№ lp_1_2_22393
File format: docx
Character count: 4929
File size: 135 KB
This document provides guidance and drafting instructions for organizations applying to the Hospice Care funding programme offered by The James Tudor Foundation.
Note:
Year
Topic:
Hospice Care
Document Type:
Application Guidance
Organization / Institution:
The James Tudor Foundation
Target Audience:
Charities registered with the Charity Commission of England and Wales
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Discipline:
Nursing
Simulation Type:
Clinical simulation
Simulation Level:
Student
Expected Simulation Run Time:
20–30 minutes
Setting:
Home
Patient Age:
65
Primary Medical Diagnosis:
Stage IV lung adenocarcinoma
Past Medical History:
Lung adenocarcinoma treated with radiation and chemotherapy
Social Context:
Retired, lives with long-term partner
Care Focus:
Hospice and palliative care
Learning Focus:
Assessment of older adults, caregiver preparedness, advance directives
Participants Roles:
Nurses, provider, family members, observers
Simulation Modality:
Simulated patient
Educational Frameworks Referenced:
ACE.S Framework, SPICES, Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living
Source Type:
Educational simulation design document
Year:
2022
Region / City:
Louisville, KY
Theme:
Palliative and Hospice Social Work Certification
Document Type:
Candidate Handbook
Organization / Institution:
APHSW Certification Board
Author:
APHSW Certification Board
Target Audience:
Social workers interested in obtaining APHSW-C certification
Period of validity:
Four years
Approval Date:
January 2022
Date of amendments:
N/A
Year:
2014
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Healthcare, Hospice Care
Document Type:
Instructional Manual
Organ / Institution:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Author:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Target Audience:
Healthcare Providers, Hospice Care Providers
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
July 1, 2014
Date of Last Revision:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Topic:
Volunteering, Health Care, Hospice Services
Document Type:
Application Form
Organization / Institution:
Willow Wood Hospice
Author:
Willow Wood Hospice
Target Audience:
Individuals interested in volunteering
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2026
Region / City:
N/A
Theme:
Hospice and Home Health Care
Document Type:
Webinar Schedule
Organization / Institution:
PHA and HPS
Authors:
Melinda A. Gaboury, Victoria Barron, Tammy Stewart
Target Audience:
Home health and hospice professionals
Effective Date:
October 1, 2025
Date of Approval:
N/A
Date of Updates:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Eastern USA
Topic:
Hospice Services, Healthcare Compliance
Document Type:
Webinar Schedule
Organization:
PHA, HPS
Authors:
Melinda A. Gaboury, Victoria Barron, Tammy Stewart
Target Audience:
Healthcare Providers, Hospice Agencies
Period of Validity:
2025
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Wisconsin, USA
Document Type:
Regulatory Compliance Review
Governing Body:
Department of Health Services, Division of Quality Assurance
Facility Name:
[To be filled]
Provider Number:
[To be filled]
License Number:
[To be filled]
Review Date:
[To be filled]
Surveyor Number:
[To be filled]
Program Standards:
L559–L576
Scope:
Hospice-wide quality and patient safety
Responsible Person:
[To be filled]
Outcome Metrics:
Measurable improvement in palliative outcomes and patient care
Parties:
Hospice Client and Multi-View Incorporated Systems
Service Provider:
Multi-View Incorporated Systems
Representative:
Andrew Reed, CEO & Chief Teaching Officer
Service:
Benchmarking Services and optional Network Services
Effective Date:
To be specified in agreement
Monthly Fee:
$275
Optional Network Fee:
$400 per month
Term:
Ongoing; cancellable at any time with 30 days written notice
Confidentiality:
All obtained information held in strict confidence; shared only in blinded benchmarking or policy activities
Scope of Services:
Data extraction from General Ledger; management reports; benchmarking application; alerts processing; monthly Flash page; phone and remote PC support
Additional Inclusions with Network Option:
Customer and practice support; access to best known practices; Medicare Cost Report preparation (1); financial statements and reports; managed care chart of accounts; online library access; annual salary survey
Limitations of Services:
No examination of transactions; not a substitute for CFO; no detailed transaction review; hospice responsible for accurate accounting records
Target Audience:
Hospice organizations and executives
Related Organizations:
1,000+ Hospices and Homecare organizations within MVI network
Additional Services:
Available upon request for additional charge
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Wisconsin, USA
Theme:
Healthcare, Hospice Care
Document Type:
Clinical Record Review
Organization / Institution:
Department of Health Services, Division of Quality Assurance
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals, Hospice providers
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Region / City:
West Hertfordshire and South Buckinghamshire
Topic:
Fundraising, Charity, Philanthropy
Document Type:
Job Description
Organization:
Hospice of St Francis
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Job Seekers, Fundraising Professionals
Effective Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Note:
Year
Subject:
Clinical Placement
Document Type:
Form
Organization / Institution:
Severn Hospice
Target Audience:
Individuals seeking clinical placement
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Massachusetts, Boston
Topic:
Healthcare, Hospice Care
Document Type:
Circular Letter
Issuing Organization:
Bureau of Health Care Safety and Quality, Board of Registration in Pharmacy
Author:
Bureau of Health Care Safety and Quality, Board of Registration in Pharmacy
Target Audience:
Hospice Care Facility Administrators
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
March 6, 2020
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Ohio
Topic:
Hospice Care Quality Assurance
Document Type:
Policy
Organization:
Ohio Living Hospice
Author:
Ohio Living Hospice
Target Audience:
Staff of Ohio Living Hospice
Period of Effectiveness:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Organisation:
Arthur Rank Hospice Charity
Associated Centre:
Alan Hudson Centre
Region / City:
Cambridge; Wisbech
Country:
United Kingdom
Document Type:
Referral form and referral guidelines
Service Area:
Specialist palliative care
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals
Eligibility Criteria:
Patients with advanced life-limiting illnesses and complex needs
Processing Time:
Within 3 days of receipt
Emergency Contact Hours:
9.00am–5.00pm (Arthur Rank Hospice); 9.00am–4.30pm (Alan Hudson Centre)
Services Included:
Community Specialist Palliative Care Team; Inpatient Unit; Living Well Service; Lymphoedema Service; Young Adult Transitional Service; Medical Team; Pain Management Group; Specialist OT/Physiotherapy; Treatment Services; Complementary Therapy; Bereavement Support
Inpatient Capacity:
12 beds (Arthur Rank Hospice Cambridge)
Required Documentation:
GP summary; clinic letters; hospital discharge summaries; scans and blood results
Consent Requirement:
Patient consent or best interests decision required
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Australia
Subject:
Joint venture formation
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Solicitors, legal professionals
Year:
2023
Region / city:
California
Topic:
Anti-SLAPP motions
Document type:
Legal guide
Organization / institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
Legal professionals
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of amendments:
N/A
Note:
Year