Explanation:
Dr. Liz, specialist in orthodontics, carried out analysis studies regarding the information registered in the system, by the previous dentist, she could clearly notice that there was not a complete registry regarding the controls performed on the patients, there was an information disorder, and many times the information was not true regarding the patient's history; All this led to an in-depth investigation and it was found that there was definitely no distributional order regarding the patients that correspond to each of the EPS or entities to which the primary Ips provides the service.
However, Dr. Liz found that the problem of the lack of information began from the moment the Doctor made the registration, since on many occasions he did not have the appropriate tools to do it as a good computer since sometimes it had failures and the information was written on forms that many times, due to the number of patients, were recast or lost.
As a first step, it was necessary for the doctors to be made aware of the correct registration and to diligently attend to and detail the records of each patient; In addition also that the equipment and instruments necessary to collect the information were requested urgently, at the beginning, Liz said it was not easy, it was a total rejection, because joint work and collaboration were needed, in addition to the limitation of spaces and resources of the Ips seemed impossible to solve all those problems.
Finally, the medical evidence and the disagreement of the patients, due to the misinformation and lack of records, made it possible for concrete solutions to be given for the common benefit.
Neuro-correlational Approach: Links measures of cognitive performance with brain structure functioning.
What is the brain Maintenance theory?
At the heart of the term brain maintenance is the notion that between-person differences in how well preserved people's brains are as they age can explain between-person differences in within-person changes in cognitive ability in aging [8].
What is cognitive reserve?
Cognitive reserve refers to individual differences in how tasks are performed that may allow some people to be more resilient than others.
The concept of cognitive reserve holds out the promise of interventions that could slow cognitive aging or reduce the risk of dementia.
Learn more about cognitive research here:
brainly.com/question/14637728
#SPJ4
Answer: Well, Simply, you'd need some type of survival training, let's saying theoretically this world had some equivalent features to earth itself, you'd first need to gather sticks and rocks make a campfire then build a tent out of certain things in the woods, to survive the first night early morning would be the best time to head out and try to find resources or even civilization, if nothing is found, the other way of survival would be to get a large stick and with anything sharp your's want to shape part of the stick to be pointy thus making it a spear and trying to catch fish with it.
Answer:
B
Explanation:
The amount of time varies with the circumstances. Usually an officer must possess an warrant and announce who they are before entering a home either for arrest or search. However, an exception can occur where the officer can enter forcibly without warrant in order to prevent someone being killed or tampering with an evidence. The amount of resonable time to wait depends the type of exigent circumstances in question
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
