| Course | MPH 610 Integrative Learning Experience (ILE) and Applied Practice Experience (APE) I |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder analysis |
| Length | About 810 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 610 Week 6
Stakeholder Analysis: Who Can Make, Stop or Quietly Ignore the Decision to Use a Written Rabies Prophylaxis Protocol in Kessler County
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MPH 610: Integrative Learning Experience (ILE) and Applied Practice Experience (APE) I
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Stakeholder Analysis: Who Can Make, Stop or Quietly Ignore the Decision to Use a Written Rabies Prophylaxis Protocol in Kessler County
The Decision
The decision this analysis is anchored to is specific: whether the county health department adopts the written prophylaxis consultation protocol I am drafting, and whether the two emergency departments in the county use it when they call for advice. Adoption on paper requires the health officer's approval. Use in practice requires emergency clinicians to follow the protocol's recommendation, especially the recommendation to wait for a 10-day observation when a vaccinated dog or cat is available, rather than starting prophylaxis at once. A protocol that is approved but not used would leave the current inconsistency in place.
Stakeholders, by Role
Stakeholders are identified by role rather than by name, because roles persist when people change.
Table 1
Stakeholders in the Decision to Use the Protocol
| Role | Interest in the decision | Power over it | Likely position | Engagement and channel |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health officer | Consistent advice; legal defensibility | Approves or rejects the protocol | Supportive if it matches state guidance | Draft through the manager; 20-minute review in week 6 |
| Environmental health manager | Fewer inconsistent calls; board questions answered | Sponsors the protocol | Supportive | Weekly meeting |
| Bite program technician | Shorter, clearer calls | Uses it daily | Supportive, wants simple language | Tested drafts against her past calls |
| Emergency department medical director | Clinician autonomy; patient safety; liability | Can endorse or ignore it in the department | Uncertain | Request through the nurse educator; one meeting |
| Emergency department nurse educator | Easy training; fewer callbacks | Controls how clinicians learn about it | Supportive | Two meetings; she will place it in shift huddles |
| Emergency clinicians on shift | Fast answers; avoiding a missed rabies case | Decide case by case | Mixed; some prefer to start prophylaxis | Reached through huddles and a one-page summary |
| Pharmacy at each hospital | Stocking of rabies immune globulin and vaccine | Indirect: costs fall when unneeded courses drop | Supportive of fewer unneeded courses | Informed through the medical director |
| Patients and families bitten | Safety; cost; fear of rabies | Low formal power; high stake | Want reassurance and clear reasons | Plain-language explanation in the call script |
Note. Note. Positions based on meetings and calls during the applied practice experience.
Who Could Stop It
Two roles can stop or stall the protocol. The health officer can refuse approval, though this is unlikely if the protocol follows national and state guidance closely. The more serious risk is the emergency department medical director, who does not need to oppose the protocol to defeat it; a director who neither endorses it nor tells clinicians about it leaves it unused. Clinicians who prefer to start prophylaxis immediately, often out of fear of missing a rare but fatal disease, will continue to do so unless someone they trust explains why observation of a vaccinated, available animal is the recommended course (Rupprecht et al., 2010).
Low Power, High Stake
Patients and families have the highest stake and the least power over the decision. A family whose child was bitten by a neighbor's dog may be frightened and want prophylaxis now, and a clinician may find it easier to agree than to explain observation. The protocol includes a short script for clinicians and program staff explaining, in plain terms, why waiting for observation is safe when the animal is vaccinated and available, and what the family should do if the animal becomes ill or cannot be found. The family's fear is legitimate and the protocol has to answer it, not override it.
Engagement With a Channel
Each stakeholder has a specific channel. The health officer receives the draft through the manager, who has scheduled a review. The medical director is approached through the nurse educator, who has worked with the health department on other reporting rules and is trusted by both sides. Clinicians are reached through shift huddles, a one-page summary posted in each department and the call script itself, which reinforces the protocol each time they call. Pharmacy is informed through the medical director, since fewer unneeded courses of rabies immune globulin reduce costs. Patients are reached through the script.
What Would Signal Success or Failure
Success would be the medical director agreeing to mention the protocol in a staff meeting and allowing it in the department's reference folder, and the technician reporting fewer calls in which clinicians start prophylaxis before calling. Failure would be approval by the health officer without any word from the emergency department. If that happens by week 8, I will report it plainly and recommend that the manager raise the protocol at the hospital's next infection prevention committee, which includes both directors.
References
Rupprecht, C. E., Briggs, D., Brown, C. M., Franka, R., Katz, S. L., Kerr, H. D., Lett, S. M., Levis, R., Meltzer, M. I., Schaffner, W., & Cieslak, P. R. (2010). Use of a reduced (4-dose) vaccine schedule for postexposure prophylaxis to prevent human rabies: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 59(RR-2), 1-9.
The Chamberlain MPH 610 Week 6 instructions
In the sixth week you analyze the stakeholders for a decision your deliverable depends on. State that decision first, specifically: a protocol adopted, a pathway changed, a budget line approved. Identify stakeholders by role rather than by name, since roles last longer than people. For each, describe their interest, their power over the decision, their likely position and how you will engage them, through which channel. Identify who could stop or stall the decision, including by doing nothing. Include stakeholders with little power but a high stake. Avoid describing everyone as supportive. End with what would signal success or failure and what you would do if the decision stalls.
How the MPH 610 Week 6 example is put together
The decision is whether the county adopts the protocol and whether two emergency departments use it, especially its advice to observe a vaccinated, available animal rather than start prophylaxis at once. A table covers the health officer, division manager, technician, emergency medical director, nurse educator, clinicians on shift, hospital pharmacies and bitten patients and families. The analysis explains that the medical director could defeat the protocol simply by never mentioning it. Families' fear is answered with a plain script. Channels include the manager for the health officer, the nurse educator for the director, shift huddles for clinicians and the script for families. Success and a fallback through an infection prevention committee are named.
MPH 610 Week 6 rubric: what full points look like
Marks disappear first into a grid with no decision behind it, four quadrants of job titles that could describe any organization. Flattery is the second weakness, with every stakeholder supportive and engaged, which suggests the writer did not look closely. Naming individuals rather than roles, ignoring those who could stall a decision by inaction and leaving out low-power groups with high stakes also cost points. Strong analyses anchor to one decision, identify roles with interest, power, position and channel, name who could stop or stall it, give low-power stakeholders a real place and say what would signal success or failure. Channels left unnamed make engagement impossible to judge.
MPH 610 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Stakeholder analyses are often written from an organization chart rather than from a decision. If you share the decision your deliverable depends on and the people involved, we can help you identify stakeholders by role, judge who could stop or stall the decision and choose a channel for each. We can also help you give patients or residents a meaningful place in the analysis. Your site relationships and judgments remain your own. Where a program prescribes a grid, such as power and interest quadrants, the custom sample can adopt it as long as the decision stays at the center. We can also help you plan what to do if the decision stalls.
Get a MPH-610 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment instructions, any matrix template your section uses and a short description of the decision you need at your site, and a custom stakeholder analysis is written to those instructions and returned inside 24-48h. The first one is free, with the engagement section fully drafted.
More MPH 610 papers and MPH samples
- MPH 610 Week 1: Practice Site Proposal Post
- MPH 610 Week 2: Practice Site Analysis
- MPH 610 Week 3: Competency Self-Assessment
- MPH 610 Week 4: APE Work Plan
- MPH 610 Week 5: Field Log Analysis
- MPH 610 Week 7: Integrative Synthesis Paper
- MPH 610 Week 8: ILE Portfolio Reflection
- MPH 500 Week 6: Stakeholder Analysis
- MPH 599 Week 6: Reference List Reconciliation
- MPH 503 Week 6: Coalition Strategy Write-Up
- MPH 598 Week 6: Support Network Map
MPH 610 Week 6 questions, answered
What if my site is small and there are only a few stakeholders?
Small sites make better analyses, not worse ones. With four roles you can write two paragraphs each instead of a thin grid of twelve, and the external side is usually richer than students expect: funders, the health department, referral partners, the population served. The example works at that scale and shows where a small roster gains depth.
Should I write that my supervisor is an obstacle?
Write it about the role and about the interest, never about the person. A program director protecting staff time from a new workflow is a legitimate position with a name in the literature, and describing it that way is analysis. Describing somebody as difficult is gossip, and it is the version that damages you if the document travels.
Does the matrix need a citation?
Most rubrics want the framework attributed, and the example cites the interest and influence model it uses rather than presenting the quadrants as self-evident. One or two further sources support the engagement choices. Beyond that, citations add little, because this assignment is graded on your judgment about a specific organization and not on your reading.
Where can I find a free MPH 610 Week 6 sample paper?
You can read the complete MPH 610 Week 6 stakeholder analysis for adopting a rabies prophylaxis protocol on this page.
Who could stop the protocol in the MPH 610 Week 6 sample?
The health officer by refusing approval, and more likely the emergency medical director by never endorsing or mentioning it to clinicians.