Trauma system development in the United States

1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles N. Mock ◽  
Gregory J. Jurkovich
1999 ◽  
Vol 47 (SUPPLEMENT) ◽  
pp. S15-S21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert R. Bass ◽  
Patricia S. Gainer ◽  
Anthony R. Carlini

Author(s):  
Brendan Cantwell

This chapter provides a detailed and extensive assessment of the United States of America’s (USA) high participation systems (HPS) of higher education. It considers the history of higher education, system development, and the present condition of higher education in the country. The USA was the first HPS and the American system remains globally influential. Higher education in the USA is a massive enterprise, defined by both excellent and dubious providers, broad inclusion, and steep inequality. The chapter further examines higher education in the USA in light of the seventeen HPS propositions. Perhaps more so than any other system, the American HPS conforms to the propositions. Notably, higher education in the USA is both more diverse horizontally, and stratified vertically, than most other HPS.


1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith B. Braslow ◽  
Joan A. Snyder

AbstractTraumatic injury, both unintentional and intentional, is a serious public health problem. Trauma care systems play a significant role in reducing mortality, morbidity, and disability due to injuries. However, barriers to the provision of prompt and appropriate emergency medical services still exist in many areas of the United States. Title XII of the Public Health Service Act provides for programs in support of trauma care planning and system development by states and localities. This legislation includes provisions for: 1) grants to state agencies to modify the trauma care component of the state Emergency Medical Services (EMS) plan; 2) grants to improve the quality and availability of trauma care in rural areas; 3) development of a Model Trauma Care System Plan for states to use as a guide in trauma system development; and 4) the establishment of a National Advisory Council on Trauma Care Systems.


Author(s):  
Nancy Beadie

The three major countries of North America present three different models of system development in education. As compared with Mexico, with its strong central authority, the systems of the United States and Canada are federated rather than national, with virtually all matters of funding, curriculum, licensing, and accreditation administered at provincial rather than national levels. These differences pose a problem of historical explanation. All three countries exhibited similar levels of rhetorical commitment to the idea of publicly supported systems of mass education in the 1820s. During the mid-nineteenth century, all three also adopted basic legal and administrative infrastructures for public education at provincial levels. After 1870, however, the three countries developed different patterns of national education policymaking. Based on a synthesis of focused national studies and comparative and transnational scholarship, this chapter advances an argument about how the divergences among the three systems developed and what factors help explain those differences.


1982 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 902-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. D. Albin

Abstract Recent advances in the automotive, petroleum, and energy-related industries have created applications for high-performance elastomers, which often require chemically resistant elastomers with improved high-temperature operating capability. Fluoroelastomers are uniquely capable of withstanding high temperatures in conjunction with aggressive chemicals, fuels, and lubricants. While a number of reviews concerning fluoroelastomers have been published in the last three years, this paper will concentrate on recent developments that have improved fluoroelastomers to meet the requirements of new high-performance applications. Three types of fluorine-containing elastomers—fluorocarbon, fluorosilicone, and fluoroalkoxyphosphazene (phosphonitrilic)—are commercially available. The fluorocarbon elastomers have the highest fluorine content, with general grades having between 53 and 70% fluorine. The high fluorine content of these specialty elastomers imparts exceptional resistance to attack by fuels, oils, and corrosive chemicals. The excellent resistance to high-temperature aging for extended periods of time results in a temperature use range of −46 to 320°C. Fluoro-carbon elastomers are produced in the United States by 3M (“Fluorel” Brand fluoroelastomer) and Du Pont (“Viton” Brand fluoroelastomer) and outside the United States by Montedison (Italy, “Technoflon” Brand fluoroelastomer), Daikin (Japan, “Daiel” Brand fluoroelastomer), and Asahi Glass (Japan, “Aflas” Brand elastomer, a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and propylene). Fluorosilicone and fluoroalkoxyphosphazene elastomers contain 30–40% fluorine. Although the fluorine content of these elastomers is less than that of fluorocarbon elastomers, it is high enough to provide moderate chemical resistance to many fluids. The flexible nature of the heteroatoms of the polymer chain backbone in fluorosilicone and fluoroalkoxyphosphazene elastomers results in excellent low-temperature flexibility, giving them a temperature use range of −54 to 230°C. Fluorosilicone elastomers are produced by Dow Corning (“Silastic”) and General Electric (“FSE”), while fluoroalkoxyphosphazene elastomers are produced by Firestone (“PNF”). This paper is a discussion of developments in fluorocarbon elastomer technology that have led to successful use in demanding applications which require high-performance elastomeric parts. Typical properties of fluorocarbon elastomers and improved properties resulting from cure system development and variations in the fluorine content of this type of elastomer will be presented. Applications for fluorocarbon elastomers in the automotive, petroleum, and energy-related industries will be illustrated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document