№ files_lp_3_process_9_47978
File format: docx
Character count: 15178
File size: 46 KB
Year:
2016
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Exercise Physiology
Document Type:
Journal Article
Organization / Institution:
American Society of Exercise Physiologists
Author:
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MAM, MBA
Target Audience:
Exercise Physiologists, Academics, Students in Exercise Physiology
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
June 2016
Date of Last Changes:
N/A
Contextual description:
The article explores the identity and professional challenges faced by exercise physiologists, emphasizing the evolution of their title and role in academia and healthcare.
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2014
Volume:
12
Issue:
12
Journal:
Journal of Professional Exercise Physiology
ISSN:
1550-963X
Publisher:
American Society of Exercise Physiologists
Author:
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MAM, MBA
Document Type:
Journal Article
Target Audience:
Exercise physiologists, healthcare professionals
Focus Area:
Exercise medicine, chronic disease prevention, cardiac rehabilitation
Key Topics:
Board certification, exercise prescription, professional standards, health promotion
Geographic Focus:
United States
Endorsements:
ASEP standards of conduct
Period Covered:
2014
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Manchester
Theme:
Security services, Licensing
Document type:
Consultation questionnaire
Organ / Institution:
Home Office
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Security professionals, Employers, Public bodies
Validity period:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Victoria, Australia
Topic:
HIV treatment, healthcare program
Document type:
Official publication
Organization / Institution:
Victorian Government, Department of Health
Author:
Victorian Government
Target audience:
Healthcare professionals, HIV patients, healthcare policy makers
Date of approval:
August 2025
Date of changes:
Not specified
Reference no:
HPV (GBMSM) PGD
Version no:
v5.0
Valid from:
1 September 2025
Review date:
1 April 2028
Expiry date:
1 September 2028
Author:
Suki Hunjunt, Sharif Ismail, David Green
Region / city:
England
Target audience:
Healthcare practitioners administering HPV vaccine to GBMSM
Type of document:
Patient Group Direction
Organisation:
UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)
Date of approval:
17 July 2025
Date of modifications:
16 July 2025
Context:
A formal Patient Group Direction for the administration of HPV vaccine to GBMSM, detailing legal, clinical, and procedural requirements for healthcare practitioners in England.
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Global
Topic:
Vaccine Policy, Maternal Health, Group B Streptococcus
Document type:
WHO Guidance
Institution:
World Health Organization (WHO)
Author:
WHO ECVP
Target audience:
Policymakers, Vaccine Developers, Public Health Authorities
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Approval date:
March 11, 2025
Date of changes:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Topic:
Garnishment procedure, legal responsibilities of garnishee
Document Type:
Legal Instruction
Authority / Institution:
Court of Arizona
Target Audience:
Garnishees involved in legal proceedings
Year:
2024
Region / city:
Geneva
Topic:
International Health Regulations, WHO, Global Governance, Health Policy
Document type:
Report
Organization:
WHO
Author:
kla.tv
Target audience:
General public, policy analysts, legal experts
Period of validity:
2024
Approval date:
June 1, 2024
Date of changes:
June 1, 2024
Year:
2013
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Christian theology, New Testament exegesis
Document Type:
Academic paper
Institution:
Not specified
Author:
John E. Doe
Target Audience:
Scholars and students of theology, particularly those studying the New Testament
Period of Validity:
Not applicable
Date of Approval:
January 1, 2013
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Note:
Contextual Description
Year:
2024
Region / city:
Global
Topic:
COVID-19 Vaccines
Document type:
Report
Author:
World Health Organization (WHO)
Target audience:
Health professionals, regulatory authorities
Approval date:
16 January 2024
Modification date:
N/A
Contextual description:
A report listing COVID-19 vaccines evaluated under the WHO EUL/PQ process, including details on manufacturers, vaccine types, shelf lives, and approval dates.
Year:
2023
Region / city:
Australia
Topic:
Oncology, Pharmaceuticals
Document Type:
Resubmission
Institution:
Australian Government, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
Author:
AstraZeneca Pty Ltd.
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
November 2021
Date of Changes:
November 2021
Year:
2013
Region / city:
India
Theme:
Corporate governance, Shareholding
Document type:
Form
Organization / institution:
Government of India
Author:
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Target audience:
Shareholders, companies
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Amendment date:
Not specified
Organization:
World Health Organization
Programme:
Prequalification Programme
Document type:
Regulatory guidance document
Subject area:
Pharmaceutical quality documentation
Scope:
Product dossiers containing synthetic or semi-synthetic active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished pharmaceutical products
Intended audience:
Applicants submitting product dossiers for WHO prequalification
Related documents:
Quality Overall Summary – Product Dossier (QOS-PD)
Regulatory context:
WHO prequalification, GMP inspections, variation and requalification assessments
Format requirement:
Word format submission
Coverage:
Drug substance (API) and finished pharmaceutical product (FPP) quality information
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Virginia
Topic:
Competencies for Direct Support Professionals
Document Type:
Competency Checklist
Organization / Institution:
Virginia’s Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Direct Support Professionals and Supervisors
Period of Effectiveness:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Modifications:
Not specified
Year:
2020
Region / city:
Victoria, Australia
Theme:
Family violence response in healthcare workplaces
Document type:
Guidelines
Organization / institution:
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Victorian Government
Author:
Victorian Government
Target audience:
Hospitals and healthcare staff
Effective date:
September 2020
Date of approval:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Related legislation:
Gender Equality Act (2020), Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme (FVISS), Child Information Sharing Scheme (CISS)
Context:
This document offers updated resources to hospitals and health services in Victoria to support staff who are victim survivors of family violence, reflecting current best practices and legal requirements under MARAM and the Gender Equality Act.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Canberra
Topic:
Diabetes management, exercise therapy
Document Type:
Procedure
Institution:
Canberra Health Services
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Clinicians, healthcare professionals
Period of Validity:
Indefinite
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Topic:
Incident Investigation
Document Type:
Report
Target Audience:
Management, HR, Investigation Team
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Jefferson County
Topic:
Medical Response, Surge, Mass Casualty Incident
Document Type:
Exercise Evaluation Guide
Organization / Institution:
Jefferson County Health Care Coalition / HPP Grant Program
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Emergency response teams, healthcare providers, and disaster management officials
Period of Effectiveness:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Date:
May 22, 2021
Country:
Afghanistan
Sector:
Education
Program:
EQRA Project
Document type:
Analytical note
Issuing institution:
Ministry of Education
Contributing units:
Deputy Ministry of Education; Community Based Education Transition Unit
Geographic coverage:
17 EQRA provinces
Target population:
Out-of-school children, with focus on girls
Number of CBE classes allocated:
1,980
Estimated students covered:
49,500
Data sources:
NSIA 2019; EMIS 2019; UNICEF 2017
Methodological approach:
Statistical analysis using alternative data-based mapping
Key indicators:
Out-of-school children rates and numbers; enrollment; population estimates; school distance and travel time
Temporal coverage of data:
2017–2020