Event committee testa quiz

President Xi Jinping, who is also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, visits Luoyang Bearing Group Co on Monday afternoon during his inspection of Luoyang, Henan province. During the visit, Xi called for continuous efforts to make the manufacturing industry even stronger to advance Chinese modernization. YAN YAN/XINHUA President Xi Jinping has stressed the importance of keeping businesses, employment, the market and expectations stable in the face of a complex international environment, saying that China will respond to various uncertainties with the certainty of its high-quality development. Xi, who is also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, made the remarks on Tuesday as he wrapped up a two-day fact-finding trip to Central China's Henan province. Speaking to provincial Party and government officials at a work briefing on Tuesday in Zhengzhou, the provincial capital, Xi said that high-quality development is essential to Chinese modernization. Faced with the complex external environment, it is necessary to firm up confidence, unwaveringly manage China's own affairs well, and steadfastly expand high-level opening-up, he said. He also urged Henan, one of the country's economic powerhouses, to further consolidate the foundation of its real economy, and promote the development of new quality productive forces suited to local conditions and led by technological innovation, in order to enhance the capacity of its modern industrial system to support high-quality development. When visiting Luoyang Bearing Group Co in the city of Luoyang on Monday, Xi said: "China has always adhered to the path of developing the real economy. From the past reliance on imported matches, soap and iron, to now becoming the world's largest manufacturing country with the most complete industrial categories, we have taken the right path." As a traditional manufacturing enterprise specializing in bearings, Luoyang Bearing Group's products are widely used in fields such as aerospace, construction machinery, wind power generation, rail transit, port machinery and ships. After learning about the company's efforts to accelerate the development of advanced manufacturing, Xi said that China must continue to strengthen the manufacturing sector, adhere to the principles of building self-reliance and strength, and master core technologies in key fields. "The hope is placed on you," he told the on-site workers. He also called for efforts to strengthen collaboration between industries, universities and research institutes, and cultivate a large number of high-quality talent. Despite internal challenges and increasing external shocks, China's manufacturing industry has withstood pressure and maintained stable growth. In April, the manufacturing sector saw its value-added output climb 6.6 percent year-on-year, with that of equipment manufacturing and high-tech manufacturing up 9.8 percent and 10 percent, respectively, according to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics on Monday. Advanced manufacturing is the high ground in global industrial competition and the main battlefield for technological innovation. Xi has repeatedly emphasized the need to upgrade the country's modernized industrial system, supported by advanced manufacturing. In a resolution adopted at the third plenary session of the 20th CPC Central Committee in July last year, it was clearly stated that China will move faster to advance new industrialization, promote the growth and expansion of advanced manufacturing clusters, and make the manufacturing sector higher-end, smarter and more eco-friendly. On Monday, Xi also visited the White Horse Temple, the first Buddhist temple in China, and the Longmen Grottoes, a UNESCO World Heritage site. Contact the writers at mojingxi@chinadaily.com.cn

7.018 Safe Injection Practices (Refer to 7.07 Safe Injection Policy) Environment of Care: Active participation with all identified projects to assess compliance with infection control standards. . Surveillance, Control, and Reporting includes: Baseline information about the frequency and type of nosocomial infections. Identification of patients and/or staff with communicable or potentially communicable infections. Patients identified with a communicable disease will be isolated from other patients in the facility or, if this is not possible, they will be transferred to a local hospital for care or rescheduled. Identification of clusters of microorganisms or significant deviations from endemic level. Reporting to committees and outside agencies, when required. Investigation of infections as needed. Immediate implementation of corrective and preventive measures that result in improvements. The Infection Control nurse or designated staff member will perform facility audits and report results to the QI committee and Board of Managers. EVALUATION Evaluation and improvement of the infection prevention and control activities are important steps in the Center’s efforts to control and prevent infection. Infection prevention and control practices should become a routine part of the care, treatment, or services the center provides to patients. Patients expect and deserve hygienic and safe care even if their contact with the Center does not extend beyond a single visit. Continuous review of the goals, activities, and outcomes of the Center’s initiative are therefore followed by improvement activities that are realistic in expectation and, above all, effective. Evaluation of the plan shall include but not be limited to: Evaluation of the infection prevention and control activities annually and whenever risks significantly change. The evaluation includes a review of the following: The infection prevention and control prioritized risks The infection prevention and control goals. Implementation of infection prevention and control Outcomes of infection prevention and control activities. Findings from the evaluation are communicated at least annually to the Quality Management Committee References: http://oneandonlycampaign.org/content/what-are-they-why-follow-them. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2004). Guidance for the Selection and Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in Healthcare Settings. Retrieved January 29, 2015 from www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/sharps.html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2003). Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities 52(RR10);1-42. Retrieved January 29, 2015 from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5210a1.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR. 51(RR-16). Retrieved January 29, 2015 from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5116a1.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2008). Sharps Safety Workbook. Retrieved April 24 2014 from http://www.cdc.gov/sharpssafety/pdf/workbookcomplete.pdf. Guideline for Infection Control in Healthcare Personnnel available at: Guideline for Infection Control in Healthcare Personnel available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/InfectControl98.pdf Immunization of HealthCare Personnel, guidance available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/spec-grps/hcw.htm Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogens and Needlestick Prevention Standards available at: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/bloodbornepathogens/index.html Sax H, et al. (2007). My five moments for hand hygiene: A user-centered design approach to understand, train, monitor and report hand hygiene. For the World Health Organization. J Hosp Infect 67(1):9–21. World Health Organization (WHO). (2005). World Alliance for Patient Safety. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. Retrieved January 29 , 2015 from http://www.who.int/patientsafety/events/05/HH_en.pdf.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Once upon a time in the bustling city of Stratonia, there lived a young and ambitious individual named Alex Turner. Alex had always been fascinated by the world of business and entrepreneurship. From a young age, Alex exhibited a keen sense of innovation and a natural ability to identify opportunities. One day, as Alex was walking through the vibrant streets of Stratonia, an idea struck like lightning. It was an opportunity that seemed too good to pass up – a chance to start a small business that could make a big impact. Excitement bubbled within Alex as the vision of entrepreneurship took shape. Eager to set a solid foundation for the business, Alex began drafting a mission statement. This document outlined the purpose of the venture, emphasizing the values and goals that would guide every decision. In the spirit of business ethics, Alex was committed to conducting operations in a morally sound manner, considering the impact on employees, customers, and the community. With the mission statement in hand, Alex set out to turn the entrepreneurial dream into reality. A code of ethics was established, reflecting a commitment to honesty, integrity, and fairness. This code served as a compass, ensuring that the business upheld the highest moral standards in every interaction. As the small business started gaining traction, innovation became a cornerstone of its success. Alex encouraged a culture of creativity, where employees were empowered to think outside the box and contribute fresh ideas. This commitment to innovation not only kept the business ahead of the competition but also fostered an environment where everyone felt valued and engaged. However, as the business expanded, challenges arose. Alex faced decisions that tested the principles outlined in the code of ethics. It was during these moments that the true character of the entrepreneur shone through. Alex remained steadfast in upholding the values that had been set from the beginning, even when faced with tempting shortcuts that could compromise integrity. The journey of entrepreneurship in Stratonia proved to be a rollercoaster of highs and lows. Yet, through unwavering commitment to the mission statement, a dedication to business ethics, and a passion for innovation, Alex Turner built a small business into an enduring success. The story of Alex and their venture became a beacon for aspiring entrepreneurs, a testament to the transformative power of ethical entrepreneurship and the pursuit of opportunities, no matter how small.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes