Family Centered Care in Acute Care Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Family Centered Care in Acute Care - Assignment Example The following paper identifies, summarizes, and critiques three recent research articles concerning family centered care in acute care. I chose this article because it is a qualitative research focused on the needs of the relatives of patients during acute care. The researchers chose a setting that has been neglected for several years in a developing country. The setting is suitable for this research project as it helps to define family centered care in the presence and absence of patient education. Bastani et al researched ways to set up family-oriented health guidelines for patients in a neurosurgery ward and assess its effect on the fulfilment of patients and their relatives. The study took on the design of a collaborative participatory experiment that involved a set of medical nurses and an educational researcher. Bastani et al carried out the research in a neurosurgery ward within a campus hospital with 26 beds (Bastani et al., 2013). Bastani et al use of parallel combined techniques to collect and review information was appropriate. This method allowed the study to discover three key barriers to setting up family centered health guidelines: intra-professional, inter-professional, and institutional. As a result, the full gratification of patients and their relatives showed the effectiveness of the nurses in realizing health informational goals. I chose this article was present a sharp comparison of individual experiences that serve as a paramount trigger the fundamental concept of my project. The findings and method used in this article is suitable for examining the effect of encouraging family centered care inside an acute adult clinical environment. Ewart et al underline the service enhancement project started in a single acute cardiac unit inside a regional hospital trust in the East of England. Here, Ewart et al examined the effect of improving family centered care inside an acute adult environment. The study found over nine months

Analysis of JNY and LIZ Financial Data Essay -- GCSE Business Marketin

Analysis of JNY and LIZ Financial Data The following paper will compare the five-year performance of two apparel manufacturers utilizing the DuPont Framework and Return on Equity. Then a three- year analysis of common-size income statements will be undertaken to explain changes in income and expenses within each company. Jones Apparel Group (JNY) and Liz Claiborne (LIZ) are the industry leaders in the manufacturing of better clothing, footwear, fragrances, and costume jewelry, and the subject of this analysis. Jones Apparel Group’s recognized brands include: Jones New York, Polo Jeans Company, Nine West, Napier, and costume jewelry licensed under the Tommy Hilfiger brand. Jones aims to gain stability in the apparel industry as well as retail markets through building â€Å"complete lifestyle brands serving a wide breadth of consumers in a wide range of income levels and shopping destination preferences.† (PR Newswire, 2/7/01). Liz Claiborne’s brands include: Claiborne, Curve, Lucky Brand, Monet, and licenses to produce DKNY Jeans and DKNY Active. The company’s success can be attributed to its â€Å"multi-brand, multi-channel strategy† of diversification in the apparel marketplace. (PR Newswire, 2/23/01). The apparel industry is among the most volatile sectors in the market today. Subject to overnight changes in trends and fashion, the industry leaders must be accurate with their predictions and quick to accommodate changes. Because of these fluctuations, it is very hard to assign a competitive advantage to one company over another. While Jones Apparel Group seems to have a comparative advantage in profitability and leverage, Liz Claiborne has been historically more effective at generating revenue from its assets. While Liz is surging to eclipse Jones’ ROE numbers as of late, Jones Apparel Group holds a historical comparative advantage in return on equity and overall financial health. One look at the common-size income statements for these companies can tell a story. While Jones Apparel Group was lagging at year ended 1998, even with a restructuring charge on Liz Claiborne’s income statement, 1999 was a different story. Huge growth at Jones lead to revenues double of that one year ago while Liz, while increasing, was quickly falling behind. The growth for both of these companies continued into the year ended 2000, but Jones Apparel Grou... ...eaders must be accurate with their predictions and quick to accommodate changes. Because of these fluctuations, it is very hard to assign a competitive advantage to one company over another. While Jones Apparel Group seems to have a comparative advantage in profitability and leverage, Liz Claiborne has been historically more effective at generating revenue from its assets. While Liz is surging to eclipse Jones’ ROE numbers as of late, Jones Apparel Group holds a historical comparative advantage in return on equity and overall financial health. One look at the common-size income statements for these companies can tell a story. While Jones Apparel Group was lagging at year ended 1998, even with a restructuring charge on Liz Claiborne’s income statement, 1999 was a different story. Huge growth at Jones lead to revenues double of that one year ago while Liz, while increasing, was quickly falling behind. The growth for both of these companies continued into the year ended 2000, but Jones Apparel Group’s results were brilliant compared to Liz Claiborne’s. One billion dollar growth in revenues as well as higher net income is making Jones Apparel Group the company of the future.

Network Based Grading System

Such systems do not relate expectations, outcomes and performance. As each students desires to desire a good score for each assignment , exam, project and/or report, the whole Network Based Grading System Network Based Grading System is vital in this generation, specially to teachers and students. This is a seem that could Nag network based grading system system ay sis as MGM Gilligan as pantheon Nagoya Lola an as MGM student at as MGM guru.Dahl mass anabolism zeugma Eng MGM grades Eng student gambit nag sang system gay intoning network based grading system. Gambit nag computer pawed gaming tong system. Saginaw tit as sang programming language an visual basic at may gasman database din an Microsoft office access kayak awaiting an network base ease contaminating tit g sis cable o local area network cable gambit tong cable an tit pawed mum I share nag files Eng student as MGM admit Eng school o professor.Mari ding gaming tong system an tit chit wall gang access as internet Dahl sis Lan g tong local area network(LANA) an geminate Lang Eng cable an may raja an illegally Lang as liked Eng computer. Nag network based ay moron din disadvantage sis as MGM problems .NET ay kappa nag LANA Cable MO ay an putout,computer broken, at LANA Cable unplug kappa angrier Yuan Hindi aka mage kappa share Eng files as bang Tao minimal Lang gung my Bluetooth nag computer MO.Nag network based grading system kayak name tit an sipping again pang maculating as MGM professor at student Para amiability nag page gaga Eng MGM grades at mainstays Eng tama nag MGM grades. Zeugma din came Eng MGM button as system an tit gay Eng save,update,delete, at add button Para Hindi an maharani nag gambit into. Nag pià ±ata user intoning system an tit ay nag admit Eng school at professor sill Lang nag may kayaking gambit intoning system an tit.Hindi gay among unsung pantheon an Mann Mann nag page gaga Eng MGM grades Eng student kayak Amman mass maharani o mantilla nag MGM professor as page gaga Eng MGM rea ds at may moron ding possibility an wall pa nag MGM grades Eng student kappa nag aka tan an MGM Akron Eng mammals Eng Islamabad Hindi Tulsa as pantheon Nagoya an modern an nag page gaga Eng grades Eng MGM student anabases nag oars Eng page gaga as grades Eng student at pawed mum din save as USB MO nag files Eng MGM grades Eng student at buskin analog as bang computer.Tong system an tit ay inlaying din name Eng surname at password pang ma swain gung Sino Sino nag gambit Samaritan Amman as MGM gusto o as MGM Hindi pa NASA register as system an tit inlaying din name tit Eng register for new user . NC' Skip to main content Skip to navigation Resources How To About INCUBI Accesses Sign in to INCUBI MAC US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Top of Form Search terminates database Search Limits Advanced Journal list Help Bottom of Form Journal List v. 23(7308); 2001 Gag 11 MIMIC 120936 BMW. 2001 Gag 11; 323(7308): 334-336. MIMIC: MIMIC 120936 A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines Robin Harbor, information manager and Juliet Miller, director for the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Grading Review Group Author information Article notes Copyright and License information This article has been cited by other articles in MAC.The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) develops evidence based clinical guidelines for the NASH in Scotland. The key elements of the methodology are (a) that guidelines are developed by multidisciplinary groups; (b) they are based on a systematic review of the scientific evidence; and (c) recommendations are explicitly linked to the supporting evidence and graded according to the strength of that evidence. Until recently, the System or grading guideline recommendations was based on the work of the IIS Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (formerly the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research). 1,2 However, experience over more than five years of guideline developm ent led to a growing awareness of this systemic weaknesses. Firstly, the grading system was designed largely for application to questions of effectiveness, where randomized controlled trials are accepted as the most robust study design with the least risk of bias in the results.However, in many areas of medical practice randomized trials may to be practical or ethical to undertake; and for many questions other types of study design may provide the best evidence. Secondly, guideline development groups often fail to take adequate account of the methodological quail ¶y' of individual studies and the overall picture presented by a body of evidence rather than individual studies or they fail to apply sufficient judgment to the overall strength of the evidence base and its applicant ability to the target population of the guideline.Thirdly, guideline users are often not clear about the implications of the grading system. They misinterpret the grade of recommendation as relating to its i mportance, rather than to the strength of the supporting evidence, and may therefore fail to give due weight to low grade recommendations.Summary points A revised system of determining levels of evidence and grades of recommendation for evidence based clinical guidelines has been developed Levels of evidence are based on study design and the methodological quality of individual studies All studies related to a specific question are summarized in an evidence table Guideline developers must make a considered judgment bout the generalizations, applicability, consistency, and clinical impact of the evidence to create a clear link between the evidence and recommendation Grades of recommendation are based on the strength of supporting evidence, taking into account its overall level and the considered judgment of the guideline developers In 1 998, SIGN undertook to review and, where appropriate, to refine the system for evaluating guideline evidence and grading recommendations. The review had three main objectives.Firstly, the group aimed to develop a system that would maintain the link between the trench of the available evidence and the grade of the recommendation, while allowing recommendations to be based on the best available evidence and be weighted accordingly. Secondly, it planned to ensure that the grading system incorporated formal assessment of the methodological quality, quantity, consistency, and applicability of the evidence base. Thirdly, the group hoped to present the grading system in a clear and unambiguous way that would allow guideline developers and users to understand the link between the strength of the evidence and the grade of recommendation. Go to: MethodsThe review group decided that a more explicit and structured approach (figure) to the process of developing recommendations was required to address the weaknesses identified in the existing grading system. The four key stages in the process identified by the group are shown in the box. The strength of the evidence provided by an individual study depends on the ability of the study design to minimize the possibility of bias and to maximize attribution. The hierarchy of study types adopted by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research is widely accepted as reliable in this regard and is even in box boxier. 1 Box 1 Hierarchy of study types The strength of evidence provided by a study is also influenced by how well the study was designed and carried out.Failure to give due attention to key aspects of study methods increases the risk of bias or confounding and thus reduces the stud's reliability. 3 The critical appraisal of the evidence base undertaken for SIGN guidelines therefore focuses on those aspects of study design which research has shown to have a significant influence on the validity of the results and conclusions. These key questions differ between hypes of studies, and the use of checklists is recommended to ensure that all relevant aspects are considered a nd that a consistent approach is used in the methodological assessment of the evidence. We carried out an extensive search to identify existing checklists. These were then reviewed in order to identify a validated model on which SIGN checklists could be based.The checklists developed by the New South Wales Department of Health were selected because of the rigorous development and validation procedures they had undergone. 4 These checklists were further evaluated and adapted y the grading review group in order to meet SIGN's requirements for a balance between methodological rigor and practicality of use. New checklists were developed for systematic reviews, randomized trials, and cohort and case control studies, and these were tested with a number of SIGN development groups to ensure that the wording was clear and the checklists produced consistent results. As a result of these tests, some of the wording of the checklists was amended to improve clarity. A supplementary checklist cove rs issues specific to the evaluation of diagnostic tests.This was eased on the New South Wales checklist,4 adapted with reference to the work of the Cochrane Methods Working Group on Systematic Review of Screening and Diagnostic Tests and Caruthers et al. 5,6 The checklists use written responses to the individual questions, with users then assigning studies an overall rating according to specified criteria (see box boxer). The full set of checklists and detailed notes on their use are available from SIGN. 7 Box 2 Key stages in developing recommendations Synthesis of the evidence The next step is to extract the relevant data from each study that was rated as avian a low or moderate risk of bias and to compile a summary of the individual studies and the overall direction of the evidence.A single, well conducted, systematic review or a very large randomized trial with clear outcomes could support a recommendation independently. Smaller, less well conducted studies require a body of evi dence displaying a degree of consistency to support a recommendation. In these circumstances an evidence table presenting summaries of all the relevant studies should be compiled. Considered judgment Having completed a rigorous and objective synthesis of the evidence base, he guideline development group must then make what is essentially a subjective judgment on the recommendations-?one that can validly be made on the basis of this evidence. This requires the exercise of judgment based on clinical experience as well as knowledge of the evidence and the methods used to generate it.Although it is not practical to lay out â€Å"rules† for exercising judgment, guideline development groups are asked to consider the evidence in terms of quantity, quality, and consistency; applicability; generalizations; and clinical impact. Increasing the role of subjective judgment in this way risks he reintroduction of bias into the process. It must be emphasized that this is not the judgment of an individual but of a carefully composed multidisciplinary group. An additional safeguard is the requirement for the guideline development group to present clearly the evidence on which the recommendation is based, making the link between evidence and recommendation explicit and explaining how they interpreted that evidence.Grading system The revised grading system (box (box)BE) is intended to strike an appropriate balance between incorporating the complexity Of type and laity of the evidence and maintaining clarity for guideline users. The key changes from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research system are that the study type and quality rating are combined in the evidence level; the grading of recommendations extrapolated from the available evidence is clarified; and the grades of recommendation are extended from three to four categories, effectively by splitting the previous grade B which was seen as covering too broad a range of evidence type and quality.

Commonly Confused Words Inhuman and Inhumane

The adjectives inhuman and inhumane have related meanings, but theyre not usually  interchangeable. Definitions The word inhuman—like inhumane—means  pitiless or lacking in compassion, but inhuman, which also means cruel,  monstrous,  and barbaric, has a harsher sense than inhumane.The Oxford English Dictionary defines inhumane as destitute of compassion for misery or suffering in men or animals.   Examples For an instant Sean saw an inhuman expression of hate so evil and demented that nothing in the world could frighten the boy after seeing that.(Raymond Feist, Faerie Tale. Doubleday, 1988)In tormented English [Oskar] conveyed his intense and everlasting hatred of the Nazis for destroying his career, uprooting his life, and flinging him like a piece of bleeding meat to hawks. He cursed them thickly, the German nation, as an inhuman, conscienceless, merciless people. (Bernard Malamud, The German Refugee.  The Stories of Bernard Malamud. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1989)Inhumane treatment of political prisoners is considered a serious and punishable offense under international law.Some people always choose to  comfort the child. They think that making a baby cry it out is inhumane and could even lead to psychological problems. Others feel that giving in to babies prevents them from learning needed skills and leads to later problems. (Aaron E. Carroll, Putting Your Baby to Sleep: Some Advice and Good News. The New York Times, August 1, 2016) Usage Notes Careful users maintain the distinction between inhuman and inhumane. Inhumane, the opposite of humane, means lacking in compassion or kindness; cruel; not merciful: inhumane treatment. Inhuman, the opposite of human, is stronger and has a wider scope than inhumane. To be inhuman means to lack all human qualities, not only compassion and kindness: inhuman violence, inhuman living conditions. Inhuman has the additional meaning of not having human form: An inhuman shape appeared at the window. (Martin Manser, Good Word Guide, 7th ed. Bloomsbury, 2011)The first thing to note about inhuman is that it does not mean the same as inhumane. The confusion is very common. On February 17, 2008, a fine op-ed piece by an Air Force Colonel and former  Guantà ¡namo  prosecutor on the use of waterboarding was subbed by The New York Times with the internal  headline Waterboarding Is Inhumane—which is not what the author said in his article. He said it was inhuman. . . . According to the O xford English Dictionary, inhumane in its modern use is a word of milder meaning than inhuman.  Ã‚  Accordingly a prohibition on inhumane conduct is much more demanding than a prohibition on inhuman  conduct. (Jeremy Waldron,  Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs: Philosophy for the White House. Oxford University Press, 2010)Inhuman and inhumane overlap in meaning to such an extent that it is impossible to sustain a distinction in their use. In general, inhuman refers to the characteristic of a person or action, whereas inhumane considers the same characteristic rather more in relation to the effect or the consequences of the action on the sufferer. (Chambers 21 Century Dictionary, rev. ed. Chambers Harrap, 2001) Practice A great deal of irresponsibility, selfishness, and _____ behavior hides behind the pervasive myth that all cats are actually wild animals.The rebel leader was accused of committing _____ acts of terrorism, which included the murdering and butchering of countless women and children. Answers to Practice Exercises: Inhuman and Inhumane (a) A great deal of irresponsibility, selfishness, and inhumane behavior hides behind the pervasive myth that all cats are actually wild animals.(b) The rebel leader was accused of committing inhuman acts of terrorism, which included the murdering and butchering of countless women and children. Glossary of Usage: Index of Commonly Confused Words