Assignment First

美国格伦代尔论文代写:批判性评价

从外在的观点很明显,报告未能进行充分的利益相关者,可能是由于在区域培训部门充分发展的不足,建立并持续隔离学术机构和研究涉及在HIV或AIDS。此外,报告没有联系的几个研究保健机构相关的HIV或AIDS的如HIVNAT暗示不足临床研究的合作以及在某些情况下,有限的bamras患者获得抗病毒试验的红十字组织。有限的联系是由报告团队的大学描绘了一个薄弱环节。然而bamras被CDC医院和大学的管理是通过政府和个别医院几个部门反过来帮助说明和论证环节的不足。
此外,不强大的支持,获得了该项目从报告中获得的报告是从泰国政府,即使他们是一个重要的利益相关者在该项目中。然而,在评估时,泰国政府似乎支持广告这可能提出的一个道德问题,因为计算器说是正确但背后主要支持者的原因在项目表明,较小的支持不会导致对项目目标的任何不当的影响。
从患者和工人的角度来看,在医院选择的项目报告有不同的意见。一些人发现该项目是富有表现力和高度相关的要求,而其他人不承认它适当。这反过来又描绘缺乏利益相关者的参与,利益相关者不参与在每一步这个项目的实施(哈尔,1998)。另一方面,家庭成员认为,这个项目对他们来说并不是有益的,它是以客户为中心的。这些患者的家庭成员也是重要的利益相关者,但他们的要求没有适当处理。

美国格伦代尔论文代写:批判性评价

From the external viewpoints it was evident that the report has failed to engage sufficiently the stakeholders may be due to the inadequate establishment of sufficient progress in regional training departments and then consistently isolating the institutes of academics and researching involved within HIV or AIDS. Furthermore, the report does not link several research care institutes related to HIV or AIDs such as Red Cross organization of HIVNAT implying inadequate clinical research collaboration and also in certain cases limited Bamras patient’s access for ARV trials. Limited contact was made by the report team to universities depicting a weak link. However Bamras being a CDC hospital and universities being administered through several departments of government and their individual hospitals in turn helped in indicating and justifying the shortage of link.

Additionally, not strong support was gained by the project as evident from the report was gained from the Thai Government even though they were an important stakeholder in the project. However at the time of evaluation, the Thai government seemed supportive ad this could have raised an ethical problem because what the evaluator was saying was considered as right but the reason behind key proponents in the project indicted that lesser support does not cause any inappropriate influence on the goals of the project.

From the perspective of the patients and workers at the hospital with regard to the selected project report had mixed views. Some found the project to be expressive and highly relevant for their requirements while others did not acknowledge it appropriately. This in turn depicts lack of stakeholder engagement as the stakeholders were not involved at each and every step of this project’s implementation (Hale, 1998). Family members on the other hand felt that this project would not be beneficial for them and it is rather centred on the client. These family members of the patients are also important stakeholders but their requirement was not dealt appropriately.