RM analysis Jukka-Pekka Männikkö: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(updated exercise instructions added)
Line 3: Line 3:
[[Category:DARM exercise]]
[[Category:DARM exercise]]


==  1. Brief description of risk management in the swine flu case ==
Take the perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health affairs. Consider yourself managing a project of developing capacity to manage major public health risks. In your project you want to take account of the lessons that could be learned from the swine flu case. In this exercise your task is to:
* risks?
 
* benefits?
# Evaluate all four DA study plans from the use/r point of view:
* decisions and decision makers?
#* Of what value would each of the planned analysis be for you?
* other roles?
#* Make use of the [[:heande:Purpose and properties of good assessments|properties of good assessment framework]], particularly:
* outcomes?
#** Relevance: ''Is content of the plan/analysis relevant in relation to the stated purpose of the analysis?
* subjective evaluation - strengths and weaknesses?  
#** Pertinence: ''Is the purpose of the analysis relevant in relation your needs?
==  2. Alternative to risk management in the swine flu case ==
#** Usability: ''Can you grasp the idea of the plan/analysis? Does it increase your understanding of the swine flu case?
* choose a particular decision (situation)
#** Acceptability: ''Would results/conclusions be acceptable to you? Why or why not?
* describe the decision (situation)
# Give an overall statement: How could/should the results of these analyses be taken into account in your project?
* consider the possible outcomes it relates to
# Choose (one) another perspective and repeat the evaluation of the DA study plans from that perspective
* consider possible decision options in the situation
#* E.g. common citizen, medical superintendent in a health care center, health researcher, journalist, nurse in public health care, principal of an elementary school, …
* compare above to what actually happened
#* Focus on the differences in comparison to the above evaluation
* consider how an alternative arrangement in that situation could have been different (e.g. better or worse) to what actually happened
# Write an (freely formatted) evaluation report on your own RM analysis page (see the list of links at the bottom of the page)
* discuss the potential impacts and feasibility of implementing such alternative arrangements
#* If you do not yet have a page, create. Advice, if needed, may be asked e.g. from fellow students or the lecturers
==  3. Based on above, formulate a recommendation to the Ministry for future guidelines in major public health RM situations ==
#* Aim for a clear and concise report.
#* Active commenting of of other groups individuals works can earn you pluses that will be considered in the overall grading of the course
# Present your main findings in the final seminar 11.-12.4.
#* Improvements on the report page can be made up to the final evaluation in the end of April

Revision as of 11:27, 30 March 2011

Take the perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health affairs. Consider yourself managing a project of developing capacity to manage major public health risks. In your project you want to take account of the lessons that could be learned from the swine flu case. In this exercise your task is to:

  1. Evaluate all four DA study plans from the use/r point of view:
    • Of what value would each of the planned analysis be for you?
    • Make use of the properties of good assessment framework, particularly:
      • Relevance: Is content of the plan/analysis relevant in relation to the stated purpose of the analysis?
      • Pertinence: Is the purpose of the analysis relevant in relation your needs?
      • Usability: Can you grasp the idea of the plan/analysis? Does it increase your understanding of the swine flu case?
      • Acceptability: Would results/conclusions be acceptable to you? Why or why not?
  2. Give an overall statement: How could/should the results of these analyses be taken into account in your project?
  3. Choose (one) another perspective and repeat the evaluation of the DA study plans from that perspective
    • E.g. common citizen, medical superintendent in a health care center, health researcher, journalist, nurse in public health care, principal of an elementary school, …
    • Focus on the differences in comparison to the above evaluation
  4. Write an (freely formatted) evaluation report on your own RM analysis page (see the list of links at the bottom of the page)
    • If you do not yet have a page, create. Advice, if needed, may be asked e.g. from fellow students or the lecturers
    • Aim for a clear and concise report.
    • Active commenting of of other groups individuals works can earn you pluses that will be considered in the overall grading of the course
  5. Present your main findings in the final seminar 11.-12.4.
    • Improvements on the report page can be made up to the final evaluation in the end of April
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=RM_analysis_Jukka-Pekka_Männikkö&oldid=19722"