Recent orders
The Echo of war
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
The Echo of war: The Army’s Way of WarBrian McAllister Linn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 320 pp.
The whole concept about an “American way of war” gained popularity in 1973 when a book bearing the some title was released by the late Russell Weigley. The main ideas in the book were that the experiences of the war time in the U.S had led to the formation of a special American strategic culture determining how the nation approaches war times. According to the author, Military strategies, policies, and doctrines had been formulated in an attempt to combat as practiced by different strong presidents of the world.
In his imperative book, The Echo of Battle: The Army’s Way of War, Brian Mcallister Linn, teacher of history at Texas A&m, brings issue with the thought that “methods for fighting” emerge principally from the knowledge of war itself. He contends rather that the ideas of war that have formed the American military experience are less the aftereffect of the real battle than of thoughts that have emerged amid long stretches of peace. In this manner regarding the matter of the way Americans have considered war, “military erudite people, for example, Joseph Totten, Emory Upton, and Donn Starry have assumed a more essential part in creating an American method for war than professionals, for example, Grant or Macarthur. Linn demonstrates that it is the last gathering that has been in charge of shielding their administrations’ military personality, distinguishing their missions, deciding proficient gauges and making different methods for war.
To discuss a national “method for war” presupposes an understanding of war as an issue. However as Linn powerfully contends, the US protection foundation does not have a settled after understanding of “war.” Thus amid the 1990s, some compelling people contended that rising data innovations and “data predominance” had changed the “very nature of war” by wiping out “grinding” and the “mist of vulnerability” in war. Others, taking their sign from the nineteenth century Prussian “thinker of war,” Carl von Clausewitz, contended pretty much as unyieldingly that, while the character of war changes relying upon the circumstances, the way of war stays settled.
The disappointment to concede to a binding together logic of war has prompted reasonable disarray, making an educated void frequently filled by popular expressions “lopsided clash,” “fourth-era fighting,” “sudden stunning exhibition,” “full-range strength”—that upon reflection are indicated to be without any genuine importance.
Linn composes that a military foundation’s idea of war is a composite of its translation of the past and its view of present and future dangers. Looking particularly at the US Army, Linn contends that for two centuries, the American protection wrangle about has been molded by three erudite develops of fighting. While they have developed about whether, their basic presumptions and ideas have remained astoundingly steady. “Like a twist, each one strand will, for a period, be unmistakable at first glance and at different times will vanish, just to rise more distant down the mesh. Now and again, the strands are so nearly woven as to be undefined; at different times they basically pull separated.”
Linn calls the most seasoned Army school of thought the Guardians. This convention, which shows itself today as worries about country security and ballistic rocket barrier, is best seen as a building methodology to war. For the governments, war has always been both a workmanship and a science, “the previous comprising to a great extent of the application of the last.” The Guardians have diminished the war to logical laws and standards, which if connected legitimately permit specialists to envision and anticipate the conclusion of the class.
Work Cited
Linn. M. Brian. The Echo of war: The Army’s Way of War. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2007 320 pp.
Surgical Site Infections
Surgical Site Infections
Name:
Institution:
Date:
Surgery is usually a life-saving procedure used to treat different diseases and illnesses. Although many surgeries have a high success rate, there are significant risks that come with going under the knife. In most cases, the benefits of surgery far outweigh the risks, which is why doctors recommend necessary procedures to their patients. One significant risk of surgery is surgical site infections that occur post-op. Although the highest care is taken to maintain sterile conditions both in the operating theatre and in caring for patients afterward, cases of infections still occur in patients. Surgical site infections are preventable and treatable when they do occur. This paper will examine the effects of surgical site infections on healthcare, prevention, treatment, and effects of technology in managing surgical site infections.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines surgical site infections as “an infection that occurs after surgery in the part of the body where the surgery took place” (Borchardt & Tzizik, 2018). These infections may be superficial and only affect the skin, but in some cases, it goes deeper into the organs and tissue under the skin. The CDC classifies surgical site infections into three. The first is superficial incisional surgical site infection which only affects the skin around the surgical incision. The second type is a deep incisional surgical site infection, affecting tissue and muscle under the incision. The third type is an organ and space surgical site incision, which affects any other area of the body besides that in the first two types. This includes any body organs and space between the organs. The deeper infections are more challenging to treat and could pose a significant threat to the patients’ health, especially when they are not quickly discovered and treated. Some of the main symptoms that help patients and health providers detect a surgical site infection include fever, pain, warmth, redness around the site, and discharge of cloudy fluid or pus from the surgical wound. When these symptoms occur after a surgical procedure, they must be quickly addressed to prevent further harm to the patient.
Surgical site infections are caused by germs, the most common of which are streptococcus, pseudomonas, and staphylococcus. These germs come into contact with a surgical incision in different ways. One of these is contact through contaminated surgical instruments, touch from a caregiver, and germs already in the body that spread after surgery. Different types of surgical wounds present varying degrees of risk of developing a surgical site infection. There are four types of surgical wounds. Clean wounds do not involve an internal organ and are clean and uncontaminated at the time of surgery (Borchardt & Tzizik, 2018). Clean-contaminated wounds involve an internal organ but have no infection at the time of surgery. The third type of surgical wound is a contaminated wound that involves internal organs whose contents spill into the incision. The fourth type is a dirty wound which is known to be infected at the time of surgery.
Surgical site infections have a significant effect on healthcare. One of these is financial costs. Patients who develop surgical site infections require prolonged hospitalization, diagnostic procedures, and treatment, which costs money. Badia et al. conducted a study on the effects of surgical site infections. They found that patients with SSIs had, on average, double the admission times of patients who did not have any SSIs. Additionally, some patients may require reoperation after the SSI, which further adds to their financial burden. For example, in France, patients with SSIs spent on average €17434 more on treatment than patients who did not get an infection (Badia et al., 2017). Hospitals also suffer adverse effects when their patients develop SSIs. For example, longer admission times for patients take away medical resources that could have been used in other ways, such as caring for other patients. Other patients also suffer when their treatments and surgeries have to be delayed as health providers address SSIs in other patients.
Surgical site infections pose a significant threat to the well-being of patients and the healthcare system. Because of this, hospitals, healthcare providers, and other relevant bodies have come up with preventive measures to avoid SSIs. One of these organizations is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that published guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections in 2017. The number of surgeries in the US continues to increase with time, and patients face a lot of risks, one of which is SSIs. One prevention measure is strict hygiene measures. Doctors and other healthcare providers involved in surgery should thoroughly clean their hands and arms up to the elbow just before getting into the operating room. Healthcare providers should also clean their hands before and after caring for each patient with an alcohol-based rub or soap and water (Berríos-Torres et al., 2017). During surgery, surgeons and other providers should wear protective clothing such as masks, gowns, gloves, gowns, and hair covers to prevent the spread of germs. Patients should also bathe with soap or antiseptic agents before their surgery to eliminate any germs on their bodies (O’Hara et al., 2018). The surgical site should be cleaned with alcohol-based agents. These guidelines provide a comprehensive guide to the prevention of surgical site infections.
Treatment of surgical site infections depends on the severity and location. Antibiotics are the most common treatment for surgical site infections. These antibiotics may be administered orally or through IV. The healthcare providers may drain any abscess from the wound for testing to determine which antibiotics work best. Some SSIs require surgery to treat, especially those that involve organs. During the procedure, doctors reopen the wound, drain and test any fluid, remove dead or infected tissue, disinfect the wound with saline solution, and close it back up (Rickard & Beilman, 2020). Surgical wounds require regular dressing, which may be done by a healthcare provider or the patient themselves. This involves removing the old dressing, cleaning the wound with prescribed material, and then covering it with new dressing. Surgical site infections vary in the time they take to heal and the treatments required.
Technology and informatics are critical in addressing surgical site infections. Data gathered from patients help in discovering and treating any SSIs much faster. A study conducted by Lee et al. examined the effects of patient data on the surveillance of SSIs. Patients used apps in their smartphones to send images and other data on their post0surgery wounds to their healthcare providers. It was found that such remote monitoring of post-surgery recovery helped healthcare providers follow their patients’ progress and address any infections as soon as possible (Lee et al., 2019). Telemedicine is another useful way of diagnosing SSIs and monitoring patients” progress post-surgery. Telemedicine is especially useful in cases where patients are far from their health providers and may not have easy access to them. Telemedicine involves conducting post-op interviews with patients to determine their progress and if there is a chance that they may have post-surgery infections (Sandberg et al. 2019). Patients with suspected SSIs are advised to visit the hospital as soon as possible, meaning they can get treated sooner before their infections spread further and pose a severe risk to their health.
In summary, surgical site infections are a common occurrence post-surgery. There are various preventive and treatment measures available to deal with SSIs that reduce the risk to patient’s health and wellbeing.
References
Badia, J. M., Casey, A. L., Petrosillo, N., Hudson, P. M., Mitchell, S. A., & Crosby, C. (2017). Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: a systematic review in six European countries. Journal of Hospital Infection, 96(1), 1-15.
Berríos-Torres, S. I., Umscheid, C. A., Bratzler, D. W., Leas, B., Stone, E. C., Kelz, R. R., … & Schecter, W. P. (2017). Centers for disease control and prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA surgery, 152(8), 784-791.
Borchardt, R. A., & Tzizik, D. (2018). Update on surgical site infections: The new CDC guidelines. Journal of the American Academy of PAs, 31(4), 52-54.
Lee, J. R., Evans, H. L., Lober, W. B., Lavallee, D. C., & ASSIST Investigators. (2019). A stakeholder-driven framework for evaluating surgical site infection surveillance technologies. Surgical infections, 20(7), 588-591.
O’Hara, L. M., Thom, K. A., & Preas, M. A. (2018). Update to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection (2017): a summary, review, and strategies for implementation. American journal of infection control, 46(6), 602-609.
Rickard, J., & Beilman, G. (2020). A global strategy for the management of surgical infections. Surgical infections, 21(6), 477-477.
PowerPointGoogle SlidePrezi Presentation (@ 6-10 slides)
Nancy Armstrong-Sanchez ENG 350
Assignment 3: Comparative Analysis:
PowerPoint/Google Slide/Prezi Presentation (@ 6-10 slides)
Polished Draft Due on Friday, Oct 14 (by 11:59pm PST)
Context: Assignment 3 will be the first of two assignments this semester that incorporate multi-modal design. (Your next MMD assignment will be Assignment 5/Unit 5)
“Instead of a typical written research paper, multimodal projects include multiple modes for communicating your thesis, ideas, and research findings. This can include any combination of text and: images, video or animation, sound or audio.” (DH LibGuide)
Directions: To create your Comparative Analysis, decide on the following:
Topic: Select any 2 pieces on the same topic to examine for your Comparative Analysis presentation.
SOURCE: https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/writingspaces4/jacobson.pdf
Pro Tip: As long as you bring in some significantly new analysis into Assignment 3, you are welcomed to incorporate and build upon the work you have previously completed for Assignment 2. However, if you prefer not to stay with the original piece, you are also welcome to choose new pieces.
Moves Analysis: conduct a preliminary Moves Analysis on each of your selected pieces. Use this analysis work as the foundations for your Assignment 3 presentation. (For more information on Moves Analysis, please see the materials listed in Week 6, Step 1.)
Organization: decide if you will set up your Comparative Analysis using Block, Point by Point, or a combination of the two.
Modality: select your modality: PowerPoint, Google Slide, or Prezi
While we will have a more expansive conversation about multi-modal design in Unit 5, if you feel comfortable doing so, you can also move beyond these options.
As such, you are also welcomed to present your analysis via YouTube video, Tik Tok, Padlet, Sound Cloud, digital poster, TED Talk, mini-graphic novel, song, etc. (If you do so, please email me to discuss submission options beyond Canvas.)
Comparative Analysis Presentation: please see next page for specific analysis details
Prompt: Comparative Genre Analysis
Your goal in this assignment is to successfully read and interpret two pieces on the same topic, from the same genre. Using the broad framework of Genre Analysis, compare/contrast your two selections to one another, exploring the design, delivery, language, structure and effectiveness of each piece.
Possible Outline/Key Components of your presentation: To strengthen your analysis, develop and support a claim in which you articulate an overarching analysis of your pieces. Suggested guidelines:
Hook: A brief, meaningful reference to your Term/Key Concept.
Transition: build up some contextual knowledge for the reader.
Thesis: Present an argument about your analysis of the pieces. (In other words, what do you want your read to know/think/feel/believe about the pieces you are present in this essay and how their respective genres relate (compare/contrast) to one another?)
Next, support your claim in the body of your PPT, etc. by observing the following:
your analysis clearly states your reasons for your broad analysis of each piece.
your analysis gives strong, specific evidence from each piece you chose in support of your thesis.
the tone of your argument is essentially objective, adult, and controlled.
the work is organized — it should be assembled in a way that makes it easy for a reader to move through the assignment from beginning to end.
Then, as you compose your original analysis, consider examining 3-4 of the following:
Genre and Stance: How is the information shaped by the genre (s)? (Consider the limitations/freedoms of space, time, layout, audience, and so on.) What are the authors attitudes about the topics? Does the stance seem to be influenced by the relationship with the audience?
Audience & Purpose Questions: Who is the intended audience for each piece? What discourse community (or communities) is this audience in? What is the audience likely to know? Want to know? Why? How much time will this audience want to spend with the information presented in the pieces? What is the purpose of the information presented in the piece? (Inform, persuade, etc.)
Structure & Language Questions: How are the pieces organized to convey their message? How does the structure facilitate the purpose of the information in the piece (s)? Style/Language: How formal/informal is the language? What specialized vocabulary is used? What other language features do you notice, especially with respect to sentence level and voice choices?
Support Questions (Data & Literature): How are claims stated and supported? How much context or background is provided? Is data presented using charts, tables, figures, etc.? What type and amount of evidence is used, and how is it used? How is the credibility of the evidence indicated?
Finally, wrap up the gist of your assignment and consider the implication of your argument. Which piece was more effective in conveying its message? Why? What do you hope your reader takes away from your analysis of these pieces?
Assignment due date(s)
WIP for Peer Review due date
Tuesday, Oct 11 (Please see Week 7 Folder for specific details)
WIP for Instructor Feedback due date:
Wednesday, Oct 12 (Please see Week 7 Folder for specific details)
Polished Draft due
Friday, Oct 14, 11:59pm PST, via Turnitin
Grading: Each of the following categories, will be graded as strong, solid, or developing.
Focus: The work offers a well-articulated topic, issues or questions for analysis, and claim. All information included relates to the presenter’s topic and main argument. (30%)
Organization: The work has a logical structure, with information clearly labeled. Each element of the work has an obvious relation to the other elements. (30%)
Development/Support through use of Digital Content: The work incorporates all required information. The discussion of observations/applicable materials support the presenter’s claim. (20%)
Design: All aspects of the work are comprehensible, accessible, and serve a specific purpose. (10%)
Works Cited Page: All relevant pieces correctly cited and noted in the Works Cited Page. (10%)
Overall Presentation: Overall presentation a clear, organized, and succinct.
(amended from http://faculty.washington.edu/kgb/cyberculture/poster_presentation_assignment.pdf)
NOTES ON CITING SOURCES
For basic information on in-text parenthetical citations, see our text. The basic rules are simple:
Cite your source by including the author’s last name and the page number/numbers in a parenthesis, right as soon as you finish the quote or paraphrase: “Blah di blah blah blah blah” (Jones 92).
If you mention the author’s name in setting up the quote/paraphrase, you don’t include it in the parenthesis: However, Smith notes that x, y, and z (84).
If you’re changing pages but not authors, you don’t need to repeat the author’s name: “Blah di blah blah blah blah” (Johnson 92). However, she also later describes the situation as “ultra blah di blah” (96).
Here is a sample works cited page…
Works Cited
Bean, John C., Virginia A. Chappell, and Alice M. Gillam. Reading Rhetorically. 3rd ed. Boston: Longman,
2011. Print.
Cirincione, Joseph. “The War on Iraq Was Not Justified.” The War on Terrorism: Opposing Viewpoints.
Ed. Karen Balkin. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2005. 56-63. Print.
Darling, Dan. “The War on Iraq Was Justified.” The War on Terrorism: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Karen
Balkin. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2005. 50-55. Print.
Kimmel, Michael S. “Culture Establishes Gender Roles.” Male/female Roles: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed.
Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2005. 27-37. Print.
Norman, Geoffrey. “Biological Differences Establish Gender Roles.” Male/female Roles: Opposing
Viewpoints. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2005. 21-26. Print.
Brown, Judie. “Stem Cell Research Is Murder.” Stem Cell Research. Ed. Jennifer Skancke. Farmington
Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2009. 39-46. Print.
Holcberg, David, and Alex Epstein. “Stem Cell Research Is Not Murder.” Stem Cell Research. Ed. Jennifer
Skancke. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2009. 47-51. Print.