Non–violence-related Workplace Injuries Among Emergency Nurses in the United States: Implications for Improving Safe Practice, Safe Care

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 541-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cydne Perhats ◽  
Vicki Keough ◽  
Jeanne Fogarty ◽  
Nancy L. Hughes ◽  
Carol J. Kappelman ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Jessica Castner ◽  
Sue Anne Bell ◽  
Breanna Hetland ◽  
Claudia Der-Martirosian ◽  
Martin Castner ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 1029-1037
Author(s):  
Bethany Boggess ◽  
Lisa Pompeii

2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth W Bayley ◽  
Susan L MacLean ◽  
Pierre Desy ◽  
Margaret McMahon

1989 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred S. Konefsky

Over thirty years ago, Leonard Levy, building explicitly on suggestions first offered by Walter Nelles, and implicitly on observations made by Roscoe Pound, commented on the unusual conjunction of two decisions announced within weeks of each other in 1842 by Lemuel Shaw, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The cases, Farwell v. Boston & Worcester Railroad which helped create the fellow servant rule in the United States, and Commonwealth v. Hunt, which involved a prosecution for criminal conspiracy for organizing a labor union as a closed shop, seemed at odds. Hunt appeared to expand worker rights to collective action, while Farwell appeared to restrict worker rights to compensation from workplace injuries. Shaw's apparent protection of a worker's right to organize, “a pro-worker stance,” seemed to conflict with his refusal to recognize a worker's right to recover for an industrial accident in particular circumstances, “an anti-worker stance.” The question is obvious—how can these decisions be made compatible, or does their incompatibility have to be accepted with a shrug of the shoulders and a nod toward the evolutionary progress of the common law?


Author(s):  
A. Hakam ◽  
J.T. Gau ◽  
M.L. Grove ◽  
B.A. Evans ◽  
M. Shuman ◽  
...  

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of men in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in men. Despite attempts at early detection, there will be 244,000 new cases and 44,000 deaths from the disease in the United States in 1995. Therapeutic progress against this disease is hindered by an incomplete understanding of prostate epithelial cell biology, the availability of human tissues for in vitro experimentation, slow dissemination of information between prostate cancer research teams and the increasing pressure to “ stretch” research dollars at the same time staff reductions are occurring.To meet these challenges, we have used the correlative microscopy (CM) and client/server (C/S) computing to increase productivity while decreasing costs. Critical elements of our program are as follows:1) Establishing the Western Pennsylvania Genitourinary (GU) Tissue Bank which includes >100 prostates from patients with prostate adenocarcinoma as well as >20 normal prostates from transplant organ donors.


Author(s):  
Vinod K. Berry ◽  
Xiao Zhang

In recent years it became apparent that we needed to improve productivity and efficiency in the Microscopy Laboratories in GE Plastics. It was realized that digital image acquisition, archiving, processing, analysis, and transmission over a network would be the best way to achieve this goal. Also, the capabilities of quantitative image analysis, image transmission etc. available with this approach would help us to increase our efficiency. Although the advantages of digital image acquisition, processing, archiving, etc. have been described and are being practiced in many SEM, laboratories, they have not been generally applied in microscopy laboratories (TEM, Optical, SEM and others) and impact on increased productivity has not been yet exploited as well.In order to attain our objective we have acquired a SEMICAPS imaging workstation for each of the GE Plastic sites in the United States. We have integrated the workstation with the microscopes and their peripherals as shown in Figure 1.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document