The field of nursing has changed over time. In a 750-1,000 word paper, discuss nursing practice today by addressing the following:
Explain how nursing practice has changed over time and how this evolution has changed the scope of practice and the approach to treating the individual. Compare and contrast the differentiated practice competencies between an associate and baccalaureate education in nursing. Explain how scope of practice changes between an associate and baccalaureate nurse. Identify a patient care situation and describe how nursing care, or approaches to decision-making, differ between the BSN-prepared nurse and the ADN nurse. Discuss the significance of applying evidence-based practice to nursing care and explain how the academic preparation of the RN-BSN nurse supports its application. Discuss how nurses today communicate and collaborate with interdisciplinary teams and how this supports safer and more effective patient outcomes.
Question 1: Write a 100-word unique of the case, including the date of the case The article gives a short examination and survey of a case in which the administration of the United States prompted the U.S. Preeminent Court. This is the protection of the case bid 384 U.S. rivalry 270 introduced by the U.S. government against VON Grocery Co. (Von) in 1966 in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California No. 303. Span was March 22, 1966 and the conveyance of a decision was the May 31, 1966. It was supportive of the respondent. This just reminded interest, government controllers were overlooking circumstances that happen inside its ward. It was notwithstanding his insight into the changing improvements in market structures that controlled procedures. Government controllers neglected to change to a casual disposition contrasted with past authoritative methods important responded to the dangers and chances of his time. Subsequently, this prompted the counteractive action of uncalled for exchange practices or transfer of comparable monetary exercises of little scale business. Catchphrases: VON'S GROCERY CO, 384 U.S. 270, Shopping Bag Food Stores and 7 of the Clayton Act. Question 2: Describe the arrangement of the US Antirust Law conjured to pass judgment on the nearness of hostile to aggressive conduct or capability of for moving the business toward that path. The 1960 merger of Von Grocery Company with contender Shopping Bag Food Stores (Shopping Bag) whose areas are in Los Angeles, California abused Section 7 of the Clayton Act (n. P Thomson Reuter). Its revision in 1950 manages the sensible end through the preclusion of mergers and acquisitions, which diminished rivalry. Indeed, even after another correction in 1980, remains the primary reference point for antitrust law mergers that debilitated the United States (Fox and Fox). Question 3: Describe the reason for the decision and activity that relate to all OR a portion of the accompanying variables: The degree and pattern in rivalry and expected later on: Industry Structure and pattern and projection for the future [based on the past, mostly]; CR4, CR8 and HHI, uncommonly in instances of mergers. The case of the United States had different changes as help for their contentions. They were the 1950 correction to Section 7 of the Celler-Kefauver and Congress looked to save rivalry for private ventures. Was additionally proposed to enable organizations to center. The court was the specialist that was against huge organizations that utilization fixations in business sectors with expanding centralization of business. He prevailing with regards to stripping after United States v. Philadelphia National. . Bank, 374 U.S. 321 Celler-Kefauver 362 Anti-Merger Act 1950 as changed gives pertinent data: "That no organization occupied with business … will secure all or part of the advantages of another organization additionally occupied with trade, where in any line of trade in any piece of the nation, the impact of such obtaining might be significantly to diminish rivalry or have a tendency to make a restraining infrastructure. " Question 4: Describe the "direct" being referred to that has been considered "anticompetitive:"Determine if the litigant had utilized an anticompetitive Price Strategy and clarify how. Moreover, depict any Non-value Strategies the litigant had utilized and portray how. In contributing 233 F. Supp. 976 Richard A. Posner was advise for the United States. Your tips help were Attorney General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert B. Hummel, James J. Coyle and John F. Hughes. The safeguard lawyer was William W. Alsup. Your tips help Warren M. Christopher and were William W. Vaughn. As an invested individual, the National Association of Retail Grocers of the United States Attorney Bison was Henry J., Jr., as amicus curiae, encouraging affirmance. MR. Equity BLACK was the judge for the situation and give judgment. The date of the first application was March 25, 1960. Walk 28, 1960, the District Court did not concede the movement of the Government for a controlling request against Von Grocery Company. The last needed to procure unmistakable capital around the Shopping Bag Food Stores, and the decision was that not damage the terms of interest. It was a secondary passage method for perceiving the merger and demonstrating preference to the charged before conclusive judgment. The primary contention of the resistance was that an organization was shielding the other from the condition of crumple. They converged to ensure a more grounded contender. 374 U.S. 321, 362 was the case that disallowing such mergers. There were bank advances may have approached and petitioning for financial protection as a money related inclusion. The organization accomplished this when it was going to fall. He figured out how to regroup with the assistance of government organizations and private budgetary advisors. Question 5: Describe the impact of the litigant's "direct" on different firms (or the primary adversary) in the business. Von was the third biggest basic need advertise in the retail zone Los Angeles on deals while the shopping sack of sustenance was number six out of 1958. Their 1960 joint deals rose 7.5% a yearly yield of more than two million. Your Los Angeles showcase appeared to be too little piece of their market to the legislature to battle. Be that as it may, if the best ten organizations had twofold joined, their aggregate piece of the overall industry could have been about 33% of the retail market of Los Angeles. To be reasonable for these stores, which had started as the active neighborhood store numerous Americans of his age knew. Ten of the past twelve years to the merger, the quantity of stores has expanded to somewhat more than twice their number. The other positive numbers incorporate expanded deals and piece of the overall industry. Its merger situated the number two market chains in Los Angeles. In the mean time, the revelation of individual proprietors tennis shops in Los Angeles dropped by almost two-fifths. In 1963, the numbers kept on declining. The administration witnesses did not have an exhaustive examination of the statistical data points that the guard previously possessed. For instance, from 1949 until 1958, nine of the best 20 contenders chains came into ownership of 126 stores littler adversaries. An essential resistance witness gave points of interest of past acquisitions and mergers from 1954 to 1961. Obviously they were in the best 10 stores in Los Angeles. You should seriously mull over this as a common individual and biased legitimate activity. They ought to likewise have ground The nine contenders target adversaries for littler gatherings to lawful activity. Be that as it may, the association of the two forces of monetary market was a danger to government control in the territory of â€‹â€‹Los Angeles. The administration revealed information in its answer, the Federal Trade Commission arranged. Question 6: Describe the underlying legitimate move made against or for the litigant. The underlying legitimate move made against the respondent is that the US government blamed Von's Grocery Company for abusing Section 7 of the Clayton Act since it was an endeavoring to make an imposing business model. The organization offered and the District Court controlled to support its. Additionally, notice that the administration made allegations against the organization since it needed to buy a littler rival in the retail basic supply showcase that was called Shopping Bag Food Stores. Question 7: Describe any consequent lawful activity for the situation, (for example, the Supreme Court), assuming any. When the case was settled there was no resulting move made. The choice looking into it was revoked by the District Court and it was workable for Von's Grocery Company to converge with, and thusly ingest, Shopping Bag Food Stores. Question 8: Carefully depict how the model of Structure-Conduct-Performance has been connected for the situation under thought. [The weight for this inquiry is 40% of the grade.] The historical backdrop of the battle against mergers in the United States started in 1890. Around then, Congress passed the Sherman Act to avoid imposing business models. Doubt of Americans back to the establishing of the nation. Lamentably, did not secure the littler organizations agent bigger monopolistic weights. In 1897, the Court decided that the U.S. government against Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U.S. 290, 323. In [384 U.S. 270, 275], the Sherman Act did not secure the little representative. Congressional endorsement in 1914, 7 of the Clayton Act permitted the merger of organizations through the buy of offers of its rivals. By differentiation, businessmen discover a proviso and purchased his rivals resources. A hit to the battle against the Clayton Act gadget accompanied the underwriting of Judge Brandeis, Taft boss equity and judges Holmes and Stone in 1926. Thus, there was a decrease in the quantity of expansive organizations. The activity was in 1950 Congress embraced the Celler-Kefauver Anti-Merger Act. Agent Celler and Senator Kefauver fundamental reference was 384 U.S. officials 270, 276 for the period 1940-1947. They utilized the Brown Shoe Co. v United States, 370 U.S. 294, 315 to contend their focuses. They and different individuals from Congress had similar concerns. Conversely, 7 of the Clayton Act had stamps in their tidal pond and expanding its inclusion utilizing 384 U.S. 270, 277. Clearing This included mergers among contenders and stop all cases of mergers. The U.S. v National Philadelphia. Managing an account, prompted Amendment 7 to drop the counter focused inclinations. 384 U.S. 270, 279 is another instance of reference that permitted the entry of the Celler-Kefauver Act. In United States v. El Paso Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651, 662 litigants El Paso Gas Co. were advised of antitrust charges and declined to put off divestment from the earliest starting point. Besides, these two other comparable instances of United States v. du Pont and Co., 366 U.S. 316; United States v. Alcoa, 377 U.S. 271, 281 are pre-preliminary interest 384 U.S. 270, 303 which was exposed to investigation. Choices of grammatical errors with the figures displayed in court said the administration ran an introduction to meet with any individual or body eccentricities. The administration controller requires consistent award.>GET ANSWER