Good luck on that because its really really long
The main<u> </u><u>difference</u><u> between a</u><u> TIA</u> (transient ischemic attack) <u>and </u><u>RIND</u> (Reversible ischemic neurologic deficit) is the time duration taken for reversal of symptoms.
Explanation:
The symptoms of TIA can last for about 24 hours and settle within a day. RIND lasts for more than 24 hours and clears within a week or few weeks. This means that RIND is actually a mini version of TIA.
<u>Perspective of the paramedic:</u>
Since both the conditions exhibits acute mini stroke-like conditions with reversal of symptoms, the perspective of the paramedic will be the same for both TIA and RIND.
The paramedics in the field should conduct GCS and FAST tests, detect stroke and its damage caused, should obtain other basic information at the field, and administer basic neuroprotective treatment modalities to save the patient from further damage.
<u>In the hospital,</u> for both TIA and RIND, the primary stroke management is to restore the blood supply to the brain through anticlotting agents like tPA injections or endovascular procedures
. The treatment can vary later according to the severity of the stroke.
In the event of a bioterrorism attack with anthrax, you would anticipate the use of antibiotics.
An antibiotic such as ciprofloxacin (Cipro), doxycycline, or levofloxacin is the conventional treatment for anthrax. The medical team should prepare for the use of tetracyclines like doxycycline in the event of an anthrax bioterrorism attack.
The deliberate release of viruses, bacteria, or other germs that can infect or kill humans, animals, or crops is known as a biological attack or bioterrorism. "One of the most likely agents to be employed in a biological attack is<em> Bacillus anthracis</em>, the bacteria that causes anthrax." The disease mostly affects animals, but when people come into touch with an infected animal, whether directly or indirectly, they become afflicted as well.
To learn more about bioterrorism attack and anthrax here,
brainly.com/question/14637506
#SPJ4
Answer:
<h3>your question:</h3>
Do you find Dr. Natterson-Horowitz’s argument that physicians can learn a lot from veterinarians convincing? What part of her argument is, to you, especially strong or weak?
<h3>answer:</h3>
Yes, I found it very convincing because of the fact that she has personal experience, facts, and good examples.
