Effectiveness of Normal Saline Lavage

post has three assignments

1:Evidence based Research

Order Description

SELECTED PROBLEM : Suctioning the Pediatric Patient: Effectiveness of Normal Saline Lavage

Write a 3- to 4-page paper that includes the following:
• 1.A summary of your area of interest, an identification of the problem that you have selected, and
• 2. an explanation of the significance of this problem for nursing practice
• 3. The 5 questions you have generated and a description of how you analyzed them for feasibility
• 4. Your preliminary PICOT question and a description of each PICOT variable relevant to your question
• 5. At least 10 possible keywords that could be used when conducting a literature search for your PICOT question and a rationale for your selections.

2:Brown v. the Board of Education”

Order Description

Read Case 40.3, Johnson Bank v. George Korbaken Company, LLP. 472F.3d 439. Web2006 U.S. App.Lexis 31058 (2006) United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Using the IRAC Method of briefing cases found in the Appendix, prepare a document that outlines the legal aspects of this case.

Many lawsuits against accountants involve liability of accountants to Third Parties. The plaintiffs are Third Parties (e.g., shareholders, bondholders, trade creditors, and banks) who relied on information supplied by the auditor. There are three (3) major rules of liability that a state can adopt in determining whether an accountant is liable in negligence to third parties.

1. The Ultramares doctrine.
2. Section 552 of The Restatement (Second) of Torts.
3. The foreseeability standard.

Write a seven (7) page paper in which you:

1. Summarize the facts associated with Johnson Bank v. George Korbaken Company.
2. Identity the primary and secondary legal question(s) that are under consideration.
3. Prioritize the rules of law that the court will consider in this case.
4. Compile the court’s decision and opinions on the case.
5. Prepare a conclusion for the outcome of the case.
6. Determine how this case may have been treated differently if it had been decided in 2012 instead of 2006.

Pediatric Patient