505 Evaluation Final Project

7/31/2019 505 Evaluation Final Project

1/28

An Evaluation of Canine-Assisted

Therapy at

Our Lady of Peace Hospital /

Childrens Peace Center

By Brian Mitchell

EDTECH 505-4172

Summer, 2011

Dr. Ross Perkins

August 1, 2011


2/28

OLOP Canine-Assisted Therapy Evaluation

Page 2

Table of Contents:

Learning Reflection ___________________________________________________ 3

Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 4

Purpose _______________________________________________________________ 5

Background ___________________________________________________________ 6Evaluation Design ______________________________________________________ 9

Results ________________________________________________________________ 10

Discussion _____________________________________________________________ 17Conclusion & Recommendations __________________________________________ 18

AppendicesAppendix A. Evaluators Program Description _________________________ 19Appendix B. Evaluation Timeline ____________________________________ 20

Appendix C. Patient Survey ________________________________________ 21

Appendix D. Staff Survey __________________________________________ 24Appendix E. References ___________________________________________ 28


3/28


Page 3

Learning Reflection

Before taking this class, I thought that I already knew a lot about the process of evaluation.In some cases, there was a lot that I did already know. However, what I have learned more thananything is how informal my knowledge of evaluation really was. To me, the data collection and

analysis were the entire process. Now I realize that there are so many more parts to a good,formal evaluation.

I have learned that evaluation is almost a hybrid between research and instructional design.A good evaluation will have many of the same characteristics that an instructional design will

have. This includes things like learner, audience, or stakeholder descriptions, objectives, etc. At

the same time, a good evaluation will have many of the same things as a research project, like

results, discussion, conclusion, etc.

During the process of conducting this evaluation, one of the things I discovered is howimportant it is to narrow the focus of the evaluation. There are so many different aspects to a

program and so many different ways and types of data gathering that it can quickly become amassive undertaking. A good focus will help keep the evaluation on task and to look only atthose things sought by the person or organization requesting the evaluation. In the process of

this evaluation, I realized that my focus was far too broad, and thus the results are a little more

scattered than they should be.

I discovered that my favorite part of the evaluation process is probably the least favorite of

many people. That is the collection and analysis of data. Of course, this entire process is madeso much easier by the modern tools available, like online surveys and the data analysis tools of

modern spreadsheets. Regardless, I take great fascination in taking what seems like a series of

disjointed responses and looking for the patterns that emerge from the data to form a cohesive set

of results.

In reality, I am not sure how often I will go through a formal evaluation process quite asextensively as we have in this project. Most of the evaluations I will be doing call for a far less

formal procedure. However, it is good to know that when it comes to evaluating a major

program for an organization that expects a formalized report, I will have the skills andknowledge necessary to give them what they want.


4/28


Page 4

Executive Summary

The current animal-assisted therapy program at Our Lady of Peace has been in place forabout three months. Right now, there is only one dog participating. Her name is Lucy, and sheis the pet of a units Program Coordinator. While Lucy does spend most of her time on that unit,

she does travel around to others, as well. Right now Lucy comes about 1-2 times per week, butthere is no regular schedule to her visits.

The goal of this survey is to evaluate the effectiveness of Lucys interactions on patient care.Surveys were done with 28 patients and 8 staff members. The surveys dealt primarily with

rating scales regarding the participants impressions of Lucy and her effects on the patients. The

staff surveys were more complex and included more questions than the patient surveys.

The results of the evaluation show that the program seems to be a great success. Patients and

staff alike noticed improvements in the happiness and stress levels of the patients when Lucy isaround. There are mixed results on whether Lucy helps improve patient relationships or gets

them to share more. However, the patients seem to have a great love and fondness for Lucy,which in itself has a strong therapeutic effect that the staff did notice.

There is a bit of tension, because one of the staff members is afraid of dogs. This has caused

some problems in the work environment. However, even the staff member acknowledges thebenefits to the patients and said that he/she is able to avoid Lucy when needed.

There seems to be a consensus among patients and staff that it would be nice if Lucy could

come more often and on a more regular schedule. This is something that should be worked out.

The success of this program also warrants an investigation into a possible expansion of the

program with more dogs and units. This is something that could be investigated with WAGS.


5/28


Page 5

Purpose

This evaluation is being conducted at the request of a Program Coordinator in one of thelong-term care units of Our Lady of Peace. Animal-assisted therapy has been used in the past inthe hospital. However, this is the first time that a dog belonging to someone in programming

management is being used on a regular and long-term basis. The coordinator requesting theevaluation is the owner of the dog being used for the therapy. She wishes to analyze the successof the program to this point, both in the interest of improving it and in the interest of recording

the results of the program for hospital management. In an effort to provide full disclosure from

myself, as the impartial evaluator, it should be noted that the coordinator of the program is alsomy wife. However, there is no conflict of interest, since her job is not dependent on the success

of the pet therapy program. Thus, I have no vested interest in whether the program continues or

not.

The goal of this evaluation is to determine the extent to which this program of canine

interaction in the long-term inpatient psychiatric treatment of adolescents is effective as a

therapeutic tool. As discussed later in this report, there is a wealth of academic research in thefield of animal-assisted therapy (AAT), so the effectiveness of such interaction, in a general

sense, is already well-documented. However, the long-term care units at Our Lady of Peacepresent a unique environment for the use of this therapy. This evaluation will look at how well

the therapy works with the children in this setting, who have a wide variety of physiological,

mental, emotional, and social issues.

This evaluation will also be used to look for ways the use of canine-assisted therapy can be

improved in this setting. Specifically addressed will be the schedule and frequency ofinteraction, the effects on patients and staff, and whether the program should be expanded to

other units or with more animals.

The goal of any program at a hospital like Our Lady of Peace is ultimately what is best for

those in treatment. Thus, this evaluation will pay particular attention to the effects on the

patients. However, staff impressions are also important, in the interest of creating a safe andpeaceful work environment and in the interest of their ability to provide the best care for the

patients.

Finally, this evaluation will look at the welfare of the dog in question. It is important that

this activity be a safe an enjoyable undertaking for the dog, since a dog that doesnt enjoy thistype of interaction could potentially have negative therapeutic effects. It is also important to

look at whether this type of program produces positive health results for the dog.


6/28


Page 6

Background

Program Origin and Rationale

Our Lady of Peace, a division of Jewish Hospital and St. Marys Health Care, is one of the

largest, private non-profit psychiatric hospitals in the United States. The hospital treats a widerange of emotional, behavioral, and psychiatric disorders, and also chemical dependency. While

both adults and children receive treatment, the majority of the hospital is comprised of the

Childrens Peace Center, which specializes in the treatment of children.

Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) has been shown to have tremendous benefits in the treatment

of psychiatric patients, especially with children. Friesen (2010) points to the work of BorisLevinson, who in 1969 found that a therapy dog acted as a social lubricant between the

therapist and the child, which allowed for a more relaxed environment conducive to self-

disclosure (p. 262).

Friesen also points out a 1997 study by Limond, et al. which found that students tend to be

more attentive, more responsive, and more cooperative with an adult when a dog is present. Hegoes on to cite other studies which showed that children have experienced increased alertness

and attention span, and an enhanced openness and desire for social contact. Finally, Friesen

discusses how children have an acceptance of dogs because they perceive the animals to be non-judgemental (Friesen, 2010, p. 262).

Brodie and Biley (1999) also point out some of the benefits of AAT. They cite a 1985 studyby Francis et al. that found work with animals to reduce depression (p. 330). They go on to cite

examples of studies that found AAT to decrease stress and loneliness and strengthen relational

bonds. They also cite a 1981 study by Katcher which showed decreased blood pressure as aresult of AAT (p. 331). Lastly, they refer to a similar study by Baun, et al. which showed that a

larger reduction in blood pressure resulted from interacting with a dog with which a bond has

form, over one with no bond (p. 331).

That is just a small sampling of a wealth of research regarding the therapeutic benefits gained

from AAT. It is clear that the research does support the benefits of having a canine therapyprogram in place. The Baun study also supports the notion of having the same dog come

repeatedly, so that patients may form a relationship with it, thus increasing the therapeutic

effects.

Program Goals and Standards

The animal-assisted therapy program at Our Lady of Peace is operated in conjunction with

Wonderful Animals Giving Support (W.A.G.S.). Dogs and their owners go through an extensivetraining program and must past a rigorous evaluation before being certified. The training and

evaluation insure that the dogs obey basic obedience commands, are approachable and friendly,


7/28


Page 7

and show no signs of aggression. Their handlers must also be evaluated to be sure they have

complete control of the dog and that treat the dog properly. The dog and handler must then go

through a mentored visit at a health facility as the final stage of their evaluation. Only dogscertified as therapy dogs are permitted to work with the patients.

The animal-assisted therapy program at Our Lady of Peace has the following goals:

To improve the patient relationships with staff and with each other To improve patient self-esteem To promote empathy in the patients To decrease stress levels in the patients To help patients learn to handle stress in a healthy manner To help patients learn to have trust for others To help patients feel more comfortable sharing personal feelings To give the patients a healthy avenue of enjoyment To improve the experience of hospitalization by giving the patients something to look

forward to

To insure the health, safety, happiness, and well-being of the therapy dog

Previous Programs

Animal-assisted therapy is not new to the hospital. However, with past programs, theanimals would just visit on a periodic basis, around once a month. The animals were brought by

volunteers from the WAGS program. With the current program, the dog is brought once or more

per week by a licensed social worker employed at the hospital who has expertise in therapy and

an established relationship with the patients.

While the previous program was successful, in order to get the most benefit, staff concluded

that the interaction with patients needed to take place on a more regular basis. The fact that the

volunteers who brought the animals had no developed relationship with the patients alsoinhibited the therapeutic effects of the visits.

Program Participants

In the WAGS program, only the certified handler is allowed to be in charge of the dog while

it is interacting with patients, and that handler must be in complete control of the dog at all times.In this case, the handler is also the units Program Coordinator and a licensed social worker and

recreational therapist. Other staff do interact with the dog, but in incidental ways.

The patients at Our Lady of Peace who participate in the animal-assisted therapy program

range in age from nine to seventeen years old. They are all hospitalized in the inpatient long-term care program. They have a variety of diagnosed mental health issues. The problems with

which they struggle include alcohol and drug abuse, aggression issues towards themselves,


8/28


Page 8

others, or property, victims and/or perpetrators of physical, sexual, or animal abuse, autism, and

victims of neglect. Many of the patients have issues relating to others in healthy ways. Because

most private health insurance plans have very limited mental health coverage, a large number ofthe patients have been signed over as wards of the state by their parents. This allows them to be

eligible for government health coverage.

The therapy dog, Lucy, works with patients in several different units, including those with

autism and those in the forensic units, which means that they have histories of being violent.

Program Description

The therapy dog, Lucy, is brought to the hospital at least once a week and most weeks she is

there two or three times. She was certified in April, 2011, which means she has been workingwith the patients for approximately three months. The days and frequency that Lucy comes to

the hospital is dependent upon the school and programming schedule and activities for any given

week.

Lucy visits several units on each visit, including the standard long-term care units, the autism

units, and the forensic units, which house patients with histories violence. Lucys visits withpatients includes them physically and socially interacting with her in a small group setting. The

patients work with her to do tricks and try to teach her new ones. There is also lots of time for

them to interact with her through petting and playing. Lucy will sometimes interact with thepatients during their process groups. These are small group settings which help the patients

examine and discuss the decisions they make and the ways they interact with others. Often, the

therapist will frame discussions to include Lucy in an effort to help the patients share or relatebetter.


9/28


Page 9

Evaluation Design

While the AAT program being evaluated here does indeed have some stated objectives, theshort time frame of this evaluation and the unquantifiable nature of the objectives make a goal-based evaluation model difficult or impossible. Therefore, this particular evaluation is better

suited to the systems analysis model (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2005, p. 90).

The systems analysis model looks at the program as a whole, including the impact on the

patients, the impact on the staff, the resources involved with operating the program, and theoverall benefit of the program, as a result of the above impacts.

In order to accomplish this, surveys were created for both staff and patients. Both surveysconsisted primarily of quantitative questions of scale regarding the respondents impressions and

satisfaction with the program. Questions of scale in terms of agreement with certain benefits of

the program were also included. Finally, there were opportunities for the respondents to addtheir own comments about both the dog and the program as a whole.

The staff surveys were more involved and included questions about their experience withAAT, their knowledge of research in the field, and their impressions of the therapeutic effects on

the patients. There were also some questions about staff satisfaction with the program.

Patient surveys asked many of the same questions, but framed them in the first person and

simplified the language to make them easier to understand. This was necessary both because ofthe ages of the respondents and because of their generally lower intelligence levels.

In terms of both patients and staff, surveys were the only realistic way to collect data. Apsychiatric hospital, especially one with children, has strict privacy and security measures in

place, making it nearly impossible for an outsider to enter the units and question either staff or

patients in an interview setting.

The surveys were distributed by the program coordinator to both staff and patients. She thencollected them after they finished. An interview with the coordinator was also conducted in

order to clarify some of the hospital, treatment, and AAT program information. She was also

questioned regarding the patient surveys and their ability to accurately answer the questions

and/or to be able to take the survey seriously. She clarified some of the answers that werereported by both staff and patients. The surveys were to be anonymous, but several of the

patients and even a few of the staff chose to identify themselves. During the data analysis, this

information was ignored.

Finally, in order to evaluate the health and well-being of the therapy dog, a physical exam bythe dogs veterinarian was conducted three months into the program. The dog was also required

to undergo an exam in order to be certified for the program. So the two examinations were

compared in an effort to evaluate the impact of the program on the dogs health.


10/28


Page

10

Results

Patients

Interacting with Lucy

82%

4% 7%

7%

0%

Increases Happiness

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree

75%

18%

7%

0% 0%

Reduces Stress

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree


11/28


Page

11

46%

25%

11%

7%

11%

Improves My Relationships

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree

71%

11%

4% 7%

7%

Improves My Coping Skills

5 - Agree

4

32

1 - Disagree


12/28


Page

12

50%

29%

11%

4%7%

Makes Me More Open to Sharing

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree

75%

11%

0% 11%4%

Makes This a Better Place

5 - Agree

4

32

1 - Disagree


13/28


14/28


Page

14

38%

13%

0%

25%

25%

Makes them more cooperative

with staff

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree

38%

13%

38%

13%

0%

Makes them more cooperative

with each other

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree


15/28


Page

15

63%

0%

38%

0% 0%

Has a positive therapeutic effect

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree

38%

13%13%

38%

0%

Makes them more open to

sharing personal feelings

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree


16/28


Page

16

Lucys presence has had a

63%

25%

13%

0% 0%

Positive effect on patient

environment

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree

38%

13%

0%0%

50%

Positive effect on work

environment

5 - Agree

4

3

2

1 - Disagree


17/28


Page

17

Dog Welfare

After having Lucy inspected by the vet, it seems that the only real concern is weight gain. She has

gained several pounds since the program began. This seems to be the result of the number of treats

Lucy gets when doing tricks at work. Lucy also seems greatly fatigued when she finishes the day. This isalso something to consider. Overall, Lucy seems to look forward to going to the hospital and also

seems to really enjoy her experience there.

Discussion

There seems to be an overwhelmingly positive response to Lucys work as a therapy dog.This is especially true among the patients. Over and over again, the patients commented on how

much they love Lucy and how happy she makes them. A large majority of patients and staffalike said that Lucy makes the patients happier and reduces their stress. The majority of the staffalso thinks the program produces a positive therapeutic effect. A majority of both groups also

said that Lucys presence makes for a better environment for the patients.

When it comes to other benefits, both the staff and patients presented mixed views as to

whether or not Lucys work makes the patients more cooperative with each other or with staff.

There were also mixed results among the staff about whether the program makes the patientsmore willing to share their feelings. However, half of the patients said that they feel more

comfortable sharing.

The only real negative result came from the staff. One staff member indicated that he/shehas a large fear of dogs, and it has caused some problems in the workplace. Several other staff

members commented on the tension resulting from this. However, the same staff member also

said that he/she does not have contact with Lucy, because she avoids her whenever possible.This staff member also acknowledged the positive benefits for the patients. Several questioned

why Lucy couldnt come on days when the staff member was off work. However, in questioning

the program coordinator, there is only one day every other week when that happens.

Comments from both sides expressed interest in having Lucy come to the hospital more

often. Most of the staff were glowing in their comments. There were things said like, Lucy

gives them hope, because they look forward to her coming. Several commented on how happy

Lucy makes the patients and how much they look forward to her coming.


18/28


Page

18

Conclusions & Recommendations

Immediate Conclusions

I think that the program has been an overwhelming success. The survey results have verystrong things to say about Lucy and the program. My suggestion would be to come up with a

regular schedule of 2-3 days per week for Lucy to come. Both kids and most staff suggested that

she come more often. The tension caused by the staff members fear is a concern. It doesnt

seem reasonable to only bring Lucy once every other week, when most think that she shouldcome more than once a week. My recommendation would be work out a schedule of when Lucy

will be there, so that the staff member always knows and can avoid her. It is an unfortunate

situation, but the benefits to the patients, which should be the most important consideration seemto far outweigh the fear of one person. This is especially true when that person is able to avoid

contact with Lucy. It might also be helpful to visit other units on certain days when that staff

member is around.

As far as Lucys health is concerned, it might be helpful to try to use more verbal and

physical praise as a reward, rather than treats. If that doesnt work, and no healthier treats can befound, then her food ration on days that she works should be cut back, in order to maintain a

healthy weight. As far as fatigue, it would be good to try to stagger the days, so she has at least

one day of rest in between her work days.

Long-Range Planning

Because the program seems to be such a great success, it seems that the hospital wouldbenefit from an expansion of the program. The coordinator might consider talking to WAGS to

see if more dogs could visit the hospital on a regular basis. Because of the documented benefitsof a developed relationship with the dogs, it might also be good to get word out to otheremployees with dogs to go through the WAGS program to be certified. Then they, too could

bring their dogs in to work. OLOP is a huge hospital, with a lot of units. It would be almost

impossible to have too many dogs for a program like this. It would be ideal if each unit couldhave its own dog that visited on a regular basis. This would take some coordination with WAGS

and would probably require other dogs to go through the program.

Evaluation Insights

The biggest thing that would have improved this evaluation is more time. It would have

been nice if more staff and patients could be surveyed. It would also be better to compare datafrom different units. Most of the data here came from the primary unit where Lucy works. If

there were a way to do personal interviews with the staff, this would also have improved the

results. I realize that doing so with patients would be impossible, but there is no reason that itcould not be done with staff. I think the evaluation could have also benefited from narrowing its

focus. There were too many immeasurable objectives. It would have been better to narrow those

down into something more quantifiable. Overall, I think the evaluation went very well andyielded some valuable results.


19/28


Page

19

Appendices

Appendix A Evaluators Program Description

This evaluation will look at a newly implemented pet therapy program at a psychiatric

hospital in Louisville, KY. The program has been instituted in a residential unit for children.Right now, there is only one dog being used in the program. The dog is certified by a pet therapy

organization (WAGS). It is used in group and individual therapy sessions and is under the

control of a Program Coordinator who is a certified social worker and recreational therapist.

Evaluation Questions

1. Is this program an effective therapy tool?2. What are the therapeutic benefits to this program?3. Are there any risks or problems associated with a dog in a hospital setting?4. Is the dog being used in the most effective and efficient way possible?

Stakeholders

Patients receiving therapy with the dog Staff who interact with/care for the dog The dog being used Staff who have no direct interaction with the dog but work in the units where the dog is

being used

Patients who have no direct interaction with the dog but are in the same units where thedog is being used

Hospital management WAGS staff who helped train and certify the dog

Data Collection

Data will be collected through surveys and personal interviews. The majority of the data willbe qualitative, in the interest of determining the effectiveness of the program. There will be some

quantitative data collected in regard to the amount of time the dog is used, number of patients

and staff involved, etc.

Challenges

Data collection from patients will be the primary challenge. Many of the patients havediagnosed social disorders, meaning they may not have the emotional capacity, intellect, or

truthfulness to give an accurate assessment of the program. However, the high training level ofthe staff that allows them to give accurate assessments of therapeutic benefits will help to offset

this challenge. The program itself has a challenge, mainly in the form of one staff member who

has an extreme phobia of dogs.


20/28


Page

20

Appendix B Evaluation Timeline

Date(s) Task

6/29/2011 Meet with program coordinator to discuss EPD and program and evaluation needs

6/30/2011 Revise Evaluation questions and EPD

7/3 - 7/9 Conduct academic and medical research on pet therapy

7/10 - 7/13 Create survey and interview questions

7/14/2011 Discuss surveys with program coordinator

7/15/2011 Revise surveys and interview questions

7/16 - 7/20 Program coordinator distributes surveys and conducts interviews (privacy policies

do not allow evaluator to enter units)

7/21 - 7/24 Data analysis

7/25 - 7/28 Report draft writing

7/29 - 7/31 Report revision

8/1/2011 Report Due


21/28


Page

21

Appendix C Patient Survey

Our Lady of Peace / Childrens Peace Center

Pet Therapy Survey - Patients

Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey on the effectiveness of pet therapy, based on your

experience with Lucy. We welcome your feedback and your answers will be anonymous and kept

confidential. Thank you for your participation.

How do you f eel about d ogs in general?

1 2 3 4 5

Bad Good

Have you ever ow ned a pet?

Dog Cat Other None

How has Lucy affected your f eelings about d ogs?

1 2 3 4 5

Madeworse

Improved

What is your general feeling about Lucy?

1 2 3 4 5

Poor Excellent


22/28


Page

22

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following:

When I m around Lucy, I feel happier

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucy makes me feel m ore relaxed

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucy helps me to get along better w ith others

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

I feel like having Lucy around helps me cope wit h my probl ems bett er

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucy helps me feel more comfor table sharing how I feel

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Having Lucy around m akes this a bett er place

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree


23/28


Page

23

Additional Feedback

Are there any oth er good things you w ould like t o say about Lucy?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Are there any negative t hings you wou ld like t o say about Lucy?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

I s there anything you w ould do to im prove Lucys work or the pet t herapy program?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Do you have any other comm ents about your experience wit h Lucy or pet th erapy in

general?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to fill out our survey. We rely on your feedback to help us improve ourservices. Your input is greatly appreciated.


24/28


Page

24

Appendix D Staff Survey

Our Lady of Peace / Childrens Peace Center

Pet Therapy Survey - StaffPlease take a few minutes to fill out this survey on the effectiveness of pet therapy, based on your

experience with Lucy. We welcome your feedback and your answers will be anonymous and kept

confidential. Thank you for your participation.

What i s your age range?

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+

What is your hi ghest level of education?

High School Some College Associate or similar

degree

Bachelor or similar

degree

Graduate

degree

What i s your impr ession of dogs in general?

1 2 3 4 5

Unfavorable Favorable

Do you have a pet at home?

Dog Cat Other None

How has Lucy affected your imp ression of dogs?

1 2 3 4 5

NegativeEffect

PositiveEffect


25/28


Page

25

Prior to your experience wit h Lucy, what w as your aw areness of pet t herapy?

Never heard of it

Passing knowledge

Slightly experienced

Very experienced

What is your know ledge of pet therapy research?

1 2 3 4 5

None Extensive

Knowledge

How oft en do you directly int eract w ith Lucy?

Never

Monthly

Several times a month

Weekly

Several times a week

What is your general impr ession of Lucy?

1 2 3 4 5

Poor HighlyFavorable

What is your general impression of Lucys int eraction w it h patient s and staff?

1 2 3 4 5

Poor HighlyFavorable


26/28


Page

26

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following:

Lucys int eracti on wi th pati ents makes th em happier

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucys interaction w it h pati ents decreases their stress level

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucys interaction w ith patients makes them more cooperative w ith staff

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucys interaction w ith patients makes more cooperative w ith other patients

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucys int eracti on w it h patient s has a positi ve therapeutic effect

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucys int eracti on w it h patient s makes them m ore open to sharing personal feelings

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree


27/28


Page

27

Lucys presence has had a positive effect on patient environm ent

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Lucys presence has had a positive effect on st aff w orkin g environm ent

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Agree

Additional Feedback

Are there any other positive eff ects you have noticed from Lucys therapy w ork?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Are there any negative effects you have noti ced from Lucys therapy w ork?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

I s there anything you w ould do to im prove Lucys work or the pet t herapy program?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Do you have any other comm ents about your experience wit h Lucy or pet th erapy in

general?

_______________________________________________________________________________


28/28


_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to fill out our survey. We rely on your feedback to help us improve ourservices. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Appendix E References

Boulmetis, J. & Dutwin, P. (2005). The ABCs of Evaluation: Timeless Techniques forProgram and Project Managers. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Brodie, S. J. & Biley, F. C.. (1999). An exploration of the potential benefits of pet-facilitated

therapy.Journal of Clinical Nursing, 8(4), 329-337. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.1999.00255.x

Friesen, L. (2010). Exploring Animal-Assisted Programs with Children in School and

Therapeutic Contexts.Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 261-267. doi:10.1007/s10643-

009-0349-5

Jalongo, M., Astorino, T., & Bomboy, N. (2004). Canine Visitors: The Influence of Therapy

Dogs on Young Children's Learning and Well-Being in Classrooms and Hospitals.EarlyChildhood Education Journal, 32(1), 9-16. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	brian-mitchell
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

505 Evaluation Final Project

Documents