What is the primary purpose of the DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015 in relation to school policy implementation?

To provide a framework for the development, implementation, and review of educational policies

To limit school head autonomy in decision making

To enforce standardized testing procedures

To decrease teacher involvement in policy-making

Which of the following is a key step in the policy development process as outlined in DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015?

Ignoring feedback from teachers and parents

Implementing policies without stakeholder input

Relying solely on national standards

How should school heads utilize the feedback mechanism defined in DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015?

To gather input from teachers, students, and parents to inform policy adjustments

To maintain the status quo without changes

To solely rely on their personal judgment

To dismiss concerns raised by stakeholders

What role do school heads play in the review of policies as per DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015?

They lead the evaluation process to assess policy effectiveness and compliance

Their role is only to implement decisions made by the central office

They act as the sole decision-makers without any consultation

They are not involved in policy reviews

What is one of the expected outcomes of the policy development process according to DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015?

Improved educational outcomes and school performance

Reduction in teacher training programs

Increased bureaucracy and administrative delays

Lower student engagement in learning activities

In the context of DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015, what is the significance of involving stakeholders in the policy development process?

It ensures policies are relevant and reflect the needs of the school community

It is not required and may delay policy implementation

It complicates the decision-making process

It allows only a select few to influence educational direction

According to DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015, what should follow after the implementation of a new educational policy?

A thorough evaluation of the policy's impact and effectiveness

No action is needed until the next school year

Immediate termination of the policy if challenges arise

Policy implementation should be kept confidential

What is a crucial factor in ensuring successful policy implementation at the school level as per DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015?

Effective communication among all stakeholders

Implementing policies without training staff

Limiting discussions to administrative staff only

Focusing only on student performance metrics

What is the primary purpose of conducting a stakeholder consultation as defined in DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015?

To gather diverse perspectives that inform policy development

To create uniform regulations across all schools

To restrict feedback from teachers and parents

To finalize policies without any input

What aspect of the policy implementation process is emphasized in DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015 regarding monitoring and evaluation?

Continuous assessment to ensure alignment with educational goals

Focusing exclusively on budget allocation

Eliminating feedback mechanisms to speed up processes

Only checking policies once a year

Policy Implementation and Review – DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015 (Policy Development Process)

Leading strategically (Policy implementation and review)

Good day this is Chris today we will be doing a quick walkthrough on ISO 14001 2015 Environmental Management System and its main clauses let's get started ISO 14001 2015 Environmental Management System is a globally recognized standard for environment Management systems or EMS an EMS is a framework that organizations use to manage their environmental impact comply with regulations and improve their environmental performance the standard outlines are requirements for an EMS including the development of an environmental policy the identification of environmental aspects and impacts the establishment of objectives and targets the implementation of operational control monitoring and measurement systems and the ongoing review and Improvement of the system ISO 14001 is a flexible standard that can be used by organizations of any size or type regardless of their environment impact or level of environment performance it provides a practical framework for organizations to manage their environmental impact reduce environment risks and demonstrate their commitment on sustainability to their stakeholders here is the standard that provides a structured approach to develop an EMS which includes several key steps one organizations must develop an environmental policy that outlines their commitment to environmental sustainability this policy should be communicated to all employees and stakeholders two organizations must identify their environmental aspects and impacts this involves identifying the activities products and services that have an impact on the environment as well as the potential environmental consequences of those impacts three once the environmental aspects and the impacts have been identified organizations must establish environmental objectives and targets these objectives and targets should be specific measurable achievable relevant and time-bound 4. after setting objectives and targets organizations must Implement operational controls and establish monitoring and measurement systems to ensure that they are meeting their objectives and targets finally organizations must review and continually improve their EMS this involves conducting regular audits reviewing the EMS to ensure that it remains relevant and effective and making any necessary changes or improvements the main Clause of iso 14001 2015 apart from its scope normative references and terms and conditions that the main Clauses of iso 14001 2015 can be listed as context of the organization leadership planning support operation performance evaluation and Improvement Clause 4.0 context of the organization is about understanding the organization and its context understanding the needs and expectations of the interested parties determining the scope of the Environmental Management System EMS and Environmental Management System itself Clause 5.0 talks about leadership and commitment Environmental Policy organizational roles responsibility and authorities Clause 6.0 planning focuses on actions to address risk and opportunities as well as environmental objectives and planning to achieve them Clause 7.0 support are detailed requirements on resources competence awareness communication that includes external and internal communication documented information that involves creating updating in control of documented information Clause 8.0 operation talks about operational planning and control as well as emergency preparedness and response overall the design of iso 14001 2015 provides guidelines to form a system that is structured to cater the requirements of stakeholder needs and expectations to drive life cycle perspective and Energy Efficiency as pictured here Clause 9.0 performance evaluation provides guidelines to monitoring measurement analysis and evaluation evaluation compliance and management review an additional note here is that ISO 19011 2018 guidelines for auditing Management Systems which is an audit process that will determine the scope to establish the audit criteria by collecting evidence evaluating the evidence and then draw a conclusion based on the findings as pictured here [Music] finally Clause 10.0 Improvement talks about how Improvement is an integral factor to an effective Environmental Management system through General non-conformity and corrective action and continual Improvement talking about Improvement it is always continual in putting efforts towards the betterment of the existing system here is a snapshot of the main Clauses of iso 14001 2015 [Music] I hope you find this video useful we are industry experts specialized in management system consultancy and Industry relevant corporate training give us a call and let us help you drive your business excellence and upskill your employees to elevate workplace efficiency [Music] CREATE 10 MCQ AND 2 SAQ QUESTIONS BASED ON THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH

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.

7.017 Fingernail Policy for ASC Personnel with Direct Patient Contact The surgical center applies this policy equitably and inclusively, and management expects staff to do so in good faith. Purpose: To prevent infection by ensuring proper hand and nail hygiene among ASC staff with direct patient contact. Policy: All ASC staff with direct patient contact must maintain clean and well-groomed fingernails and a healthy hand skin condition. Artificial Nails The ASC defines Artificial nails as press-on, extenders, studs, stones, or other objects positioned on top of the natural nail that are elevated and irregular. These are not allowed as they can be a potential source of infection and can also inhibit proper hand hygiene. Nail Enhancements The ASC defines Nail enhancements as nail paint, gel, and shellac. These are allowed, as evidence against them is weak/moderate and inconsistent, as long as they are undamaged, free of chipping, adequately maintained, and do not interfere with proper hand hygiene, job performance, or glove integrity. Staff must ensure that their nails are trimmed, clean, rounded, and at a length that does not inhibit them from performing their duties or putting themselves or their patient at risk for exposure. Staff must wash their hands with soap and water or use an alcohol-based hand rub before and after each patient encounter and after any activity that may contaminate the hands. Staff must report any cuts, sores, or other skin conditions that may prevent them from maintaining proper hand hygiene to the supervisor. Implementation: The infection Control Nurse or designee will educate staff on hand and nail hygiene, proper hand-washing techniques, and alcohol-based rubs. Supervisors will monitor staff compliance with the policy and provide corrective action as needed. The ASC will provide hand hygiene products and education materials for staff. Evaluation: The infection Control Nurse or designee will evaluate the effectiveness of this policy annually and through regular staff education and monitoring of staff compliance. Nurses are reminded of the standards of nursing practice specified in 22 Texas Administrative Code Rule 217.11 (B)(O), which includes Implementing measures to promote a safe environment for clients and others and Implementing measures to prevent exposure to infectious pathogens and communicable conditions. Reference: AORN INC. (2022). Guidelines for perioperative practice.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes