360 Guided Learning Hours (GLH)-Level 5 Diploma in Education and training

Submit evidence of 100 hours teaching and 8 observations of teaching, where a minimum of 5 audiences are required to be present.

This should be a minimum of 8 hours. Every single observation should not be less than 30 minutes.

Check the attached file for more details about the paper.

Please follow the instructions carefully in order to fill these tables and evidences.

Fail Over and Disaster recovery

  1. A twelve minute powerpoint presentation with at least 12 slides not including a reference list. If you use images, you must provide proper attribution. Be focused and provide something your peers will find useful not what we could find on a Wikipedia page.
  2. An annotated reference list of at least five references. Annotations are notes. In this case write two paragraphs about each source. The first is a summary of what the source informs and the second is why it is valuable.
  3. A one page single spaced summary of what you learned in this project. it should be written in essay format with no bullet or numbered lists. It must include quotes from your sources which must be surrounded by quotation marks and cited in-line. It must have an informative title which should not be too broad but should focus attention on your topic.

sociology of religion

1-the “securaliztion” paradigm

Your text spends a fair amount of time discussing the “securaliztion paradigm” what are the key points emphasized in chapter 2 about this paradigm?

2- how would you contrast this with Rosabeth kanter’s description of religious socialization as indicated in the supplemental reading material for this chapter?

3-conversion,brainwashing

“Brainwashing and new religious movements. As your pour through this chapter, hat’s your take on all this? In your response consider various types of commitments individuals have, and consider as well, the “rational choice model”

Discussion Board and replies

Case Discussion 4: Read Case 13: Silence of the Hospital:  Lessons on Supporting Patients and Staff following an Adverse Event.

What went wrong n Linda’s case?  What is your opinion of the non disclosure policy?  Of the  MACRMI disclosure model?

Case is in attachment below

Post your response and Peer review 3 other responses.

The three responses are in the attachment below

Attachments

CASE 13

The Silence of the Hospital:
Lessons on Supporting

Patients and Staff After an
Adverse Event

The Story of Linda Kenney
(United States)

Linda Ken ney

Editors’ Note
Linda Kenncç considered herself nearly a profi’ssional patient. Born with bilateral cliii,
feet, she had undergone 19 eor tee/tEe sulgeries oz-er the Lou;3e other li/e. In addition, her
job was in health ca;: she worked as an administrati-;’e assistant I!? iii? operating rooni
in a large medical center am/flit confident that she understood the system well. “1 was an
administrative worker not a clinician, “she says, “but Igot to see amazing things.

In 1999, Linda was scheduledJbr her twentieth surgery, a right ankle replacement. An
educated hea/theare consume,; she went to the hospital with a list oJthings she wanted
This included a requestjbr an attending physician as h’, anesthesiologist. Linda a mid the
surgeon had decided that he, anecthesia would be z poplitealfosca block, in which the
numbing agent hupivacaine would he injected into a nerve in the ha-k o/J.’er knee to numb
the lower leg and ankle. Linda did not want a resident doing this procedure. A hoard—
certfled anesthesiologist named Rick van Pelt was scheduled to handle her nerve block.
On the day of the operation, Linda told her husband to go on to work until the surgery
Was over Bnt th urge;) d,d not go Jo; aaid am planned AJte; th an cth siologut
administered the pop/iteal facsa block, Linda had a seizure,Jollowed by cardiac arrest.

163

Ihe
an

e.th
esio

lo
ç’i.v

t
h
ad

,n
j’,e

i/
tI,e

iierz’e
(i/uiaccul’ntaIiv

n
iect’d

the
bupie

7/cal/Ic
itito

the
blood

vessel
i,itec,c(

I,a.iiiin’
ihe

w
as

in
a

la
r
g

e
teaching

hospital
w

ith
im

m
ediate

access
to

specialized
k

n
o

w
l

edge
‘m

d
e
q
u
ip

m
e
n
t,

L
in

d
a

su
rv

iv
ed

her
cardiac

arrest,
h
at

she
suffired

lingering
phi,si—

cal
e
//c

t
a
n
d

o
n
g
o
in

g
em

otional
trau

m
a

M
ost

disturbing
o
f

all
she

Jilt,
w

as
the

h
o
sp

itaR
fàilare

to
provide

support
either

to
her

an
d

h
erJàm

ily
or

to
D

r
v

an
P

elt
an

d

the
other

clinicians
involved.

L
inda

tells
the

story
o
f her

brush
w

ith
death

in
the

hospital
an

d
h

ersu
h

seq
aen

t/b
u

n
d

in
g

o
fthe

nonprofit
organization

M
IT

S
S


M

edicully
Induced

7}aunia
S

upport
S

ervices—
w

hose
m

ission
i.c

“To
S

upport
H

ealin
g

an
d

R
ejb

r,
H

ope’to

patients,
hint ilies

an
d

cliii iciansf&
llow

inç’
adverse

m
edical events.

L
E

A
R

N
IN

G
O

B
JE

C
T

IV
E

S

A
fter

com
pleting

this
c
a
s
e

study,
you

w
ill

he
able

to:

1.
D

escribe
the

potential
efficrs

o
f

a
m

edical
error

or
adverse

m
edical

event
on

patients,
fam

ilies,
and

health
profrssionals.

2.
D

iscuss
elem

ents
o
f

a
strategy

for
disclosing

adverse
events

and
m

edical
errors,

3.
C

reate
a

strategy
for

supporting
m

edically
harm

ed
patients

and
their

fam
ilies.

4
.

C
reate

a
strategy

for
supporting

health
professionals

w
ho

have
been

involved
in

harm
ing

a
patient.

A
N

ear-D
eath

E
xperience

I
rem

em
ber

everything
th

at
happened

th
at

day
before

the
surgery

w
as

supposed
to

take
place.

I
rem

em
ber

rolling
into

the
p
reh

o
ld

in
g

area.
I

rem
em

ber
telling

the
anesthesiologist

th
at

I
w

as
very

u
n
c
o
m

fortable
about

the
block,

lie
told

m
e

n
o
t

to
w

orry,
th

at
he

had
done

it
a

h
u
n
d
red

tim
es,

H
e

w
ill

tell
you

now
th

at
he

has
never

said
th

at
again.

In
fact,

he
w

ill
tell

you
th

at
w

hen
he

saw
the

list
o
f

things
I

w
anted,

his
im

m
ediate

reaction
w

as,
“S

he
is

going
to

he
a

pain.”
T

oday,
his

th
in

k
in

g
has

changed
to,“T

his
is

a
p
atien

t
w

ho
has

som
e

experience
and

w
e

need
to

have
a

conversation
before

the
surgery.”

So
his

practice
has

changed
because

o
f

w
h
at

happened
th

at
day.

F
rom

the
beginning,

I
had

a
bad

feeling
about

this
surgery.

I
had

signed
m

any
consent

form
s,

but
this

w
as

the
first

tim
e

I
had

looked

at
a

form
and

had
the

w
ord

death
pop

out
at

m
e.

I
don’t

know
w

hy
I

felt
th

at
w

ay,
but

w
hen

1
th

in
k

back
I

w
ould

say
to

any
patient,

“If
you

have
a

bad
feeling,

honor
th

at
feeling.

It
does

not
m

atter
how

crazy
you

feel,
h
o
n
o
r

th
at

had
feeling.

‘The
last

th
in

g
I

rem
em

ber
is

saying
goodbye

to
m

y
husband.

‘T
hen

w
e

w
en

t
into

the
preoperative

holding
area, and

th
at

w
as

w
here

they
injected

the
block.

T
he

procedure
consisted

o
f

going
in

past
the

blood
vessels

into
the

nerve.
T

b
do

thi.s
they

have
to

pull
back

on
the

needle;
if

there
is

no
blood

then
they

are
sure

they
are

into
the

nerve.
B

ut
w

hen
the

anesthesiologist
pulled

back
on

the
needle

there
w

as
no

blood,
so

he
p
t

the
m

edication
in.

and
apparently’

it
w

ent
into

the
blood

vessel
anyw

ay.
W

h
at

they
th

in
k

happened
w

as
th

at
he

did
n
o
t

get
any

blood
because

it
w

as
a

b
ro

k
en

-d
o
w

n
vessel.

I3tipivacaine
is

a
cardiotoxic

drug
and

w
ith

in
a

m
inute

I
had

a
grand

m
al

seizure
follow

ed
by

a
full

cardiac
arrest.

‘They
called

a
cardiac

code
and

started
advanced

cardiac
life

su
p
p
o
rt

rig
h
t

aw
a;

but
after

15
m

inutes
I

w
as

still
unresponsive.

L
uckily

for
m

e,
there

just
happened

to
be

a
doctor

there
w

ho
had

experience
w

ith
this.

H
e

knew
th

at
the

only’
w

ay
to

save
m

y
life

w
ould

he
to

get
m

e
onto

cardiac
bypass

rig
h
t

aw
ay.

A
gain,

things
w

ere
in

m
y

fhvor
th

at
day:

there
w

asa
cardiac

suite
already

prepared
for

an
o
th

er
p
atien

t, w
ith

a
cardiopulm

onary
bypass

m
achine

prim
ed

and
ready.

T
hey

b
u
m

p
ed

the
o
th

er
p

atien
t

and
w

ith
in

35
m

inutes
they’

had
opened

m
y

chest
and

had
m

e
hooked

up
to

a
cardiopul—

m
onary’

bypass
m

achine
so

th
at

the
m

edication
could

be
flushed

out
o
f

nn’
system

.

M
v

husband
w

as
not

even
out

o
f

the
m

ain
lobby’

before
I

had
the

cardiac
arrest.

H
e

got
a

phone
call

from
the

o
rth

o
p
ed

ic
surgeon

w
ho

had
stood

by’
in

horror
w

atching
the

w
hole

in
cid

en
t

unfold.
T

he
surgeon

said,
“i\Ir.

K
enney,

there
has

been
a

problem
w

ith
the

a
n

e
s

thesia.
\V

e
had

to
crack

your
w

ife’s
chest;

you
need

to
com

e
iii.”

M
v

husband
ju

st
dropped

the
phone

and
im

m
ediately

returned.
M

y
husband

didn’t
know

w
here

to
go,

but
a

w
om

an
from

ad
m

ittin
g

16.

recognized
him

and
b
ro

u
g
h
t

him
into

a
room

.
H

e
w

as
left

alone
in

a
sm

all
room

until
som

ebody’
cam

e
to

get
him

.
I

th
in

k
about

th
at

now
.

S
om

ebody
should

have
been

w
ith

m
y

husband.

T
he

anesthesiologist
and

o
rth

o
p
ed

ic
surgeon

w
aited

for
a

w
hile

before
they

cam
e

to
talk

to
him

.
A

s
soon

as
they

opened
the

door
m

y
husband

physically
w

ent
after

them
.

H
e

said,
“‘W

hat
have

you
done

to
m

y
beautiful

w
ife?!”’T

he
o
rth

o
p
ed

ic
surgeon’s

reply
w

as,
“It

doesn’t
look

good.
W

e
don’t

know
w

hat
the

outcom
e

is
going

to
be.”

W
h

en
I

w
oke

up
I

w
as

on
a

ventilator
in

the
intensive

care
unit.

N
o

one
w

an
ted

to
talk

ab
o

u
t

w
h

at
had

happened.
S

om
eone

told
m

e
I

had
had

an
allergic

reaction
to

the
anesthesia.

I
knew

intuitively
th

at
w

as
w

rong,
so

rig
h
t

aw
ay,

as
I

lay
there

in
the

hospital,
I

felt
unsafe

and
u
n
tru

stin
g
.T

hat
w

as
n
o
t

a
good

m
ental

state
to

be
in

after
w

hat
I

had
been

th
ro

u
g
h
.

M
y

husband
did

not
w

ant
to

leave
m

y
side

and
did

not
w

an
t

anybody
near

m
e;

I’m
sure

he
w

as
m

arked
by

the
staff

as
a

difficult
fam

ily
m

em
ber.

I
found

out
years

later
th

at
they

did
not

ever
ask

him
to

leave.
T

hey
actually

changed
th

eir
practice

because
they

saw
th

at
m

y
husband’s

voice
helped

calm
m

e
dow

n.
I

w
as

the
first

p
atien

t
to

change
this

practice.

I
rem

em
ber

w
orrying

about
m

y
children.

T
here

w
as

no
su

p
p
o
rt

for
any

o
f

m
y

fam
ily

m
em

bers.
Y

ou
could

see
th

at
the

staff
felt

had
for

m
e,

hut
nobody

w
as

talking.
M

y
o
rth

o
p
ed

ic
surgeon

could
barely

look
at

m
e.

I
rem

em
ber

w
ritin

g
a

note
asking

if
he

had
replaced

m
y

ankle.
I-Ic

shook
his

head
and

looked
dow

n.
It

took
m

e
a

good
w

eek
to

grasp
th

at
m

y
ankle

had
not

been
replaced.

I
felt

ab
an

d
o
n
ed

.
I

had
a

rew
ired

chest,
broken

ribs,
and

I
looked

as
th

o
u

g
h

I
had

been
beaten

up.
I

rem
em

ber
tak

in
g

th
at

first
show

er
and

having
som

ebody
w

ash
m

e
because

I
could

not
do

it
an

d
fe

e
l

ing
the

m
ost

vulnerable
I

had
ever

felt
in

m
y

life.
I

g
o
t

m
y

ch
art

before
I

left
the

h
o
sp

ital
and

it
said

rig
h
t

on
the

fro
n
t,

“A
llergy

to
P

E
N

IC
IL

L
IN

and
B

U
P

IV
A

C
A

IN
E

.”
T

h
at

w
as

the
route

they
w

ere
going.

A
lone

a
t

H
o

m
e

W
h

en
I

left
the

hospital,
I

received
instructions

on
caring

for
m

y

incision
and

in
fb

rm
atio

n
about

a
visiting

nurse. T
hat

w
as

all.
I

never

got
a

phone
call.

A
ll

I
got

w
as

a
bill.

I
had

had
m

any
day

surgeries

w
hen

th
e’

w
ould

call
m

e
the

next
day

and
ask

how
I

w
as

doing.

T
his

tim
e

they
alm

ost
killed

m
e

and
I

didn’t
even

get
a

call.

A
w

eek
after

I
got

hom
e

I
received

a
letter

from
the

anesthesiologist,

D
r.

van
P

elt.
I

did
not

know
th

at
he

had
tried

to
see

m
e

several

tim
es

in
the

hospital,
but

th
at

m
ultiple

things
had

stopped
th

at
from

happening.
In

the
letter

he
said

he
w

as
sorry

for
w

h
at

had
happened

and
th

at
he

believed
in

open
and

h
o
n
est

com
m

unication.
lie

gave

m
e

his
hom

e
telephone

num
ber

and
cell

num
ber.

I
had

no
idea

th
at

w
hat

he
w

as
doing

w
as

so
ahead

o
f

the
tim

e.
M

y
feelings

at
the

tim
e

w
ere

th
at

this
w

as
d
am

ag
e

co
n
tro

l.
I

filed
th

e
letter,

an
d

did
n

o
t

th
in

k
about

it
for

a
long

tim
e.

W
h

en
I

got
hom

e,
C

h
ristm

as
w

as
com

ing.
M

y
kids

w
ere

all
still

reacting
to

w
h
at

had
happened.

I
w

as
trying

to
take

care
o
f

their

needs,
and

I
w

as
physically

very
lim

ited.
It

w
as

a
slow

recovery.
A

t

the
tim

e,
I

coped
by

focusing
on

being
thankful

to
be

alive
and

ta
k

ing
care

o
f

m
y

fam
ilyc

A
couple

o
f

m
o
n
th

s
later

I
w

as
feeling

b
etter

physically.
M

y
fam

ily

and
frien

d
s

th
o

u
g

h
t

I
had

m
oved

on,
b
u
t

I
k
n

o
w

today
th

at
I

h
ad

not
yet

processed
m

y
em

o
tio

n
s.T

h
en

, w
hile

at
a

w
ake

for
a

14-year-

old
child,

I
began

to
feel

guilty.
I

felt
guilty

th
at

I
got

to
live

and

this
child

had
died.

It
w

as
like

the
floodgate

opened,
and

every

feeling
I

h
ad

b
een

pushing
dow

n
ju

st
cam

e
out.

I
began

crying
and

felt
as

th
o
u
g
h

I
w

as
never

going
to

stop.
I

rem
em

ber
crying

over

fo
ld

in
g

tow
els.

I
lu

st
felt

iso
lated

and
alone

fir
m

o
n
th

s.

I
needed

a
cortisone

shot
in

m
y

right
ankle

due
to

severe
pain

because
I

had
not

had
the

ankle
replaced.

I
m

ade
an

ap
p
o

in
tm

en
t

to
see

m
y

o
rth

o
p
ed

ic
surgeon.

I
w

ent
in

and
told

him
th

at
I

th
o

u
g

h
t

16

w
e

should
talk

about
w

hat
had

happened.
F

lis
entourage

left
the

room
and

he
told

m
e

w
hat

the
(lay

w
as

like
fbr

him
.

lie
said,

“T
hat

day
is

burned
in

m
y

m
em

ory
like

the
b
irth

o
f

m
y

children,
although

those
w

ere
joyful

occasions
and

this
w

as
not.

L
inda,

you
are

a
m

iracle.”
B

y
th

at
tim

e
everybody

w
as

telling
m

e
I

w
as

a
m

iracle
and

I
(lid

not
believe

it.
H

e
said,

“N
o,

L
inda,

you
are

a
m

iracle
from

G
od,”

and
he

began
to

cry

M
y

first
reaction

w
as,“W

h
at?

W
h
at

are
you

doing?”
B

u
t

th
en

c
o
m

passion
cam

e
over

m
e

and
I

looked
at

him
in

a
different

light.
I

felt
bad

for
him

.
It

w
as

the
first

tim
e

th
at

anybody
had

show
ed

m
e

th
at

they
cared

and
th

at
this

had
had

an
effect

on
them

,
too.

A
s

the
patient,

I
needed

this.
It

really
m

ade
m

e
feel

b
etter

to
see

this
reac

tion,
h
u
t

alm
ost

at
once

lie
stopped

the
story

and
w

ould
not

finish.
H

e
got

up,
w

alked
to

the
door,

and
left.

A
few

days
after

this
m

eetin
g

1
called

the
hospital

to
ask

if
there

w
ere

o
th

er
patients

I
could

talk
to

w
ho

had
gone

th
ro

u
g
h

this
sam

e
thing.

I
knew

I
could

not
be

the
only

one
and

I
needed

others
to

talk
to.‘They

never
called

m
e

back.
M

o
n

th
s

later
I

called
m

y
o

rth
o

pedic
surgeon

again
and

asked
w

h
eth

er
he

th
o

u
g
h
t

it
w

ould
he

reasonable
for

m
e

to
invite

D
r.

van
P

elt
for

coffee.
T

hat
w

as
w

hen
I

found
out

th
at

D
r.

van
P

elt
w

as
no

longer
in

I3oston.
I

felt
as

th
o
u
g
h

the
floor

had
dropped

out
from

u
n
d
er

m
e.

I
th

o
u

g
h

t
1

had
m

issed
the

o
p
p
o
rtu

n
ity

to
ever

hear
the

anesthesiologist’s
perspective

and
get

closure
on

our
shared

event.

I.uckily
for

m
e,the

orthopedic
surgeon

w
as

very’proactive.H
e

reached
out

to
the

head
o
f

anesthesia
departm

ent,w
ho

contacted
D

r.van
P

elt.
T

his
ultim

ately
led

to
m

y
phone

conversation
w

ith
D

r.van
P

elt,w
hich

w
as

w
onderful

for
m

e
because

I
got

to
hear

how
affected

he
w

as.
I

felt
as

though
I

finally
had

gotten
to

hear
the

tru
th

from
som

ebody.

I
w

as
the

first
person

w
ho

had
asked

him
liw

lie
w

as
doing.

T
his

struck
m

eas
so

odd.
E

ventually
I

m
et

o
th

er
people

w
ho

had
been

on
the

code
team

and
all

they
could

do
w

as
cry.

I
rem

em
ber

m
eeting

a
nursing

supervisor
w

ho
had

been
tak

in
g

care
o
f

the
p
atien

t
next

to
m

e
and

I
told

her
I

often
w

ondered
how

the
o

th
er

patients
going

into
surgery

dealt
w

ith
seeing

this
scene

unfold
rig

h
t

in
front

o
f

th
eir

eyes.
S

he
said

th
at

for
the

peopl.e
w

ho
stayed

overnight,
she

w
ent

up
to

see
them

in
th

eir
room

s.
S

he
to

o
k

it
upon

h
erself

to
do

this
all

on
her

ow
n.

I
called

the
hospital

and
told

th
em

th
at

I
could

not
read

the
w

ritin
g

in
the

chart,
b
u
t

th
at

I
w

ould
like

to
know

w
ho

everybody
w

as
on

m
y

code
team

because
I

w
anted

to
w

rite
th

em
a

letter.
It

w
as

com
ing

up
on

m
y

1-year
anniversary

and
I

really
w

anted
to

th
an

k
them

for
doing

th
eir

job.
I

knew
th

at
for

th
em

it
w

as
ju

st
their

job,
h
u
t

I

w
an

ted
to

articulate
how

this
had

affected
m

y
fam

ily
and

m
e

and

w
h
at

it
m

ean
t

to
us.

I
never

got
a

phone
call

back.
I

have
been

told

th
at

they
w

ere
ju

st
w

aiting
for

the
law

suit.
tlhe

culture
at

the
tim

e
w

as
not

to
speak

to
anybody

involved
in

a
serious

adverse
event,

but

I
did

not
know

this.

M
o

v
in

g
F

o
rw

ard
A

fter
a

year
I

w
rote

a
letter

to
the

ad
m

in
istratio

n
.I

said
th

at
patients

left
th

eir
facilities

all
the

tim
e

after
so

m
eth

in
g

had
gone

w
rong

and

asked
w

hy
w

e
w

ere
n
o
t

su
p
p
o
rtin

g
them

.
I

offered
to

help
them

m
ake

the
change.

I
received

a
letter

back
a

couple
o
f

m
o
n
th

s
later.

It
w

as
very

cold
and

w
ritten

in
legal

term
s.

It
m

ade
m

e
so

angry,
I

w
an

ted
to

lash
out

and
h
u

rt
them

back.
I

rem
em

ber
th

in
k
in

g
, “N

ow

I
know

w
hy

patients
sue!”

T
hen,

finally,
nearly

2
years

after
the

event,
D

r.
van

P
elt

and
I

m
et.

I
w

as
finally

able
to

p
u
t

a
face

to
the

m
an

w
ho

w
as

p
art

o
f

an
event

th
at

had
such

an
im

pact
on

m
y

life.
W

e
had

shared
this

extrem
ely

em
o
tio

n
al

event
and

I
didn’t

even
know

w
h
at

he
looked

like.
B

y
this

tim
e

I
had

m
et

a
n
u
m

b
er

o
f

clinicians
and

I
believed

the
system

had
failed

us
both.

I
w

an
ted

to
change

that.
I

rem
em

ber
telling

him
I

w
an

ted
to

start
an

organization,
although

at
the

tim
e

I
had

no
idea

16

w
hat

it
w

oul.d
look

like.
M

IT
S

S

M
ed

ically
In

d
u
ced

T
rau

m
a

S
u
p

p
o
rt

S
ervices—

bad
a

b
rain

sto
rm

in
g

brunch
in

A
pril

o
f

2002,
and

D
r.

van
P

elt
w

as
one

o
f

the
m

any
invited

guests.‘This
w

as
w

here
w

e
developed

the
m

ission
o
f

M
IT

S
S

and
ideas

for
how

w
e

w
ould

carry
it

out.
D

r.
van

P
elt

w
as

one
o
f

the
first

board
m

em
bers

o
f

M
IT

S
S

.

I
w

as
so

naïve;
I

really
th

o
u

g
h

t
th

at
if

I
started

this
organization

all
the

hospitals
w

ould
send

us
the

people
w

ho
needed

our
support.

I
w

as
so

w
rong.’T

hree
years

to
the

day
after

m
y

adverse
event,

I
sc

h
e
d

uled
an

ap
p

o
in

tm
en

t
w

ith
the

risk
m

anager
o
f

the
hospital.

I
had

M
JT

S
S

brochures
and

I
w

as
going

there
to

see
if

she
w

ould
give

them
to

all
her

patients
and

fam
ily

m
em

bers.
I

left
early,

all
ready

for
the

m
eeting,

and
after

I
left

she
called

the
house

canceling
the

ap
p
o
in

tm
en

t.
So

can
you

im
agine

the
look

on
her

face
w

hen
I

show
ed

up?
B

ut
w

e
have

becom
e

good
friends,

and
she

tells
m

e
now

th
at

they
did

not
know

w
h
at

to
do.

T
hey

did
not

know
w

h
at

I
w

anted.
T

he
assum

ed
I

w
anted

som
ething,

but
all

I
w

anted
w

as
to

he
p
art

o
f

a
solution.

‘They
could

not
co

m
p
reh

en
d

that.
It

has
taken

years
for

m
e

to
build

credibility
w

ith
this

hospital.
W

h
at

struck
m

e
w

as
th

at
if

w
e

are
not

acknow
ledging

th
at

these
events

happen,
not

doing
disclosure

or
apology,

then
how

can
w

e
get

to
the

su
p
p
o
rt

piece?
It

has
been

a
journey.

I
am

now
startin

g
to

see
som

e
progress,

h
u
t

it
has

been
slow

.

T
he

in
stitu

tio
n

finally
m

ade
changes

and
prom

ised
to

p
u
t

our
b
ro

chures
th

ro
u

g
h

o
u

t
the

hospital.
B

ut
w

hen
I

w
ould

go
in,

I
w

ould
find

our
brochures

on
the

shelves
in

the
closets.

‘T
hen

D
r.

van
P

elt
and

I
had

our
pictures

on
the

front
page

o
f

the
W

all
S

treetJo
u

rn
al

and
suddenly

it
w

as
a

different
gam

e.
A

fter
this

publication,
I

had
the

o
p
p
o
rtu

n
ity

to
m

eet
w

ith
the

hospital,
and

w
e

w
ere

given
office

space
at

the
hospital.

O
n
ce

I
began

to
learn

w
h
at

the
challenges

w
ere

for
the

m
edical

co
m

m
u
n
ity

w
e

could
look

for
solutions

together,
because

som
etim

es
they

just
didn’t

see
them

.
T

hey
needed

the
patient’s

perspective.
It

has
been

a
rew

arding
partnership.

I
w

ish
people

w
ould

take
the

o
p
p
o
rtu

n
ity

to
em

brace
th

eir
patients

w
hen

things
go

w
rong

because
am

azing
things

can
happen.

C
onclusion

S
even

years
after

the
incident

described
in

this
chapter.

L
inda

K
en—

had
her

long—
postponed

ankle
replacem

ent
surgery.W

h
ile

every

effbrr
w

as
m

ade
to

allay
her

and
her

fam
ily’s

fears
before

surgery,

p
o
sto

p
cratn

clv
she

dcvclopcd
i.surgical

site
infection

th
at

rcquircd

rehospitalization
and

intravenous
vancom

ycin
antibiotics.

A
fter

m
ore

‘ears
o
f

acute
isstes

Sand
breakdow

n
in

the
replaced

ankle,

L
inda

finall’
had

the
ankle

replacem
ent

rem
oved

and
a

total
ankle

fusion
in

2014.
H

er
nonprofit

organization,
M

IT
S

S
,

has
continued

to
grow

d
u
rin

g
this

tim
c

It
is

now
cn

tird
v

consum
cr-lcd

and
is

i

leading
source

o
f

inffirm
ation

on
su

p
p
o
rtin

g
patients

and
healthcare

professionals
follow

ing
m

edical
harm

.

C
’ase

D
iscussion

L
inda

K
enne

relates
the

silence
o
f

the
hospital

follow
ing

her
near—

death
experience

from
m

edical
error

and
the

reluctance
o
f

the
hospital

to
help

her
anesthesiologist

reach
out

to
her

follow
ing

her
injunc

T
ier

story
illustrates

the
w

ays
in

w
hich

the
difficulties

o
f

com
m

unication

m
agnify

the
psychological

harm
o
f

an
already

traum
ati.c

event.
T

he

silence
th

at
L

inda
encountered

w
as

the
traditional

response
to

harm

o
f

m
any

healthcare
in

stin
itio

n
s,w

h
ich

included
severing

co
m

m
u
n
ica

tion
w

ith
injured

patients
and

taking
actions

aim
ed

at
reducing

legal

liability
rathcr

than
prom

oting
hc

ding
T

his
response

c
in

leavc
both

patients
and

healthcare
professionals

w
ith

a
sense

o
f

abandonm
ent,

loss,
and

uncertainty
(M

IT
S

S
&

C
art,

2009).
S

urveys
have

show
n

th
at

the
m

ain
things

m
ost

patients
and

fam
ilies

w
ant

after
m

edical

harm
are

an
apologc

an
explanation

o
f w

hat
happened,

and
assurance

th
it

steps
irc

being
takcn

to
bring

m
caning

from
their

cxpcriencc
h

prcvcntm
g

its
rccurrencc

A
nccdotal

accounts
also

indicate
th

at
m

any

healthcare
providers

rem
ain

troubled
by

adverse
events

th
ro

u
g
h
o
u
t

their
careers

(C
onw

ay,
P

ederico,
S

tew
art,

&
C

am
pbell.

2011).

‘The
m

ovem
ent

tow
ard

m
ore

openness
in

dealing
w

ith
adverse

events

in
the

U
n
ited

S
tates

began
in

the
1990s

w
ith

D
r.

S
teven

K
ram

an

70
1

at
the

l.ex
in

g
to

n
,

K
entucky,

V
eterans

A
ffairs

hospital
(K

ram
an

&
H

am
m

,
1999).

It
spread

to
the

U
niversity

o
f

M
ich

ig
an

in
2001,

w
here

attorney
R

ichard
B

o
o
th

m
an

w
as

a
leader

in
developing

a
system

atic
program

o
f

disclosure,
com

pensation,
and

p
atien

t
safety

im
provem

ent.
B

o
o
th

m
an

also
reported

substantially
reduced

legal
and

insurance
costs

(B
o
o
th

m
an

,
lm

hofT
&

C
am

pbell,
2012).

T
his

m
odel

has
been

described
as

em
phasizfingJ

both
honest

com
m

unication
w

ith
patients

an
d

fhm
ilies

an
d

a
35/stem

s
approach

to
errors.

It
prom

otes
a

p
rin

czled
in

stitu
tio

n
al

response
to

unanticipated
clinical

outcom
es

in
w

hich
health

care
organizations

(1)
proac—

tively
identjfj’

at/verse
evenis,

(2)
distinguish

betw
een

i?ju
ries

cau
sed

by
m

ed
i

cal
negligence

anti
those

arising
fro

m
com

plications
of

disease
or

intrinsically
hiçrh—

risk
m

edicalcare,
(3)

of/erpatients
fill

disclosure
an

d
honest

explanations,
(4)

encourage
legal

representation
Jb

r
patw

nts
antifizm

ilies,
an

d
(S

,
o/ftr

an
apology

w
ith

rapid
a
n

d
fiir

com
pensation

w
hen

standards
ofcare

w
ere

not
m

et.
(B

ellet
at,

2012)

A
sim

ilar
philosophy

em
erged

in
M

assachusetts
in

2006
w

h
en

the
H

arvard
hospitals

published
a

set
o
f

guiding
principles

based
on

the
view

point
o
f

the
harm

ed
p
atien

t
and

stressing
su

p
p
o
rt

o
f

the
p
atien

t
(M

assachusetts
C

o
alitio

n
for

the
P

revention
o
f

M
edical

E
rrors,

2006).
in

2012,
a

program
based

on.
these

principles
w

as
piloted

in
six

M
assachusetts

hospitals
u
n
d
er

the
aegis

o
f

a
consortium

know
n

as
M

A
C

R
M

I,
o
f

w
hich

L
inda

K
enney’s

organization
M

IT
S

S
is

a
m

em
ber.T

h
o

u
g

h
still

far
from

universal,
these

principles
have

spread
to

m
any

hospitals
in

the
U

n
ited

S
tates.

O
n
e

im
petus

for
th

eir
spread

has
been

the
ineffectiveness

o
f

the
legal

system
,

w
hich

com
pensates

only
around

1%
o
f

m
edical

error
victim

s.
P

ro
p
o
n
en

ts
o
f

the
full-

disclosure
m

odel
cite

the
perceived

in
h
u
m

an
ity

o
f

the
court

system
tow

ard
b
o
th

p
atien

t
and

provider
and

the
im

p
ed

im
en

t
the

tra
d

i
tional

system
poses

to
education

and
quality

im
p
ro

v
em

en
t

because
o
f

lack
o
f

learning
from

m
istakes.

In
m

ost
in

stitu
tio

n
s

th
at

have
adopted

the
full—

disclosure
m

odel,
adverse

events
are

assessed
using

the
“just

culture”
approach,

w
hich

looks
for

the
system

ic
cause

o
f

the
event

rath
er

th
an

penalizing
individuals

for
m

istakes
(B

ell
et

al.,
2012;

C
onw

ay
et

al.,
2011).

Q
uestions

1.
H

o
w

m
uch

o
f

a
problem

do
you

believe
the

policy
o
f

not
disclosing

errors
to

patients
m

ig
h
t

be?
C

an
you

envision
circum

stances
in

w
hich

this
w

ould
create

ongoing
problem

s
for

patients
and

th
eir

fam
ilies?

2.
W

h
at

adverse
effects

have
you

seen
on

clinicians
w

ho
w

ere
involved

in
a

m
edical

error?
W

h
at

do
you

th
in

k
could

he
done

to
alleviate

these
adverse

effects?

3.
R

esearch
som

e
o
f

the
full-disclosure

program
s

th
at

have
been

developed
and

discuss
th

eir
m

ajor
com

ponents.
W

h
at

barriers
do

you
see

to
provider

disclosure
follow

ing
error?

F
low

do
full—

disclosure
program

s
overcom

e
the

barriers
to

transparency
th

at
exist

on
b
o

th
sides?

4.
M

u
ch

o
f

this
story

is
a

lack
o
f

com
passion

in
health

care.
D

o
you

th
in

k
there

are
forces

th
at

discourage
com

passion
in

day-
to

-d
ay

dealings
w

ith
patients?

If
so,

how
do

you
th

in
k

they
could

be
overcom

e?

5.
W

h
ich

o
f

the
core

com
petencies

for
h
ealth

professions
do

you
th

in
k

are
m

ost
relevant

for
this

case?
W

hy?

R
eferences

B
ell,

S.
K

.,
Sm

ulow
itz,

P
B

.,W
oodw

ard,
A

.
C

.,
M

ello,
M

.
M

.,
D

uva,
A

.
M

.,
B

oothm
an,

R
.

C
,

&
Sands,

K
.

(2012).
D

isclosure,
apology,

and
offer

program
s:

S
takeholders’

view
s

o
f

harriers
to

and
strategies

for
broad

im
plem

entation.
M

ilbank
Q

uarterly,
90(4),

682—
705.

B
oothm

an,
R

.
C

.,
Im

hoff,
S.J.,

&
C

am
pbell,

D
.

A
.Jr.

(2012).
N

urturing
a

culture
o

fpatient
safety

and
achieving

low
er

m
alpractice

risk
through

disclosure:
L

essons
learned

and
future

directions.
F

ro
n
tiers

o
f flealth

S
erv

ices
M

an
ag

em
en

t,
28(3),

13—
28.

C
onw

ay,J.,
Federico,

F.,
Stew

art,
K

.,
&

C
am

pbell,
M

.
(2011).

R
espectful

m
anagem

ent
o

f
serious

clinical
adverse

events
(2nd

ed.).
IH

I
In

n
o
v
a

tion
S

eries
w

hite
paper.

C
am

bridge,
M

A
:

Institute
fbr

H
ealthcare

Im
provem

ent.
K

ram
an,

S.
S.,&

H
am

m
,
0

.
(1999).

R
isk

m
anagem

ent:
E

xtrem
e

honesty
m

ay
he

the
best

policy.
A

n
n
a
ls

o
f

In
te

rn
a
l

M
ed

icin
e,

131(12),
963—

967.

17

MH: FD003

Overview

The purpose of corrections is a hotly debated issue: Is the role of corrections to punish offenders or rehabilitate people? When offenders reenter society, should they be provided assistance to integrate, or should they be left to their own devices? There is no easy answer to these questions, and every criminal justice system, jurisdiction, and community needs to analyze and develop a policy of their own.


Submission Length:

10-slide PowerPoint presentation


Note:

use footnotes to provide further details in your presentation.


Corrections Reform Policy

After reviewing the theories in the Learning Activities, use the


National Institute of Justice


website to research and identify one reentry program (it can be shown to be effective or ineffective). Then, identify one program from another country, from a credible resource.

Using the Walden Writing Center PowerPoint Presentation Template, create a

10-slide

PowerPoint presentation (not including title and reference slides) which you:

  • Describe two reentry programs. Include at least two social or cultural perspectives on each.
  • For each reentry program:

    • Explain whether each one is effective
    • Describe how it is effective or ineffective
  • Include references to research and statistics that exist to support or oppose the furtherance of the program.
  • Include at least one graph for each program to illustrate your position.
  • Finally, explain which program is more effective at helping offenders reenter society.
  • Present one way you would suggest reforming the program to improve it.

3. Plan for and schedule the time and date to do your VIRTUAL chosen experience. 4. After Virtually Viewing the museum- compose a research essay pertaining to this aesthetic experience based on the de

3. Plan for and schedule the time and date to do your VIRTUAL chosen experience.

4. After Virtually Viewing the museum, compose a research essay pertaining to this aesthetic experience based on the detailed instructions in the Aesthetic Experience worksheet. Incorporate terms from the list at the end of your worksheet.

5. Conduct the appropriate research to support your responses to the worksheet prompts. Be sure to cite all sources carefully.  For this assignment, you are required to use and cite a minimum of five quality sources (including the precise link to your work of art).  Those five sources should include:

(1) the textbook;

(2) the website of the museum that houses your piece;

(3) the precise link to the work of art itself;

(4 and 5) TWO quality research sources pertaining to your piece, its artist, style, and/or historical/cultural contexts. To find these sources, please try using Google Scholar and/or our college library.

Be sure to cite all your sources in proper MLA or APA format, including the event or work of art itself. Your complete “Works Cited” should be placed at the end of your third essay prompt; in other words at the bottom of the page on which you write your responses to the third essay prompt (before the Glossary section).”

6. Finally, submit your completed Aesthetic Experience Research Essay Worksheet to this dropbox folder.  (Note: Be sure that the completed worksheet REMAINS in a WORD FORMAT and that your responses reflect in-depth critical evaluation and analysis based on research with careful editing/proofreading and research citations before submitting.)

SPSS

Your posts in the Discussion may include questions or insights about the required reading, the demonstration video, the assigned Study Questions, the solutions for the assigned Study Questions, or any combination thereof. If you do not have questions about the Assignment and believe that you have mastered the material for this module, use the Discussion to answer your colleagues’ questions, offering insight, advice, strategies, and assistance.

This Discussion will be available from Day 1 of Week 6 through Day 7 of Week 7 of this module. You are required to submit your initial post by Day 5 of Week 6. You are encouraged to post early. Once you have submitted your initial post, start engaging in a discussion with your colleagues. Begin engaging with your colleagues by no later than Day 7 of Week 6 and continue to interact frequently with your colleagues through Day 7 of Week 7. Part of what makes a Discussion a discussion and not a lecture is the back-and-forth, in-depth, animated interaction of at least two people. If you start a topic and none of your colleagues are responding, consider what you can do to get the conversation going. Include something that would elicit further thoughts and different opinions from colleagues. See your Discussion rubric forspecific grading requirements.

Select the best response: An asymmetrical distribution with a long right tail (toward the higher numbers) is said to have         skew. 

(a)  a positive (b)  a negative (c) no 

Select the best response: This refers to the “peak” of a distribution.

(a) mean(b) median(c) mode

What refers to a distribution with two peaks?

(a) nonmodal(b) unimodal(c) bimodal

True or false? Histograms are used to display frequencies for categorical data.

Outpatient wait time. Waiting times (minutes) for 25 patients at a public health clinic are.  3522636491916312429,23327213514577163355104228721

Your posts in the Discussion may include questions or insights about the required reading, the demonstration video, the assigned Study Questions, the solutions for the assigned Study Questions, or any combination thereof. If you do not have questions about the Assignment and believe that you have mastered the material for this module, use the Discussion to answer your colleagues’ questions, offering insight, advice, strategies, and assistance.

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography Assignment ( see attachment for simple of how is to be dome)

• Find and read 2 RESEARCH STUDY articles from a scholarly journal on Holistic Nursing. 

 One article must be a qualitative study and one must be a quantitative study. 

• Write an annotated bibliography on the 2 selected journal articles (must be published within the past 5 years). 

 Must include a summary, assessment, and reflection.  

 The summary of the article must include the type of research study, the purpose of the study, background & significance, sample population and size, methods, results, and discussion. 

• Must be written using APA Style format with a cover page and reference page   

• See Annotated Bibliography rubric below  

Plagiarism receipt requires ( less than 10%) 

Grading criteria  

Journal Article 1 

Summary 

Journal Article 1 

Assessment 

Journal Article 1 

Reflection 

Journal Article 2 

Summary 

Journal Article 2 

Assessment 

Journal Article 2 

Reflection 

APA 

Title Page 

APA 

General Formatting 

APA 

Reference Page 

Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Articles 

Social Work Policy Class

 This assignment provides the student with an opportunity to present two opposing viewpoints of a social  problem or social policy. The student may utilize the database – Opposing Viewpoints, to analyze the  pros and cons of a social policy, social problem issue, which has been articulated in the Grand  Challenges Initiative. Once the student has chosen a social policy and social problem, they must  research two social work and/or social science scholarly sources that supports a ‘pro’ position, and two  social work and/or social science scholarly sources that supports a ‘con’ position. Based upon the  presented discussion, the student must show why they have chosen a position and at least documented  reasons for best practices. This paper should be at least 5 pages. Please proofread more than once. The  analysis must be double space and typed; include a cover page. Use block-quotes when necessary. You must use 7 APA both within-text citations and reference cited page. The reader should be able to discern  your editorial comments and researched info.  Also needs a title page, abstract and headings.