We can work on Information Architecture

How do you use health information technology in your daily work activities? Does the CNO in your organization use the same HIT as the nurses…

How do you use health information technology in your daily work activities? Does the CNO in your organization use the same HIT as the nurses at the bedside? What about those individuals who work in admissions? In order to develop an information system that can facilitate the ability to track, share, and analyze patient data, an organization has to take into account the differing needs or views of various departments.
In this Discussion, you consider the differing viewpoints of the professionals within your organization. Imagine what your colleagues’ needs might be and how they might use a HIT system to access and share information to promote evidence-based care. What are the similarities and differences in how this technology would be used by physicians, lab techs, administrators, nurses, informaticians, and others?

Sample Solution

This page of the article has 6579 words. Download the full form above. The utilization of power by cops to make a capturea is one that causes warmed discussion the nation over. On the off chance that you open the paper it appears that police are wild. There have been prominent police utilization of fatal power in Ferguson, Long Island, Saint Louis, and different regions. Police truly have been approved to utilize power to secure themselves as well as other people, yet have the police over ventured their position? Has the quantity of occurrences of police utilization of power expanded after some time? Police offices around the nation all have their own separate arrangements be that as it may, would they say they are legitimate in the present society? In what capacity can the courts and police divisions improve to guarantee that the fitting degree of power is utilized? As of late there have been a few prominent police utilization of power that has started fights, riots, and a national discussion. While most people comprehend that the utilization of power, some of the time even dangerous power is some of the time vital, only one out of every odd cop included shooting is esteemed supported by the courts or general society. This paper will look at police utilization of power in making a capture, with an emphasis on the utilization of power in making a capture for minor or offense violations. We will look at the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which tends to searches and seizures, there are two kinds of seizures/capture of an individual what they are and when they apply. When can a cop can utilize power to make a capture, what is the standard of utilizing power and what level of power is suitable in specific circumstances? FIXSAASS The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution places restrains on what a state entertainer, the police can and can’t manage without fair treatment of law. The Fourth Amendment gives that “The privilege of the individuals to be secure in their people, houses, papers, and impacts, against preposterous hunts and seizures, will not be abused, and no Warrants will issue, however upon reasonable justification, upheld by Oath or certification, and especially depicting the spot to be looked, and the people or things to be seized.” CITE http://www.uscourts.gov/instructive assets/get-included/constitution-exercises/fourth-amendment.aspx The Fourteenth Amendment expresses that, ” No state will make or implement any law which will condense the benefits or insusceptibilities of residents of the United States; nor will any state deny any individual of life, freedom, or property, without fair treatment of law; nor deny to any individual inside its locale the equivalent assurance of the laws.” CITE 14thAmend An individual who accepts that their privileges under the Fourteenth Amendment were denied by an individual acting under the shade of law can bring a common activity under government rule 42 U.S.C. Area 1983. Refer to 1983 What is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment? Assume that a cop speculates that an individual is carrying out a wrongdoing or going to perpetrate a wrongdoing. A cop can’t hold onto an individual discretionarily, how does the official stop or capture that individual as indicated by the Fourth Amendment? A capture is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in this manner the strategies by which an individual is captured must pursue the securities ensured by the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. There are two sorts of Fourth Amendment seizures of an individual, first is a custodial capture, that is the point at which an individual is officially put in care and brought to prison. Refer to United States v. Jacobsen 466 U.S. 109 (1984) . The second sort of seizure of an individual is a field confinement otherwise called an analytical detainment. Refer to terry v ohio. In United States v. Mendenhall-CITE 446 U.S. 544 (1980) the court found that a custodial capture of an individual is a seizure of an individual under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment expresses that “the privilege of the individuals to be secure against outlandish hunts and seizures”. (wong sun)- 371 U.S. 471 (1963) The Supreme Court held that for an individual to be officially captured the cops are required to have reasonable justification or a capture warrant or the capture would be absurd. (wong sun) Probable reason doesn’t have a brilliant line definition, the Supreme Court has expressed that it relies upon the totality of the conditions in the circumstance. What the Supreme Court has expressed is that “the substance of the considerable number of meanings of reasonable justification is a sensible ground for conviction of blame”. Illinois v. Doors The conviction of blame must be particularized as for the individual to be looked or seized. In the event that a cop has reasonable justification to accept that an individual has or had carried out a wrongdoing, the capture won’t damage the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio set the standard when a cop can make an impermanent field detainment or otherwise called a Terry stop. The realities of Terry v. Ohio are as per the following, Officer McFadden, a regular clothes investigator watched two speculates who were acting suspiciously, they strolled all over a road while peering into a store. Official McFadden accepted that the suspects were packaging the store and he chose to go up against the suspects. During the encounter Officer McFadden snatched Terry, spun him around and tapped his front pocket where he found a gun and expelled it. A search of Terry’s partner likewise revealed a gun. Terry was accused of conveying a covered weapon. The court in Terry held that it is a sensible hunt when an official plays out a brief seizure and a constrained quest for weapons on an individual that the official has a sensible doubt grounded in explicit and articulable realities, that an individual they experience was associated with or is needed regarding a finished lawful offense. Refer to The court expressed that a cop can stop and search a subject on the off chance that they sensible doubt, the court contemplated that on the grounds that a stop and search is certainly not a full search you don’t require likely reason. The Terry court tended to whether a stop and search is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that a coercive prevent and limitation from leaving is a seizure, in spite of the fact that it is exceptionally restricted likewise that since a stop and search is both an inquiry and seizure it must be sensible. To decide whether a hunt and seizure is sensible there are two parts, the main segment is that the inquiry and seizure be sensible in degree and length. The subsequent part to decide sensibility is that there be a substantial defense, the support in Terry was to forestall hurt and to discover weapons just, there was sensible doubt that the subject was equipped and risky. For a Fourth Amendment seizure to happen, the official must have the aim to hold onto that individual, it is impossible coincidentally. What is the suitable degree of power? In the event that an official has reasonable justification to accept that a wrongdoing being submitted and this individual is the individual who is mindful, what is the law in regards to the degree of power a police is permitted to use to hold onto that suspect? The customary law rule permitted the utilization of anything that power was important to capture an escaping criminal, the precedent-based law rule didn’t have any significant bearing to speculate who have disregarded an offense wrongdoing. Generally all lawful offense wrongdoings were deserving of capital punishment and the utilization of dangerous power was much the same as quickening the punishment whenever saw as liable of disregarding the law. The precedent-based law rule was created when weapons conveyed by official were crude and generally included hand to hand battle. With the improvement of further developed weapons, particularly guns an official could utilize savage power from an a lot more prominent separation, subsequently the Supreme Court has thought that it was important to overrule the custom-based law. In early Supreme Court choices the court expressed that there were two settings managing police utilization of power, one for savage power and the other for non fatal utilization of power. The Supreme Court combined these two gauges. The Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Earn decided the defendability of the utilization of savage power to forestall the getaway of an unarmed suspect. The realities of Tennessee v. Gather are as per the following, on October 3, 1974 Memphis Police officials were dispatched to a “prowler inside call”. At the point when the officials landed on scene they met a lady, that expressed that she heard glass breaking in the home nearby. As the cops researched the scene they heard an entryway hammer and saw Edward Garner running from the home. Mr. Gather halted at a six foot tall steel fence toward the back of the yard, as the official on scene drew closer, Mr. Accumulate started to climb the fence when he was shot in the back of the head by one of the officials. Before starting to shoot Officer Hymon saw that Mr. Accumulate didn’t have any weapons and was sensibly certain that Mr. Accumulate was unarmed at the time. Official Hymon acted under the authority of a Tennessee rule and in agreement of a Police Department arrangement that if a suspect escapes or persuasively opposes the official, the person ” may utilize any important way to impact the capture.” CITE p.61 After the shooting it found that Edward Garner took ten dollars and a satchel from the home. Edward Garner’s dad sued the cop and the police division for improper passing under 42 U.S.C. segment 1983 asserting that the shooting abused the fourth, fifth, 6th, eight, and fourteenth corrections of the United States Constitution. The court started its examination by characterizing what a seizure is, the court took a gander at United States v. Brignoni-Ponce CITE-422 U.S.873, 878, 95 S.Ct, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) the court expressed that when a cop limits the opportunity on an individual to leave, the official has held onto that individual. The court in United States v. Spot CITE – 462 U.S. 696 (1983) expressed that to decide the lawfulness of a seizure the court must decide its sensibility, to do so the cour>

This page of the article has 6579 words. Download the full form above. The utilization of power by cops to make a capturea is one that causes warmed discussion the nation over. On the off chance that you open the paper it appears that police are wild. There have been prominent police utilization of fatal power in Ferguson, Long Island, Saint Louis, and different regions. Police truly have been approved to utilize power to secure themselves as well as other people, yet have the police over ventured their position? Has the quantity of occurrences of police utilization of power expanded after some time? Police offices around the nation all have their own separate arrangements be that as it may, would they say they are legitimate in the present society? In what capacity can the courts and police divisions improve to guarantee that the fitting degree of power is utilized? As of late there have been a few prominent police utilization of power that has started fights, riots, and a national discussion. While most people comprehend that the utilization of power, some of the time even dangerous power is some of the time vital, only one out of every odd cop included shooting is esteemed supported by the courts or general society. This paper will look at police utilization of power in making a capture, with an emphasis on the utilization of power in making a capture for minor or offense violations. We will look at the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which tends to searches and seizures, there are two kinds of seizures/capture of an individual what they are and when they apply. When can a cop can utilize power to make a capture, what is the standard of utilizing power and what level of power is suitable in specific circumstances? FIXSAASS The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution places restrains on what a state entertainer, the police can and can’t manage without fair treatment of law. The Fourth Amendment gives that “The privilege of the individuals to be secure in their people, houses, papers, and impacts, against preposterous hunts and seizures, will not be abused, and no Warrants will issue, however upon reasonable justification, upheld by Oath or certification, and especially depicting the spot to be looked, and the people or things to be seized.” CITE http://www.uscourts.gov/instructive assets/get-included/constitution-exercises/fourth-amendment.aspx The Fourteenth Amendment expresses that, ” No state will make or implement any law which will condense the benefits or insusceptibilities of residents of the United States; nor will any state deny any individual of life, freedom, or property, without fair treatment of law; nor deny to any individual inside its locale the equivalent assurance of the laws.” CITE 14thAmend An individual who accepts that their privileges under the Fourteenth Amendment were denied by an individual acting under the shade of law can bring a common activity under government rule 42 U.S.C. Area 1983. Refer to 1983 What is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment? Assume that a cop speculates that an individual is carrying out a wrongdoing or going to perpetrate a wrongdoing. A cop can’t hold onto an individual discretionarily, how does the official stop or capture that individual as indicated by the Fourth Amendment? A capture is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in this manner the strategies by which an individual is captured must pursue the securities ensured by the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. There are two sorts of Fourth Amendment seizures of an individual, first is a custodial capture, that is the point at which an individual is officially put in care and brought to prison. Refer to United States v. Jacobsen 466 U.S. 109 (1984) . The second sort of seizure of an individual is a field confinement otherwise called an analytical detainment. Refer to terry v ohio. In United States v. Mendenhall-CITE 446 U.S. 544 (1980) the court found that a custodial capture of an individual is a seizure of an individual under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment expresses that “the privilege of the individuals to be secure against outlandish hunts and seizures”. (wong sun)- 371 U.S. 471 (1963) The Supreme Court held that for an individual to be officially captured the cops are required to have reasonable justification or a capture warrant or the capture would be absurd. (wong sun) Probable reason doesn’t have a brilliant line definition, the Supreme Court has expressed that it relies upon the totality of the conditions in the circumstance. What the Supreme Court has expressed is that “the substance of the considerable number of meanings of reasonable justification is a sensible ground for conviction of blame”. Illinois v. Doors The conviction of blame must be particularized as for the individual to be looked or seized. In the event that a cop has reasonable justification to accept that an individual has or had carried out a wrongdoing, the capture won’t damage the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio set the standard when a cop can make an impermanent field detainment or otherwise called a Terry stop. The realities of Terry v. Ohio are as per the following, Officer McFadden, a regular clothes investigator watched two speculates who were acting suspiciously, they strolled all over a road while peering into a store. Official McFadden accepted that the suspects were packaging the store and he chose to go up against the suspects. During the encounter Officer McFadden snatched Terry, spun him around and tapped his front pocket where he found a gun and expelled it. A search of Terry’s partner likewise revealed a gun. Terry was accused of conveying a covered weapon. The court in Terry held that it is a sensible hunt when an official plays out a brief seizure and a constrained quest for weapons on an individual that the official has a sensible doubt grounded in explicit and articulable realities, that an individual they experience was associated with or is needed regarding a finished lawful offense. Refer to The court expressed that a cop can stop and search a subject on the off chance that they sensible doubt, the court contemplated that on the grounds that a stop and search is certainly not a full search you don’t require likely reason. The Terry court tended to whether a stop and search is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that a coercive prevent and limitation from leaving is a seizure, in spite of the fact that it is exceptionally restricted likewise that since a stop and search is both an inquiry and seizure it must be sensible. To decide whether a hunt and seizure is sensible there are two parts, the main segment is that the inquiry and seizure be sensible in degree and length. The subsequent part to decide sensibility is that there be a substantial defense, the support in Terry was to forestall hurt and to discover weapons just, there was sensible doubt that the subject was equipped and risky. For a Fourth Amendment seizure to happen, the official must have the aim to hold onto that individual, it is impossible coincidentally. What is the suitable degree of power? In the event that an official has reasonable justification to accept that a wrongdoing being submitted and this individual is the individual who is mindful, what is the law in regards to the degree of power a police is permitted to use to hold onto that suspect? The customary law rule permitted the utilization of anything that power was important to capture an escaping criminal, the precedent-based law rule didn’t have any significant bearing to speculate who have disregarded an offense wrongdoing. Generally all lawful offense wrongdoings were deserving of capital punishment and the utilization of dangerous power was much the same as quickening the punishment whenever saw as liable of disregarding the law. The precedent-based law rule was created when weapons conveyed by official were crude and generally included hand to hand battle. With the improvement of further developed weapons, particularly guns an official could utilize savage power from an a lot more prominent separation, subsequently the Supreme Court has thought that it was important to overrule the custom-based law. In early Supreme Court choices the court expressed that there were two settings managing police utilization of power, one for savage power and the other for non fatal utilization of power. The Supreme Court combined these two gauges. The Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Earn decided the defendability of the utilization of savage power to forestall the getaway of an unarmed suspect. The realities of Tennessee v. Gather are as per the following, on October 3, 1974 Memphis Police officials were dispatched to a “prowler inside call”. At the point when the officials landed on scene they met a lady, that expressed that she heard glass breaking in the home nearby. As the cops researched the scene they heard an entryway hammer and saw Edward Garner running from the home. Mr. Gather halted at a six foot tall steel fence toward the back of the yard, as the official on scene drew closer, Mr. Accumulate started to climb the fence when he was shot in the back of the head by one of the officials. Before starting to shoot Officer Hymon saw that Mr. Accumulate didn’t have any weapons and was sensibly certain that Mr. Accumulate was unarmed at the time. Official Hymon acted under the authority of a Tennessee rule and in agreement of a Police Department arrangement that if a suspect escapes or persuasively opposes the official, the person ” may utilize any important way to impact the capture.” CITE p.61 After the shooting it found that Edward Garner took ten dollars and a satchel from the home. Edward Garner’s dad sued the cop and the police division for improper passing under 42 U.S.C. segment 1983 asserting that the shooting abused the fourth, fifth, 6th, eight, and fourteenth corrections of the United States Constitution. The court started its examination by characterizing what a seizure is, the court took a gander at United States v. Brignoni-Ponce CITE-422 U.S.873, 878, 95 S.Ct, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) the court expressed that when a cop limits the opportunity on an individual to leave, the official has held onto that individual. The court in United States v. Spot CITE – 462 U.S. 696 (1983) expressed that to decide the lawfulness of a seizure the court must decide its sensibility, to do so the cour>
Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Do you need any assistance with this question?
Send us your paper details now
We’ll find the best professional writer for you!

 



error: Content is protected !!