Thailand’s policy environment had favourability as indicated in the report for project implementation. The documents of main policy helped also in identifying the HIV or AIDS importance and developing strategies importance for reducing the spread and affected people’s care. There however also is ambivalence indicating unclear prospects with regard to successful treatment and prevention of infected individuals (Cutt, et al., 2000). Furthermore, organization values as per the policy documents referred in the reports stressed on cost minimized and self-help promotion. Also, the report indicated the values of the organization being in collaborative care provided through nurse and practitioners in order to develop and formulate patients care. This further enhanced value for the related issue highlighted in this health related project evaluation report.
Care was the only term highlighted from the perspective of the report used as a common term to mean different subjective. In certain places in the report such when idealizing objectives of the project, the report used care without any specific reference to which kind of care that is either quality care or secondary care or primary care etc (Cutt, et al., 2000). Care however in the later part of the report that is under the project explanatory section, care was specifically used to illustrate holistic care principles or palliative care principles.
Care has also been used in the report to indicate different interests representing different terms representation such as the use of care for patients and also the use of care for the authorities and the highlighted needs in the report.
This report is on a broader subject illustrating that care is necessary for individuals suffering either from HIV infection or AIDS. The project at International level involved various stakeholders such as the Ministry of Health in Thailand and Australia. However, a major criticism of this report can be of the notion that the interest of all stakeholders is not of much priority as evident from the readings. The report indicates that the external organizations views with regard to the project were of the notion that this project has not managed to improvise palliative care and neither has been able to deliver drugs of anti-retroviral nature (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2004).