Other Findings Clause Samples
The "Other Findings" clause serves to document any additional observations, results, or conclusions that are not explicitly covered by other sections of an agreement or report. In practice, this clause may be used to record incidental discoveries, supplementary information, or unexpected outcomes that arise during the course of an inspection, audit, or investigation. Its core function is to ensure that all relevant information, even if outside the main scope, is formally acknowledged, thereby promoting transparency and completeness in the documentation process.
Other Findings. Preliminary analysis of the data determined that the sample was largely adherent; therefore, the outcome variable days from diagnosis to treatment was used as a proxy for adherence to treatment recommendations. Prior evidence found African-American women were more likely to delay treatment where women who delayed treatment had a 12% lower five-year survival rate (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 1999). The current study found once a woman started chemotherapy, she completed treatment as recommended by her healthcare providers. However, some women experienced considerably more days from diagnosis to treatment than other women who started and underwent treatment recommendations.
Other Findings. The process of analyzing the resources set forth by organizations similar to Global
Other Findings. Interestingly, at Hospital A, a doctor explained how it is the cleaner’s responsibility to remove the trash from the outdoor area shared by patient post-delivery rooms daily during routine cleaning. However, based on structured observations, it was noted that these bags of trash were not removed often as the build-up of bottles but small number of total patients in all patient post-delivery rooms indicated. Additionally, one intern at Hospital A used a glove to tie around a patient’s arm to draw blood but did not actually wear gloves herself. In Hospital B, it is important to note that during one particular session of structured observations of routine cleaning procedures, an intern used a white rag and Hexianos solution to wipe both the bed and counters. However, after being told by a midwife that green rags are typically used to wipe more general areas and that white rags are used to wipe up blood and other bodily fluids, the intern acknowledged her mistake but did not wipe back over the counter using a green rag. In one particular day of structured observations of morning rounds procedures, when asked about her use of gloves during the morning rounds, a midwife explained that she used gloves to tie around the patient’s arm if needed. On the other hand, although not observed during a structured observation period, it is important to note an example of a situation that could have been further observed through using structured observations to gain more clarity and understanding regarding the situation. In a situation at Hospital A, an intern mistakenly told researchers that a speculum had already been sterilized. However, after equipment rinsing was completed to collect the microbial sample from the speculum, the same intern returned to inform researchers that she was mistaken and that the speculum had in fact not been sterilized yet but was expected to be sterilized soon. 1 Quotes from healthcare staff at both hospitals were translated into English from oral Khmer by the researcher conducting unstructured and structured observations. Researchers could not have been inferred or deduced this information solely from collected samples in the research study without the conduction of these unique observations. Nevertheless, by following hospital staff around and observing their behaviors, the observational data collected from conducting structured observations provides a greater insight into and richer data towards possible HAI pathways of transmission.
Other Findings. The Sale does not constitute a de facto plan of reorganization or liquidation or an element of such a plan for any of the Debtors, as it does not propose to: (a) impair or restructure existing debt of, or equity interests in, the Debtors, (b) impair or circumvent voting rights with respect to any future plan proposed by the Debtors; (c) circumvent chapter 11 plan safeguards, such as those set forth in sections 1125 and 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code; or (d) classify claims or equity interests, compromise controversies or extend debt maturities.
Other Findings. The results for the prize redemptions and misses again emphasizes the difference between loyalty programs and gamification procedures. The immediate impact of streak redemption is found to be negative and significant for the middle and high state (b = -.64 p < .01 for the middle state and b = - .14 p < .01 for the high state). Although redeemed prizes in the reward system serve as positive feedbacks on performances, it is also worth noting that by redeeming a streak players also finish one “round” in the game. The psychological benefits for winning comprise a significant part of enjoyment in playing a game. Repeating the game by starting new rounds will generate decreased level of thrill since players have already experienced the game mechanism in full and this could be the reason why players are less motivated after streaks are redeemed. On the other hand, losing in games or gamification procedures may not necessarily be a negative event. The coefficients of Value of Streak Reset are positive and significant for the low and middle state (b = .53, p < .01 for the low state and b = .29 p < ,01 for the middle state). Losing may render players the feeling of incompletion and make prizes from winning more salient, thus pushes players to start a new round. These results further set gamification procedures apart from traditional loyalty programs. The time trend is in general negative suggesting players lose interest gradually over time.
Other Findings. There are some issues regarding the variables and parameters of the study that require explanation. Those are the absence of sealants as a treatment option for the teledentistry program and the selection of a one-year time frame for the CEA, as opposed to a school year. In addition, some of the results of equations and analysis necessitate explanation. These include the negative value for the ICER calculation including the intangible cost and the results of the one-way sensitivity analysis of the probability for participation in teledentistry. The teledentistry Dental Supervisor, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, DMD opted not to provide sealant treatments during the teledentistry clinics. According to ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, the most recent studies indicate that sealants are currently not as clinically indicated as they were at one time, especially for a population who, for the majority, already showed signs of tooth decay (▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, personal communication, October 9, 2011). For this reason, sealant costs and benefits were excluded from the CEA. A time frame of one year (October 2010 through September 2011) was selected for the analysis instead of the 2010 - 2011 school year teledentistry program period (October 2010 through April 2011), as previously stated. Although this may overestimate the cost for the teledentistry program, the change is justified. Even though children may not have received services during the expanded period, the cost of the equipment, facility, utilities and wages of salary and contract staff were on-going. In addition, the Dental Supervisor and Telehealth Coordinator were conducting meetings with school staff, case management continued and support staff provided services to the program. The ICER calculation including the intangible cost resulted in a positive value, implying teledentistry was cost-effective but not cost saving. The researcher expected the inclusion of the intangible cost to enhance the cost savings of the teledentistry program. In fact, when the decision tree was created in TreeAge Pro 2.0 for models including and excluding the intangible cost, results were more closely in line with the researcher’s expectations. TreeAge Pro 2.0 selected traditional dentistry as the intervention with the most utility when the intangible cost was excluded and selected teledentistry as the intervention that provided the most value when the intangible cost was included. The one-way sensitivity analysis results for the probability of obtaining teledentistry services ...
Other Findings. SUMMARY
Other Findings. A total of 268 bed nets were found in the households during the survey which the households did not receive from the campaign. Of these 268 nets, 264 (21%) were covering sleeping spaces and four (1.5%) were still in the original packaging. On average, about one-third of the sleeping spaces were covered with a bed net other than a campaign LLIN. At least 111 of the observed non-campaign nets covered sleeping spaces in the Bosobolo health district, 103 covered sleeping spaces in the Gbadolite health district, and 50 covered sleeping spaces in the Karawa health district (see Table 4.15). The multiple linear regression analysis results showed that the proportion of households owning at least one LLIN (p value= <0.0001) and the proportion of campaign LLINs not hung over sleeping spaces (p value= <0.0001) were found to be significantly associated with predicting the proportion of sleeping spaces covered by a LLIN. Proportion of LLINs other than the campaign LLINs, LLIN hang-up activities, discomfort when sleeping inside an LLIN, and number of sleeping spaces in the households were not significantly associated with predicting sleeping spaces covered by a campaign LLIN.
Other Findings. The Parties acknowledge that any Customer Satisfaction Benchmark might result in the discovery of continuous improvement opportunities separate from cost competitiveness issues. Any such opportunities identified by the Benchmarker will be the subject of analysis and review, including without limitation, the preparation by Supplier of a formal gap and root cause analysis, as well as a written plan detailing the actions of the parties as may be required to close any such identified gap or opportunities. [***] Confidential treatment has been requested for the bracketed portions. The confidential redacted portion has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This Amendment Number 1 (the “First Amendment”) to the Master Services Agreement, Effective Date of April 5th, 2004 between B▇▇.▇▇▇ and vCustomer (the “Agreement”) is effective January 1, 2005 (“Amendment Effective Date”), and modifies, amends and changes the Agreement as set forth below. This Amendment is entered into by and between B▇▇.▇▇▇ and vCustomer, who are the current parties to the Agreement (the “Parties”).
Other Findings. In response to what increases risk to my patients, 41% said none of the provide options applied to their employment situation, 32% responded that I am required to care for patients with excessive risk, 32% said I am required to manage the care of too many patients in the office, 26% answered my patients regularly request unnecessary interventions, 17% said my practice protocol are not evidence-based, 15% are required to manage the care of too many patients on call, 13% said physicians do not support the plan of care developed by myself and my patients, 8% said patients declined needed interventions, 6% are not currently taking care of patients, 4% selected other, and 2% said back-up physicians do not respond as quickly as I need them to respond. Study results show that the restrictions placed on the scope of practice of CNM vary at the practice level. What CNMs are allowed to do at their practices are dependent on the practice agreement/protocol, and the development of these agreement/protocol involve more physicians than CNMs (64% vs. 47%, respectively); these practice protocols/agreements do not allow much room for negotiation (only 39% of CNM were able to negotiate their practice agreement/protocol and 29% did not have the option to negotiate even though they wanted to). Close to half of CNMs (45%) are allowed to order screening mammograms independently (without a physician signature and 31% were not allowed). It is surprising, albeit refreshing that this CNMs can order screening mammograms independently because Georgia status limits the situations in which APRNs can order diagnostics tests such as MRI without physician authorization, specifying that APRNs who are delegate this authority can only do so in life-threatening situations (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2015). Yet, screening mammograms are used as part of breast cancer prevention. The U.S. Preventive Task Force recommends biennial mammography screening for breast cancer for women age 50-74 (Siu, 2016), and breast cancer screening is within the education and skills of CNMs. Therefore, for the 31% of CNMs in this sample that are not allowed to order such screening mammograms independently, it imposes restriction on their scope of practice. Majority of CNMs in this study order prescriptions under GA APRN prescriptive authority for APRNs. In Georgia, the physicians who delegate prescriptive authorities to APRNs cannot have a written protocol agreement with more than four APRNs (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2015). One consequence of suc...