Question

Was a culture of safety present for Newton in the case study? Why or why not? Include a description of at least one factor that led or did not lead to a culture of safety for Newton.

Name: was a culture of safety present for newton in the case study why or why not include a description of at least one factor that led or did not lead to a culture of safety for newton 91437
Uploaded: 2023-07-14T21:29:20-08:00
Duration: 1 min 33 s
Channel: Adi S
Description: was a culture of safety present for newton in the case study why or why not include a description of at least one factor that led or did not lead to a culture of safety for newton 91437

          Was a culture of safety present for Newton in the case study? Why or why not? Include a description of at least one factor that led or did not lead to a culture of safety for Newton.

Added by Lauren S.

Instant Answer

Solved by Expert Adi S

07/14/2023

Step 1

To determine if a culture of safety was present for Newton, we need to examine the case study for indicators such as policies, procedures, communication practices, leadership commitment, and employee engagement in safety initiatives. Show more…

Show all steps

Please give Ace some feedback

Your feedback will help us improve your experience

Thanks for your feedback!

Was a culture of safety present for Newton in the case study? Why or why not? Include a description of at least one factor that led or did not lead to a culture of safety for Newton.

Play audio

Feedback

Powered by NumerAI

Adi S and 71 other subject Nursing educators are ready to help you.

Ask a new question

Labs

Want to see this concept in action?

NEW

Explore this concept interactively to see how it behaves as you change inputs.

View Labs

Key Concepts

Key Concept

Premium Feature

Explore the core concept behind this problem.

Key Concept

Premium Feature

Explore the core concept behind this problem.

Recommended Videos

case-study-blood-an-ambulance-arrives-at-the-scene-of-an-automobile-accident-having-been-summoned-by-an-in-vehicle-security-system-what-the-emergency-personnel-find-is-like-scene-from-horror-71639

A Case Study in Blood An ambulance arrives at the scene of an automobile accident, having been summoned by an in-vehicle security system. What the emergency personnel find is like a scene from a horror film. Maggie Silvers, the apparent driver of the car, is sitting, slumped next to the vehicle, with blood covering her shirt and hands. Her car has clearly hit a tree: a branch is sticking into the driver's window, and the airbag has been deployed. Maggie looks dazed, and as the paramedics approach she says with a mixture of panic and relief, "There's blood everywhere!" Maggie is only semi-lucid as she babbles on about pushing out the broken glass in her car window. Maggie, a 48-year-old woman, is, indeed, bleeding profusely from multiple left-arm cuts and an especially deep laceration on her left upper arm. The paramedics stop the bleeding and move her quickly to the ambulance, after noting no other apparent injury. Her systolic blood pressure is 80 mm Hg (low), and her diastolic is not audible (too low to hear). Her heart rate is 122 bpm (very rapid), and her skin is pale and clammy, indicating peripheral vasoconstriction (narrowing of her blood vessels, particularly in the skin) and circulatory shock-like signs. On the way to the hospital, a paramedic begins transfusing normal saline solution (NSS; water with some NaCl, similar to body fluids, given directly into her vein). A fast hematocrit (HCT) test upon Maggie's arrival to the emergency department (ED) indicates that her HCT is low, but normal. Several vials of Maggie's blood are also sent to the lab for blood tests and typing. Two liters of NSS are transfused over the next hour while the ED physician sutures her deepest, left-upper-arm laceration. Despite no further bleeding since the paramedics treated her at the scene, Maggie's next HCT, tested one hour after the original HCT, drops to below normal. Aside from her present health problem, Maggie is otherwise healthy. She is admitted to the hospital for overnight observation. Case Questions: 5. Why might a physician be reluctant to order a blood transfusion for Maggie, or for any patient for that matter, unless absolutely necessary?

Adi S.

PART TWO: Spot the Internal Validity Threat that is MOST likely at work for each of the following scenarios: Use the key below to match the study validity description with the specific validity threat Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat The study ran for several weeks during the semester. About a week after it started, the university announced that they would be holding training sessions for faculty and staff about how to handle situations involving a gunman on campus. This shut down the study for several days as the university needed the lab building for training. The study then resumed according to script after the training. The researchers found that those in the experimental group did not differ in their memories regarding the presence of a gun compared to those in the control condition. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was similar for the experimental group (M = 65%, SD = 11.4%) and the control group (M = 63%, SD = 13.26%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat The experiment proceeded as normal, with the experimental group hearing about the potential presence of a gun as the confederates left the study and the control group not hearing about the gun. All participants returned on day two for the interview with the police detective. After debriefing, none of the participants said they were aware that the theft was staged. The researchers found that those in the experimental group did incorporate the gun misinformation into their memories of the theft more than those in the control condition. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was much higher for the experimental group (M = 67%, SD = 12.4%) than the control group (M = 33%, SD = 11.16%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat After viewing the theft and speaking with the experimenter as well as campus security, all participants were asked to return on day two to discuss what they saw more formally with the police detective. Unfortunately, a hurricane hit the next day and closed down campus for two weeks, so participants were unable to return as quickly as the researchers would have liked. Still, the interviews commenced three weeks after the theft, and researchers found that those in the experimental group did not differ in their memories regarding the presence of a gun compared to those in the control condition. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was similar for the experimental group (M = 65%, SD = 11.4%) and the control group (M = 63%, SD = 13.26%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat To see how participants responded to questions about the presence of a gun immediately after the theft (on day one), campus security asked the participant how likely it was that the thief had a gun immediately after the incident. The experiment then proceeded as usual, with participants in either the experimental or control group. The next day (day two), the police detective also asked about whether the participant saw a gun. Data analysis showed that participants’ answers about the likelihood that the thief had a gun became more extreme on follow-up questioning by the police detective. That is, regardless of whether they were in the control or experimental condition, participants who reported that the thief had a gun on day one were convinced he had a gun on day two. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was similar for the experimental group (M = 65%, SD = 11.4%) and the control group (M = 63%, SD = 13.26%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat Thinking that hearing about a gun might be more emotionally stressful for females then males, the researchers made sure that all female participants were in the control condition while males heard the conversation about the presence of a gun. The researchers found that those in the experimental group did incorporate the gun misinformation into their memories of the theft more than those in the control condition. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was much higher for the experimental groups (M = 67%, SD = 12.4%) than the control group (M = 33%, SD = 11.16%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat The researchers decided to collect all of the data from the control group early in the semester and then collect data from the experimental group later. Although the researcher scripted out exactly how the confederates were supposed to act for both conditions and what they were supposed to say, the confederates were still shy and nervous early in the semester. Fortunately, they grew much more confident in their performance as the semester progressed. The researchers found that those in the experimental group did incorporate the gun misinformation into their memories of the theft more than those in the control condition. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was much higher for the experimental group (M = 67%, SD = 12.4%) than the control group (M = 33%, SD = 11.16%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat Thinking that hearing about a gun might be more emotionally stressful for females then males, the researchers made sure that all female participants were in the control condition while males heard the conversation about the presence of a gun. After viewing the theft and speaking with the experimenter as well as campus security, all participants were asked to return on day two to discuss what they saw more formally with the police detective. Unfortunately, a hurricane hit the next day and closed down campus for two weeks, so participants were unable to return as quickly as the researchers would have liked. Still, the day two interviews commenced three weeks after the theft, and researchers found that those in the experimental group did not differ in their memories regarding the presence of a gun compared to those in the control condition. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was similar for the experimental group (M = 65%, SD = 11.4%) and the control group (M = 63%, SD = 13.26%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat To see just how participants responded to questions about the presence of a gun, campus security asked the participant how likely it was that the thief had a gun on day one. The police detective was similarly supposed to ask about whether the participant saw a gun, but the detective only had time to talk with half of the participants on day two. To choose which participants to ask back for this second interview, the researchers looked only at those who were really confident that they saw a gun on day one (they answered 75% likelihood or higher). The researchers found that those in the experimental group did not differ from those in the control group about the likelihood of a gun. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was similar for the experimental group (M = 67%, SD = 12.4%) and the control group (M = 63%, SD = 11.16%), though both were ironically less sure about the presence of a gun than they were the prior day. Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat The experiment proceeded as normal, with the experimental group hearing about the potential presence of a gun as the confederates left the study and the control group not hearing about the gun. Unfortunately, hearing about the possible presence of a gun frightened some of the experimental participants, who did not show up for the second interview with the interviewer on day two. All of the control participants returned for the second interview. The researchers found that those in the experimental group did not differ from those in the control group about the likelihood of a gun. That is, the mean score that a gun was present during the second interview was similar for the experimental group (M = 67%, SD = 12.4%) and the control group (M = 63%, SD = 11.16%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat The experiment proceeded as normal, with the experimental group hearing about the potential presence of a gun as the confederates left the study and the control group not hearing about the gun. Unfortunately, word spread around campus about a man with a gun who stole a laptop during a study. Unknown to the study researchers, many potential participants participated in the research anyway, and kept an eye out for a gun, knowing that they might be asked about it. The researchers found that those in the experimental group did not differ from those in the control group about the likelihood of a gun. That is, the mean score that a gun was present during the second interview was similar for the experimental group (M = 67%, SD = 12.4%) and the control group (M = 63%, SD = 11.16%). Maturation Regression to the mean Selection Mortality Instrumentation Testing History Interactions Diffusion No Threat

Sri K.

scenario-1-prospective-cohort-study-studies-published-in-the-scientific-literature-have-consistently-demonstrated-that-wearing-a-helmet-while-bicycling-is-associated-with-lower-odds-of-head-21921

Text: Scenario #1 - Prospective Cohort Study Studies published in the scientific literature have consistently demonstrated that wearing a helmet while bicycling is associated with lower odds of head injury in a crash. However, there has been criticism of these studies in the media, including the assertion that these studies have overstated the protective effect of helmets. One of the most common critiques includes the frequent use of the case-control study design and limitations associated with this design. One of the primary reasons that case-control studies have been used is because head injuries attributable to bike crashes are a relatively rare event. Cohort studies, on the other hand, can provide stronger evidence due to their prospective nature, but they require far more time and resources than a case-control study, especially for rare outcomes. Researchers enrolled 5000 head injury-free cyclists into a prospective cohort study. "Helmet use" was defined as self-reported helmet use during at least 90% of their time cycling. Once a year, participants were contacted and asked if they had a head injury due to a bike crash in the past year. All reported incident head injuries were confirmed with medical records, and only those that were confirmed were included in the analysis. The participants were followed for 4 years. HEAD INJURY INCIDENCE AMONG HELMET USERS AND NON-USERS (N=5,000) Group # with head injury during follow-up # without head injury during follow-up Total # person-years observed during follow-up Helmet Users 152 3,598 3750 13,688 Helmet Non-Users 163 1,087 1250 3,375 Calculate the relative risk for head injury associated with helmet use (helmet use should be defined as the "exposed" group) based on cumulative incidence (not using person years). Enter as '#.##'. (1 point) Calculate the relative risk of head injury associated with helmet use (helmet use should be defined as the "exposed" group) using incidence density (using person years). Enter as '#.##' (1 point). Which of these incidence measures (cumulative incidence or incidence density) provides the most accurate estimate of risk? (1 point) Cumulative Incidence Incidence Density Hypothetically suppose that the relative risk for head injury is 0.55 comparing helmet users to non-users (this is not the relative risk that you calculated above), interpret the relative risk estimate. (1 point) Helmet users have 0.55 times the risk of head injury as compared to non-helmet users. Helmet users are 0.55 times as likely to have a head injury as compared to non-helmet users. Helmet users are 45% less likely (have 45% lower risk) of head injury compared to non-helmet users. All of the above.

Dominador T.

Transcript

00:01 Blood transfusion carries the risk such as the allergic reactions allergic reactions as well as the infections infections and the transfusion reaction and the risk can be minimized not completely eliminated so blood we know that that is the limited resource that is the limited resource and is important to use judicious.

00:37 We can say conveniently available for the patient...

Need help? Use Ace

Ace is your personal tutor. It breaks down any question with clear steps so you can learn.

Start Using Ace

Ace is your personal tutor for learning

Step-by-step explanations

Instant summaries

Summarize YouTube videos

Understand textbook images or PDFs

Study tools like quizzes and flashcards

Listen to your notes as a podcast

Continue solving this problem