(1) Create a workflow diagram to demonstrate a process in healthcare.
To construct your diagram, you can use symbols and shapes found in Microsoft Word. (If you aren’t familiar with using symbols and shapes in Word, the NAU Online Library’s Learning Express video tutorials can help, or you can view “Creating a Simple Flowchart in Microsoft Word,” a YouTube video hosted by Floyd Jay Winters, for a very quick introduction.)
Alternatively, you may wish to use a web-based mind mapping tool such as Coggle or WiseMapping. These tools are specially built to make web-based mind mapping easy, and give you the ability to export your work as a .PDF for upload to the dropbox.
If you’d like to draw your mind map by hand and scan it as a .PDF for upload, you can do that, too. Just make sure you have access to all the tools and know-how you need to get the job done (See Alan Henry’s LifeHacker article “5 Best Mobile Document Scanning Apps” for ideas).
(2) Review the steps in the diagram to determine how technology could impact the workflow. Then, create a revised diagram that integrates the use of technology.
(3) In a 1-page double-spaced report, compare the workflow in both diagrams. Summarize how the workflow can be maximized through the use of technology and outline steps of the work flow that can be redesigned to better accommodate the use of technology.
showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, >GET ANSWER