appropriate methodologies to be used in addressing the bane. It has to be realized that the management strategy employed by the project was geared towards sustainability. A great effect was the use of trainings to be able to have a target population trained on the identification, prevention and supportive services that are available to be able to enhance the community level of awareness. This was cost effective as the strategy had a multiplier effect (Franklin 2002). This implies that little costs will be utilized in the creation of awareness as the community will be able to use the information to educate themselves. However, the project being the first to be administered as a community based initiative in Australia among the farming communities it would have been advisable to offer it in integration with the other issues identified to affect the farming communities (Williams 2002). The implementation timing for the project was inappropriate as the community was grappling under other issues like the prolonged drought which was being given more priority by the farming community. The methodology utilized by the project like the hearing screening utilization was rather difficult to assess (Depczynski 2005). 5.0. Recommendations Since the methodologies utilized by the project were had to evaluate, it would be appropriate for the utilization of the reply-paid survey mode of evaluation to assess the impact of the project. The development of the noise injury policy gives an implication for the project to draft a clear strategy that would be utilized in the provision of incentives to the families for the initiatives towards noise reduction. The provision of the screening services to the expansive of the vast rural Australia is not practical (Meredith & Mantel 2006). The project needs to identify the appropriate solutions that are aimed at addressing the shortage and availability of qualified staff to offer these services against the prolonged working hours. Most of the findings of the project require more continued initiatives that are to be addressed at the national level. The project is to identify strategies and stakeholders like the Telscreen that will be able to provide much faster and basic assessments in relation to the hearing functions in confidentiality (Williams, & Purdy 2007). (1501 Words) References Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety. Rural Noise Injury Prevention Program. Moree, NSW: ACAHS, 2009. Better Hearing viewed on the 10th of October 2011 from; http://www.aghealth.org.au/tinymce_fm/uploaded/Research%20Reports/final_rep ort__better_hearing_for_farming_families_project.pdf Chia E, Wang J, Rochtchina E, Cumming R, Newall P, Mitchell P. Hearing impairment and health-related quality of life: The Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Ear Hearing 2007; 28(2): 87-195. Depczynski J, Franklin R, Challinor K, Williams W, Fragar L.Farm noise emissions during common agricultural activities.Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 2005; 11(3): 325-334. Franklin R, Challinor K, Depczynki J, Fragar L. Noise exposure,hearing protection and noise injury in young adult farmers. Moree, NSW: Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, 2002. McCullagh, M Lusk & SL Ronis DL, 2002, Factors Influencing Use of Hearing Protection Among Farmers: A Test of the Pender Health Promotion Model, Nursing Research, 51(1)33-39. Meredith, J & Mantel, S 2006, Project Management: a Managerial Approach, 6th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Palmer K, Harris E, Coggon D. Chronic health problems and risk of accidental injury in the workplace: a systematic literature review. Occupational Environmental Medicine 2008; 65(11): 757-764. Rural and Remote Health; viewed on the 10th of October at; http://www.rrh.org.au/publishedarticles/article_print_1350.pdf Williams W, Forby-Atkinson L, Purdy S, Gartshore G. Hearing loss and the farming community. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand 2002; 18(2): 181-186. Williams W, Kyaw-Myint S, Crea J, Hogan A. Occupational noise management: what’s happening in industry? Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand 2008; 24(4): 299-307. Williams W, Purdy S. Factors in reducing occupational noise exposure. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety – Australia and New Zealand 2007; 23(2): 166-171. Read More