Answer:
When you are working with severely cognitive impairment, many factors need to be considered ranging from physical cares such as avoiding dehydration, malnutrition, falls, injures and medicine to their psychological and emotional wellbeing.
Explanation:
To provide safe and high- quality care to those with severe mental loss, we need to be alert to prevent patients hurting themselves or to avoid hostile atmosphere. Apart from monitoring their physiological needs, we need to provide a warm, bright and nurturing context. Be patient and alert to any complications or adverse events. It is important to listen to previous carers and family to tailor the patient's safe-keeping. Every person is presumed to have capacity until traces of delirium, risk of harm or dementia are noticed. Thus, communication at all times is the key. The unfamiliar atmosphere in a hospital may be overwhelming so you should resource to verbal communication and respect for a person's privacy. Finally, decision-making should be always consulted with the patient's family or legal guardian.
Answer:
Does this question have any type of options upon it? All I can provide for this question is what the main theme of a poem is. The theme of a poem is like the life lesson of what you were reading, in other words what you've learned from reading that particular poem.
Hopefully this helps! If this wasn't the answer you were looking for please don't hesitate to private message me or comment here. Have a nice day/night! :)
Explanation:
:)
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
Most people with lower educations work for minimum wage, while a higher percentage of higher educated people work for higher than minimum wage.
Answer: It supported the District Court’s decision that the students’ constitutional rights had not been violated.
Explanation:
The case of Ingraham v. Wright was heard in 1976 in the Supreme court based on an event that happened in 1970 where James Ingraham was paddled by the principal of a public high school in Florida to the point of needing medical assistance.
The district court the case was first heard in dismissed it and the Court of Appeals upheld this dismissal.
The Supreme court then agreed with the District court in saying that corporal punishment did not infringe upon Constitutional rights so the students’ constitutional rights had not been violated.
