Search results

The role of the school nurse has evolved. It has expanded from administering first aid and promoting hand washing to key participation in program planning for health and educational outcomes for the school-aged child. Nurses provide leadership in promoting a healthy and safe school environment, case management of chronically ill children, collaboration between family and school, and referral to essential community resources. Additionally, the school nurse is a valuable resource on the multidisciplinary special education team. The school nurse is the health care expert in the school and is in a unique position to meet the actual and potential needs of all students – including those with special needs.

Point-of-care testing (POCT) at the Emergency Department (ED) attains better objectives in patient care while aiming to achieve early diagnosis for faster medical decision-making. This study assesses and compares the benefits of POCT in the ED in Germany and Malta, while considering differences in their health systems.

This chapter utilizes multiple case study approach using Six Sigma. The German case study assesses the use of POCT in acute coronary syndrome patients, compared to the central lab setting. The Maltese case study is a pilot study of the use of medical ultrasonography as a POCT to detect abdominal free fluid in post-blunt trauma.

This study provides clear examples of the effectiveness of POCT in life-threatening conditions, as compared to the use of traditional central lab or the medical imaging department. Therapeutic quality in the ED and patient outcomes directly depend upon turnaround time, particularly for life-threatening conditions. Faster turnaround time not only saves lives but reduces morbidity, which in the long-term is a critical cost driver for hospitals.

The application of Six Sigma and the international comparison of POCT as best practice for life-threatening conditions in the ED.

This chapter focuses on the regulatory scheme used by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve medical products for commercial use in this country. After providing a brief introduction of the role of the FDA and the scope of the products regulated by the agency, the chapter outlines the common characteristics of premarket controls for drugs, medical devices, and biological products, including how clinical trials of these medical products are conducted with humans as part of the premarket approval process. The chapter then provides a detailed examination of the particular regulatory scheme for each product category. The chapter concludes with an analysis of how FDA regulates emerging medical technologies, such as cellular and tissue-engineered products. FDA regulates a variety of products intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent diseases or conditions under a legal scheme established in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act and regulations promulgated by FDA. How a product is classified (drug, device, or biologic) forecasts the regulatory approval pathway that must be followed to bring the product to market. This chapter provides education and direction regarding regulatory requirements that must be met to market medical products in the United States.

Much of the discussion surrounding the antivaccine movement focuses on the decision of parents to not vaccinate their children and the resulting danger posed to others. However, the primary risk is borne by the child left unvaccinated. Although living in a developed country with high vaccination rates provides a certain amount of protection through population immunity, the unvaccinated child is still exposed to a considerably greater risk of preventable diseases than one who is vaccinated. I explore the tension between parental choice and the child’s right to be free of preventable diseases. The chapter’s goal is twofold: to advocate for moving from a dyadic framework – considering the interests of the parents against those of the state – to a triadic one, in which the interests of the child are given as much weight as those of the parent and the state; and to discuss which protections are available, and how they can be improved. Specific legal tools available to protect that child are examined, including tort liability of the parents to the child, whether and to what degree criminal law has a role, under what circumstances parental choice should be overridden, and the role of school immunization requirements in protecting the individual child.

Legal standards that allow teens to make health care decisions, or any important decisions, must account for the contingency and variability of minors’ capacity. Traditional law denied minors’ legal authority to make any decisions, giving all power to parents. This rule goes too far; the Supreme Court has held that minors have constitutionally protected autonomy-based rights, and modern views about adolescence are inconsistent with the rule. The question is how and where to draw lines.

Legal standards are based on minors’ evolving maturity, policy favoring decisions that follow medical advice, and policy supporting parental authority. This paper uses four hard cases to show how these considerations factor into legal rules.

This chapter aims to demonstrate that the fundamental human rights principle that no one should be subjected to (grossly) disproportionate punishment should be interpreted to take into account terminal illness of the offender. It should be applied both during imposition of the sentences and also during execution of already imposed sentences.

In order to reveal whether this principle takes into account serious medical conditions, including terminal illness of the offender in the calculus of the proportionality of punishment and whether it is applicable at the execution stage of sentences, this chapter examined the roots of the fundamental human rights principle of proportionality of punishment by briefly surveying the penal theory, jurisprudence, court cases, laws, and legislative history from the U.S. federal and state jurisdictions and from Europe.

There is a consensus among surveyed theories that terminal illness of the offender is an element of the principle of proportionality of punishment. Thus the fundamental human rights principle must be interpreted to take it into account. The principle should be observed not only at the imposition stage, but also at the execution stage of already imposed sentences.

This chapter re-examines the roots of the fundamental human right to not being subjected to (grossly) disproportionate punishment. It does so in order to demonstrate that the right should be interpreted to take into account terminal illness of the offender and that it should be observed not only at the imposition stage, but also at the execution stage of already imposed sentences.