Category: Nursing

In 2-3 paragraphs respond in AMA style:
Chapter 11 Question #1 on page 150
You are considering accepting a partnership in a primary care practice. You have been provided with a set of financial reports that include the balance sheet, the income and expense statement, and the cash flow analysis. Identify 3 financial ratios you will examine to help decide if you are going to join the practice. Provide a rationale for the ratios you have selected.

Discuss two methods of how strategic planning can help nurse 
managers avoid going from crisis to crisis. What are long-range plans also 
called? Why do organizations have long-range budgets? What is the focus of a 
long-range budget? Give three examples of what type of activities program budgeting is
used. Discuss two ways zero-base budgeting (ZBB) is useful. What are pro forma financial statements? Describe two of their roles in a business plan.
**All references must be evidence-based, peer-reviewed journals, articles, or books 
published within the last 5 years. 

Please check the “The Trolley problem Instruction” with picture  uploaded.
Rewrite uploaded docs “The Trolley Problem: A moral Dilemma”
Provide AI and plagiarism report.
Use provided resource uploaded Philosophical Ethics and or Chapter 9 “Kant and the ethics duty  (This is a requirement by professor) reference is provided below.
In laymans term.
Ensure to meet grading criteria below.
Reference:
Matthews, G.W. (2020). Philosophical Ethics. A guidebook for beginners. Retrieved from https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/927
Instruction: 
Edward is taking his daily walk near the train tracks when he notices that the train that is approaching is out of control. Edward sees what has happened: the train driver saw five workmen ahead on the tracks and slammed on the brakes, but the brakes failed, and the driver fainted. The train is now rushing toward the five men; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. Fortunately, Edward is standing next to a switch, which he can throw, that will turn the train onto a sidetrack. Unfortunately, there is one person standing on the sidetrack with his back turned. Edward can throw the switch, killing the one, or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five die. Remember, Edward did not build the train, nor is he responsible for its current predicament. However, if he pulls the switch, he is both intervening and making a judgment regarding human value. Take this into account when writing your essay.  There is a reason this is considered a “moral dilemma.”
Incorporating what you have learned from ethics, answer the following questions. 
1. “Do you think Edward should throw the switch? Why?”
2. Would a Utilitarian agree? Why?
3. Would a Kantian agree? Why?
4. What do you believe is the best option “What is The Good?” Why?
GRADING CRITERIA 
Introduction
Explain the Trolley problem and introduce the two moral approaches Utilitarianism and Kantianism.
Explained the situation of the trolley problem.
Titled the paper correctly
Introduced the two moral approaches Utilitarianism and Kantianism.
Understand and apply APA citation and referencing.
Midterm: The Trolley Problem
Proved reference page
Citations are APA formatted 
Minimum of two references
Decision Making and Judgement: Graduates will be able to reframe their thinking and discriminate effective from ineffective practices in a given scenario. Midterm: The Trolley Problem
Defended your choice on which moral principle best supports the trolley problem. 
Provided a possible counterargument to your contention. 
Recapped the body and provided how your solution reflects the “good life.”
Intentional Learning and Reflection: Graduates will be able to evaluate their thinking and determine best practices within a quality improvement framework. Midterm: The Trolley Problem
Choose one of the two moral approaches Utilitarianism or Kantianism.
Applied the choice to the Trolley Problem. 
Made an argument on how the decision reflects “The Good.”

Work on 3 Middle Range Theories for the Literature Review Paper.
It must be in APA format. Four references within 5 years.
The introduction must include a statement of the problem and a PICOT question that briefly explains the topic’s significance and acts as a way to introduce the reader to the definitions and background.
The body of the literature review summarizes the findings of studies conducted on the topic and explains the purpose, procedure for data collection, and major findings of the 3 studies.
The discussion must summarize the body of the literature review and highlight the most important findings.
Conclusions are drawn based on your analysis. Must discuss implications of the findings and areas for further research. 
The reference page must contain a bibliographic list of the sources of information you used and cited in your paper. 

Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) 
Scenario: 
A 22-year-old patient presents to the clinic with secondary amenorrhea for 4 months. She has reported that she gained about 40 pounds in the past 10 months and her period started to become more and more irregular. Onset of menarche was age 13 and has had menstrual cycle from 30-45 days, but lately she’s been having menses every 35-65 days with the latest being 4 months apart. She is unsure of what’s going on. During your physical exam you noted some facial hair and acne. You suspect the patient might have PCOS. 
Based on your working diagnosis, patient’s HPI, and your physical assessment, create a 2-4 page write-up discussing the following information: 
• Definition of PCOS. What is this condition? Why is this important to address? 
• Prevalence and risk factors 
• PCOS can be a risk for developing what types of health complications? 
• Presentation 
• Pathophysiology 
• Physical assessment and testing to confirm diagnosis 
• Provide at least 1 differential diagnosis and an exam and/or lab test to rule out this diagnosis. 
• Treatment or management of PCOS for a patient who is currently not planning a pregnancy 
• Treatment or management of PCOS for a patient who is currently planning a pregnancy 
Your write-up must include at least 2 scholarly sources that are not from your textbook nor any standard government or medical websites. Scholarly sources must be peer- reviewed articles. You do not have to write this paper in a SOAP format. Please reference and use in-text citations properly and according to APA Style. Please include a title page and a reference page for the write-up. 

Case studies are a useful way for you to apply your knowledge of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of pharmacology to specific patient cases and health histories. For the Week 4 Assignment, I have posted the case study scenarios for the week below:
For the Week 4 Assignment, you are to evaluate drug treatment plans for patients with various disorders and justify drug therapy plans based on patient history and diagnosis. Please refer to the grading rubric to ensure that you receive maximum points for the Assignment, and keep the following in mind: Review the information provided and answer questions posed in the case study. When recommending a medication for each scenario, write out a complete prescription for the medication, including all 5 aspects required for a valid order. The order must be complete, accurate, and appropriate. Whenever possible, use clinical practice guidelines in developing your answers. Include at least three references to support your answer for each scenario and cite them in APA format. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are fundamental to clinical practice, as they assist providers with clinical decision making.  I have attached some applicable guidelines below as additional Optional Resources for your Week 4 Assignment. Have a great week! 
2017 ACC-AHA Guideline Mgmt HTN in Adults-1.pdfDownload 2017 ACC-AHA Guideline Mgmt HTN in Adults-1.pdf
2018 AHA-ACC Guideline on Mgmt Blood Cholesterol-1.pdfDownload 2018 AHA-ACC Guideline on Mgmt Blood Cholesterol-1.pdf
2019 ACC-AHA Guideline on Primary Prevention of CVD-1.pdfDownload 2019 ACC-AHA Guideline on Primary Prevention of CVD-1.pdf
2021 ACC Consensus Mgmt ASCVD Risk Reduction in Pts with Hypertriglyceridemia-1.pdfDownload 2021 ACC Consensus Mgmt ASCVD Risk Reduction in Pts with Hypertriglyceridemia-1.pdf
GINA-2024-Strategy-Report-24_05_22_WMS.pdfDownload GINA-2024-Strategy-Report-24_05_22_WMS.pdf
GOLD-2024_v1.2-11Jan24_WMV.pdfDownload GOLD-2024_v1.2-11Jan24_WMV.pdf
Treatment of HTN – A Review_JAMA_2022-1.pdf

1 nursing diagnosis, with 1 long and short term goal and intervention/rationale needed for the goals. I have attached the template needed for the assignment.

B.  Discuss the impact of a clinical practice problem on the patient or patients and the organization it affects.
1.  Identify each of the following PICO components of the clinical practice problem:
•   P: patient, population, or problem
•   I: intervention
•   C: comparison
•   O: outcome
2.  Develop an evidence-based practice (EBP) question based on the clinical practice problem discussed in part B and the PICO components identified in part B1.
Note: Refer to the “Appendix B: Question Development Tool” web link for information on the creation of an EBP question.
C.  Select a research-based article that answers your EBP question from part B2 to conduct an evidence appraisal.
Note: The article you select should not be more than five years old.
1.  Discuss the background or introduction (i.e., the purpose) of the research-based article.
2.  Describe the research methodology used in the research-based article.
3.  Identify the level of evidence for the research-based article using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice (JHNEBP) model.
Note: Refer to the “Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” web link for information on how to level a research-based article.
4.  Summarize how the researcher analyzed the data in the research-based article.
5.  Summarize the ethical considerations of the research-based article. If none are present, explain why.
6.  Identify the quality rating of the research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
Note: Refer to the “Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” web link for information on how to establish the quality rating.
7.  Analyze the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
a.  Explain how the article helps answer your EBP question.
D.  Select a non-research-based article from a peer-reviewed journal that helps to answer your EBP question from part B2 to conduct an evidence appraisal.
Note: The article you select should not be more than five years old.
1.  Discuss the background or introduction (i.e., the purpose) of the non-research-based article.
2.  Describe the type of evidence (e.g., case study, quality improvement project, clinical practice guideline) used in the non-research-based article.
3.  Identify the level of evidence in the non-research-based article using the JHNEBP model.
Note: Refer to the “Appendix F: Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” web link for information on how to level the non-research-based article.
4.  Identify the quality rating of the non-research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
5.  Discuss how the author’s recommendations in the non-research-based article help answer your EBP question.
E.  Recommend a practice change that addresses your EBP question using both the research-based and non-research-based articles you selected for part C and part D.
1.  Explain how you would involve three key stakeholders in supporting the practice change recommendation.
2.  Discuss one specific barrier you may encounter when implementing the practice change recommendation. 
3.  Identify one strategy that could be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part E2.
4.  Identify one outcome (the O component in PICO) from your EBP question that can be used to measure the recommended practice change.
F.   Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
G.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
File Restrictions
File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, csv, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z
RUBRIC
A:CITI CERTIFICATION
NOT EVIDENT
A copy of the learner’s CITI certification is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Not applicable.
COMPETENT
A copy of the learner’s CITI certification is provided.
B:CLINICAL PRACTICE PROBLEM
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a clinical practice problem or does not include a discussion of the impact of a clinical practice problem on the patient or patients and the organization it affects.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a discussion of the clinical practice problem but does not logically address its impact on the patient or patients and the organization it affects.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a discussion of the clinical practice problem that logically addresses its impact on the patient or patients and the organization it affects.
B1:PICO COMPONENTS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include each of the given PICO components of the clinical practice problem.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes each of the PICO components of the clinical practice problem, but 1 or more of the given components are inaccurate or incomplete.
COMPETENT
The submission includes each of the given PICO components of the clinical practice problem. Each of the given components is accurate and complete.
B2:EVIDENCE-BASED QUESTION
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include an EBP question.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes an EBP question, but the EBP question does not appropriately address the clinical practice problem or does not include all the PICO components.
COMPETENT
The submission includes an EBP question that appropriately addresses the clinical practice problem and includes all the PICO components.
C:SELECTION OF A RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
An article selection is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The selected article is not research based or does not answer the EBP question from part B2.
COMPETENT
The selected article is research based and answers the EBP question from part B2.
C1:BACKGROUND OR INTRODUCTION OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a discussion of the background or introduction of the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission does not accurately discuss the background or introduction of the research-based article.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately discusses the background or introduction of the research-based article.
C2:RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a description of the research methodology used in the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a description that inaccurately describes the research methodology used in the research-based article.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a description that accurately describes the research methodology used in the research-based article.
C3:LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IN THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify the level of evidence for the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies the level of evidence for the research-based article that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately identifies the level of evidence for the research-based article that is based on the JHNEBP model.
C4:ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a summary of the data analysis in the article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a summary of the data analysis, but the summary does not accurately describe how the researcher analyzed the data in the article.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a summary that accurately describes how the researcher analyzed the data in the article.
C5:ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a summary of ethical considerations. Or the submission does not include an explanation of why no ethical considerations are present in the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a summary of ethical considerations, but the summary does not logically describe the ethical considerations of the research-based article. Or, if no ethical considerations are present in the research-based article, the submission does not logically explain why none are present.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a summary that logically describes the ethical considerations of the research-based article. Or, if no ethical considerations are present, the submission includes a logical explanation of why none are present.
C6:QUALITY RATING OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a quality rating of the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a quality rating of the research-based article that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately identifies a quality rating of the research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
C7:RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include an analysis of the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes an analysis of the results or conclusions, but the analysis does not logically evaluate the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
COMPETENT
The submission includes an analysis that logically evaluates the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
C7A:HOW THE ARTICLE ANSWERS THE EBP QUESTION
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include an explanation of how the article helps answer the EBP question.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission does not appropriately explain how the article helps answer the EBP question.
COMPETENT
The submission appropriately explains how the article helps answer the EBP question.
D:SELECTION OF A NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
An article selection is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The selected article is not a non-research-based article or does not answer the EBP question from part B2.
COMPETENT
The selected article is a non-research-based article and answers the EBP question from part B2.
D1:BACKGROUND OR INTRODUCTION OF THE NON-BASED-RESEARCH ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a discussion of the background or introduction of the non-research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission does not accurately address the background or introduction of the non-research-based article.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately addresses the background or introduction of the non-research-based article.
D2:TYPE OF EVIDENCE IN THE NON-BASED-RESEARCH ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a description of the type of evidence used in the non-research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission does not accurately describe the type of evidence used in the non-research-based article.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately describes the type of evidence used in the non-research-based article.
D3:LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IN THE NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify the level of evidence for the non-research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies the level of evidence for the non-research-based article that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately identifies the level of evidence for the non-research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
D4:QUALITY RATING OF THE NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a quality rating for the non-research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a quality rating for the non-research-based article that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately identifies the quality rating for the non-research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
D5:AUTHOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a discussion of the author’s recommendations that help answer the EBP question.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a discussion of the author’s recommendations, but the discussion does not logically explain how the author’s recommendations help answer the EBP question.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a discussion that logically explains how the author’s recommendations help answer the EBP question.
E:RECOMMENDED PRACTICE CHANGE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a practice change recommendation.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a practice change recommendation, but the recommendation does not appropriately address the EBP question. Or the recommendation does not accurately use both the research-based and non-research-based articles to show how the change should be made.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a practice change recommendation that appropriately addresses the EBP question and accurately uses both the research-based and non-research-based articles to show how the change should be made.
E1:INVOLVEMENT OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include an explanation of 3 key stakeholders’ involvement in the practice change recommendation.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes an explanation of 3 key stakeholders’ involvement, but the explanation does not address how 1 or more of the stakeholders would appropriately support the practice change recommendation.
COMPETENT
The submission includes an explanation of how 3 key stakeholders would appropriately support the practice change recommendation.
E2:BARRIER OF IMPLEMENTING THE PRACTICE CHANGE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a discussion of 1 specific barrier that might be encountered when implementing the practice change recommendation.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a discussion of 1 specific barrier that might be encountered, but the barrier discussed is not appropriate for the practice change recommendation, or the barrier discussed would not feasibly be encountered during implementation.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a discussion of 1 specific barrier that might feasibly be encountered during implementation, and the barrier discussed is appropriate for the practice change recommendation.
E3:STRATEGY FOR OVERCOMING THE BARRIER
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify 1 strategy that could be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part E2.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies 1 strategy for overcoming a barrier, but that strategy would not logically be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part E2.
COMPETENT
The submission identifies 1 strategy that could logically be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part E2.
E4:OUTCOME TO MEASURE THE RECOMMENDED PRACTICE CHANGE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify 1 outcome for measuring the recommended practice change.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies 1 outcome from the EBP question, but the outcome does not appropriately measure the recommended practice change.
COMPETENT
The submission identifies 1 outcome from the EBP question that appropriately measures the recommended practice change.
F:SOURCES
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations and/or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.
COMPETENT
The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available.
G:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
NOT EVIDENT
Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.
COMPETENT
Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.

For this assessment, develop a solution to a specific ethical dilemma faced by a health care professional. Pick from the 2 case studies provided

Please provide an answer that is 100% original and do not copy the answer to this question from any other website since I am already well aware of this. I will be sure to check this.
Please be sure that the answer comes up with way less than 18% on Studypool’s internal plagiarism checker since anything above this is not acceptable according to Studypool’s standards. I will not accept answers that are above this standard.
No AI or Chatbot! I will be sure to check this.
Complete a one full page reflection for two of the following topics EACH from Oregon State University for EACH missed Nurse Survivor Coursehttp://success.oregonstate.edu/learningTime Management
Stress Management/Test Anxiety
Reading
Active Studying
Test Taking Skills
The reflection should have 2 parts:Summary of the key points of the OSU tool/video/hand-out
Reflection on how you will use that information to improve your study skills
The reflection(s) must in APA format WITH citations and referencesOSU citation minimum
The reflection(s) must be turned in to Dr. Dolter during the mid-point Learner Success Meeting of the Summer 2024 semester.
Requirements: 2 Full Pages Total so 1 Full Page for Each Topic Times New Roman Size 12 Font Double-Spaced APA Format Excluding the Title and Reference Pages | .doc file
Please provide an answer that is 100% original and do not copy the answer to this question from any other website since I am already well aware of this. I will be sure to check this.
Please be sure that the answer comes up with way less than 18% on Studypool’s internal plagiarism checker since anything above this is not acceptable according to Studypool’s standards. I will not accept answers that are above this standard.
No AI or Chatbot! I will be sure to check this.
Please be sure to include an introduction paragraph with a clear thesis statement in the last sentence of the introduction paragraph and a conclusion paragraph.
Please be sure to carefully follow the instructions.
No plagiarism & No Course Hero & No Chegg. The assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Please be sure to include at least one in-text citation in each body paragraph.