Missy is a healthy 4-year-old who seems to be in perpetual motion. She came home from preschool today and told her mother she was tired and wanted to take a nap. Her mother immediately sensed there was something wrong, because Missy never volunteers to take a nap. Missy’s appetite was diminished at dinner, and although she appeared pale, she went to bed that night without complaint.
The following morning, Missy looks very ill, refuses to get out of bed, and hasn’t urinated since 8 p.m. the evening before. Missy’s mother brings her to the pediatrician’s office, where Missy is diagnosed with acute tubular necrosis (ATN). Her pediatrician admits Missy to the local acute care facility. You are the nurse admitting Missy to the pediatric unit.
What questions would you ask Missy’s mother to determine contributory factors of the development of acute tubular necrosis?
What orders would you anticipate from the healthcare provider to prevent the development of ARF?
What independent nursing orders would you develop to provide holistic, family-centered care for Missy?
What nursing diagnosis would be appropriate for Missy’s plan of care?
mainstream political parties were to adopt a strong anti-EU policy. The 1986 Single European Act and the Maastrict Treaty can be seen as reducing Britain’s sovereignty since they have extended the range of policy areas on which the EU can legislate. This has caused many British Conservative members of the European Parliament to continually vote against many proposals, not because they necessarily disagree with them, but that they think they should be dealt with at a national level. Upon Britain’s accession to the EU in 1973, direct effect was accepted by us pretty much immediately. However this was completely opposite when it came to the United Kingdom accepting the supremacy of EU law. This was seen to be a problem because the doctrine conflicts centrally with the concept of having British constitution of ‘parliamentary sovereignty.’ The acts of parliament override all existing law or legislation. However in 1990 the House of Lords found a way to reconcile British parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy. As on a reference from the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice ruled that a 1988 act of British parliament was in breach of EU law. “The House of Lords accepted the judgement on the grounds that in passing the 1972 act of accession to the EU, British parliament had voluntarily accepted the EU legal system of which the supremacy of EU law is a central part. The House of Lords also argued that this does not compromise parliamentary sovereignty, as a future British parliament could repeal this act of accession.” (The political system of the European Union, Simon Hix, Macmillan Press, London, page 117) Britain’s entry into the European Treaty’s has attracted huge reform, as British Parliament must legislate in conjunction with EU law. And Acts and Laws already in existence must be interpreted to conform to EU Law, and the State has to ensure that all EU law is transposed and implemented accurately. This puts a huge strain on the Courts whilst ruling, thus making a mockery of Precedent as any case incorporating EU legislation can only be considered using the purposive approach, in order that EU directive can be met. So then this means that Britain has not in fact reserved its sovereignty as promised when first mentioned to the public all those years before. To understand the concept, we first need to acknowledge the unw>GET ANSWER