These are requirements for forum initial posts and cases studies: ALWAYS first present relevant background information and normal physiological content with citations. THEN cover the questions in DETAIL. Please use correct medical/ physiological terminology at all times. (You are presenting to your peers and to me, not your patients).

Forum posts: Correctly cite all sources. Follow up posts (TWO minimum are required) must be meaningful – do not just say “great post” or “recycle” previous posts.  Those will NOT be counted. You are urged to mention your clinical experiences in posts. 

3. PLEASE ESPECIALLY NOTE – AVOID PLAGIARISM (even the appearance of it): please see the Syllabus. The policy will be strictly followed.

Multiple sources are required for initial forum postings and the case studies.  Do NOT use direct quotations or do NOT just copy content from sources and then cite. ALWAYS paraphrase content in your OWN words and then cite. Note that Wiki’s, dot-orgs, dot-coms, encyclopediae, etc. are NOT legitimate sources. Provide the page number if you cite from your text.

Plagiarism includes: direct quotations, copying content in any way shape or form, copying from students, copying directly from the text, copying material from internet answer pools, the publisher or any source that you should not access as students. Your case study submissions will be checked using Turnitin plagiarism software. Please see the course Syllabus.

This is at the master level 

Please explained the pathophysiology of the patient condition and explained the cellular function and cellular damages Mandy Case Study

Mandy is a 16-year-old competitive figure skater who practices several hours a day with her coach at the skating arena. Because of her extremely active lifestyle and restricted diet to maintain her athletic physique, she experiences ongoing amenorrhea. One day during practice, she landed a jump and fell to the ice in pain. Her left foot swelled up almost immediately, making it difficult for her coach to remove the skate. At the hospital, radiographs revealed a fracture of the fifth metatarsal bone and general radiolucency of all the bones in her foot. A follow-up DXA revealed a bone mass of 2.7 standard deviations below mean.

Student Name:

1.    What is the etiology of Mandy’s premature osteoporosis, and how her condition is thought to contribute to a decrease in bone density?

2.    Knowing what you do about bone mineralization, why does a deficiency of estrogen in women lead to osteoporotic change?

3.    Osteoporosis and osteomalacia both involve abnormal bone mineralization. What are the general macroscopic differences of these two conditions?

5 pages for this assignment please. No title page, no conclusion. follow direction as stated above. I will send a sample from another student as well. 

Thank youI

EVA

Surfit Company, which manufactures surfboards, has been in business for six years. Sam Foster, owner of Surfit, is pleased with the firm’s profit picture and is considering taking the company public (i.e., selling stock in Surfit on the NASDAQ exchange). Data for the past year are as follows:

After tax operating income	$ 250,000
Total capital employed	1,060,000
Long term debt (interest at 9%)	100,000
Owner’s equity	900,000

Surfit Company pays taxes at the rate of 35 percent.

Required:

1. Calculate the weighted average cost of capital, assuming that owner’s equity is valued at the average cost of common stock of 12 percent. Calculate the total cost of capital for Surfit Company last year.

2. Calculate EVA for Surfit Company.

Edison Company manufactures wool blankets and accounts for product costs using process costing. The following information is available regarding its May inventories.

	Beginning Inventory	Ending Inventory
Raw materials inventory	$ 28,000	$ 25,500
Goods in process inventory	220,750	252,000
Finished goods inventory	319,000	277,000

The following additional information describes the company’s production activities for May.

Raw materials purchases (on credit)	$ 135,000
Factory payroll cost (paid in cash)	791,500
Other overhead cost (Other Accounts credited)	43,000
Materials used
Direct	$ 93,500
Indirect	31,000
Labor used
Direct	$ 352,000
Indirect	439,500
Overhead rate as a percent of direct labor	110%
Sales (on credit)	$1,500,000

Required

1. Compute the cost of (a) products transferred from production to finished goods, and (b) goods sold.

2. Prepare summary journal entries dated May 31 to record the following production activities during May: (a) raw materials purchases, (b) direct materials usage, (c) indirect materials usage, (d) payroll costs, (e) direct labor costs, (f) indirect labor costs, (g) other overhead costs, (h) overhead applied, (i) goods transferred from production to finished goods, and (j) sale of finished goods.

Write a narrative essay describing why whatyou have done in your nursing career meets the objectives

Describe the evolution of the health care industry and its implications for providers, consumers, and third-party payers.

• Explain the salient characteristics of various types of provider organizations, including mission, program goals and objectives, management structure, staffing requirements, and policies and procedures.
• Discuss important legislative and regulatory constraints in health care.
• Describe essential functions and activities related to the business of healthcare, such as budgeting, marketing, program planning, and staffing.
• Research emerging trends in health care, formulate solutions to current issues, and forecast future directions in the health care field

It is important that you learn how to critically review research.  In our society today, we are exposed to so much information and so many studies.  Some of this information is excellent, some is useful, and some is very, very bad.  How can you determine what information is useful and what is dangerous?  One way is to take a course like Critical Thinking; however, the facts that I give you will be outdated all too soon. The most important thing you will learn from this course—and from your college education—is how to critically evaluate information presented to you. Critical thinking involves asking five questions: who, what, when, where, how.

1. Find and read an article in the media or a video clip that reports the results of a scientific study.   You must include the link to the website.
2. How accurately did the mass media report the study?
3. Answer the above five questions about the article (Who, What, When, Where, and How). Refer to page 353 of your text and be sure to cover all the highlights discussed.
4. Do NOT use entertainment or sports articles for your review. These are to be research based.

Directions:

You will write a one-page critical review of the article.  The review should answer each of the five questions.  You must cite your source.  If it is a website, please make sure you put the entire web address. Remember you are evaluating critically, not just summarizing. See the examples below the grading rubric:

Week 4: Critical Review Point Value Adequately covers and answers the 5 questions, plus the summary section (10 points per section) 60 points Chooses a scholarly/researchable topic 10 points Uses the recommended number of scholarly resources correctly cited in APA format (at least four)    10 points Meets the required word minimum (150 words) and posts word count 10 points Follows APA formatting with parenthetical citations and referencing 10 points Total: 100 points

CRITICAL THINKING REVIEW EXAMPLE:

Critical thinking involves asking five questions – who, when, what, where, how.

You should organize your paper in the following manner:  

Your Name                                                                                           Critical Review

Author, I. (date of publication). Title of article. Name of Publication, volume #, page #-#.

OR  

Author, I. (date of publication if available). Title of article. Retrieved [date accessed] from the World Wide Web: [Web site address]

Where: Where did this article/Web page appear? Is this reasonable? Is the publishing entity respectable/responsible?  

Who: Who wrote/published the article/Web page? What are their credentials? Are the credentials appropriate for their argument?

When: Is this current information? If yes, do you think it will stand the “test of time”? If no, is it outdated or is it classic?  

What: What argument is/are the author(s) making? Is it logical? Based on what you know, is it reasonable? What evidence is given to support the argument? Can you think of evidence to refute it?

How: How was the supporting/refuting evidence collected? Is this credible? What kind of evidence do you think needs to be gathered to test the argument? Did the author(s) do this?  

Summarize the quality of the article (it does not have to be a “good” article in your opinion), and whether you consider this to be a worthwhile and trustworthy article. Did you think it was biased? Could the author have underlying motives? What do you think? Is it valid?

NOTE: Do not simply answer yes or no to the questions above. Write a thoughtful response to each section.  

SAMPLE CRITICAL REVIEW:

Virginia Norris                                                                                    Critical Review

Eggenberger, T. Sentinel node biopsy. Retrieved August 30, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.intellihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9103/29497.html  

Where: The Intellihealth Web site is a general information health Web site. It draws information from “trusted sources” (e.g., Harvard Medical School, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine); however, it sells health products and is financed by an insurance company. They do not endorse specific products. In general, the information on this site should be viewed with caution but may be an appropriate first step.Who: Ty Eggenberger, a correspondent for Intellihealth. No evidence is given for the author’s credentials, but the Web site indicates that the editors are experts and use trusted sources.  When: Although the site was last updated 8/27/01, there is no indication when the article was written. It appears to be current, but this cannot be evaluated.What: This article reviews a new diagnostic procedure, sentinel node biopsy, for breast cancer. They suggest that women investigate this option, but caution that the surgeon’s experience level is associated with diagnostic accuracy. The information is supported with quotations from a surgeon at a prestigious hospital. The argument appears reasonable and is appropriately cautious. If I were looking for advice on this issue, I would search in more clinically oriented databases to look for data on hits and misses for this diagnostic tool.  How: I was disappointed that no source was cited. This makes it difficult for me to evaluate how the evidence was collected.

In summary, this is a good first-step article that presents a new diagnostic tool; however, before insisting on this type of biopsy over an axillary dissection, I would look for further information.