Patient Confidentiality and Recordkeeping

      Privacy is a patient right. Dentists have an ethical and legal responsibility to safeguard patient information. Patient information includes such information as personal data, medical history, diagnosis, treatment, and financial situation.

      Patient information should be shared only on a need-to-know basis with those who participate in the care of the patient. ....CONECTIVO... disclosure is required or permitted by law, patient information should not be shared with anyone without the patient's written permission. Court orders, subpoenas and investigations by the Office of Professional Discipline are examples of disclosures that may be required even in the absence of the patient's consent.

      Health professionals are required to maintain records for each patient that accurately reflect the evaluation and treatment of the patient according to section 29.2(a)(3) of the Rules of the Board of Regents. All patient records must be retained for at least six years, with the exception of records for minor patients, which must be maintained for at least six years and for one year after the minor patient reaches the age of 21.

(Adapted from NY State Education Department − Office of the Professions: http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/dent/ dentpracticeguide.htm) 

                        Patient Confidentiality and Recordkeeping

      Privacy is a patient right. Dentists have an ethical and legal responsibility to safeguard patient information. Patient information includes such information as personal data, medical history, diagnosis, treatment, and financial situation.

      Patient information should be shared only on a need-to-know basis with those who participate in the care of the patient. ....CONECTIVO... disclosure is required or permitted by law, patient information should not be shared with anyone without the patient's written permission. Court orders, subpoenas and investigations by the Office of Professional Discipline are examples of disclosures that may be required even in the absence of the patient's consent.

      Health professionals are required to maintain records for each patient that accurately reflect the evaluation and treatment of the patient according to section 29.2(a)(3) of the Rules of the Board of Regents. All patient records must be retained for at least six years, with the exception of records for minor patients, which must be maintained for at least six years and for one year after the minor patient reaches the age of 21.

(Adapted from NY State Education Department − Office of the Professions: http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/dent/ dentpracticeguide.htm) 

 Para responder a questão, considere o texto a seguir:                          

Environmental law in Brazil

      BRAZIL’S gridlocked Congress often ends up passing contentious laws only after the combatants collapse in exhaustion. So it is with the revision of the Forest Code, a set of rules that, ...A... the name, apply to all privately owned rural land, not just plots in wooded areas. The code, originally approved in 1965, requires owners to keep native vegetation on parts of their land − 80% in the Amazon, less elsewhere − and in erosion-prone and biodiverse areas such as riverbanks and mangrove swamps. But it was long ignored.

      Since harsher penalties and enforcement were introduced in the late 1990s the ruralistas, as Brazil’s powerful farming lobby is known, have been trying to revise the code. On April 25th, after 13 years of arguments, rewrites and stalling, the final text landed on the desk of the president, Dilma Rousseff. It was far from the version she wanted. Two government defeats in the ruralista-packed lower house meant it contained few of her own previous revisions or those of the more green-friendly Senate.

      The president faced a difficult choice: to scrap the text and start again − which would probably be taken as a declaration of war by the ruralistas − or to make the best of a bad job. She chose the latter. On May 25th ministers went to Congress to say that the president would veto 12 of the new code’s 84 articles and make 32 smaller cuts. The resulting holes would be backfilled in a separate executive decree. Only on May 28th were the details published.

       Under Ms Rousseff’s veto, the amnesty sought by ruralistas will apply only to smallholders, who will still have to replant 20% of their plots. Everyone else will have five years to right past wrongs and add their properties to a new Rural Environmental Register. Holdouts will be denied bank loans and face prosecution.

      Rubens Ricupero, one of ten former environment ministers consulted by the president before the veto, praises her attempt to strike a balance. Treating small landowners more leniently was both practical, he thinks − they account for 90% of rural properties by number but just 24% by area − and socially just: few could afford much replanting.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/21556245?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a) 

 Para responder a questão, considere o texto a seguir:                          

Environmental law in Brazil

      BRAZIL’S gridlocked Congress often ends up passing contentious laws only after the combatants collapse in exhaustion. So it is with the revision of the Forest Code, a set of rules that, ...A... the name, apply to all privately owned rural land, not just plots in wooded areas. The code, originally approved in 1965, requires owners to keep native vegetation on parts of their land − 80% in the Amazon, less elsewhere − and in erosion-prone and biodiverse areas such as riverbanks and mangrove swamps. But it was long ignored.

      Since harsher penalties and enforcement were introduced in the late 1990s the ruralistas, as Brazil’s powerful farming lobby is known, have been trying to revise the code. On April 25th, after 13 years of arguments, rewrites and stalling, the final text landed on the desk of the president, Dilma Rousseff. It was far from the version she wanted. Two government defeats in the ruralista-packed lower house meant it contained few of her own previous revisions or those of the more green-friendly Senate.

      The president faced a difficult choice: to scrap the text and start again − which would probably be taken as a declaration of war by the ruralistas − or to make the best of a bad job. She chose the latter. On May 25th ministers went to Congress to say that the president would veto 12 of the new code’s 84 articles and make 32 smaller cuts. The resulting holes would be backfilled in a separate executive decree. Only on May 28th were the details published.

       Under Ms Rousseff’s veto, the amnesty sought by ruralistas will apply only to smallholders, who will still have to replant 20% of their plots. Everyone else will have five years to right past wrongs and add their properties to a new Rural Environmental Register. Holdouts will be denied bank loans and face prosecution.

      Rubens Ricupero, one of ten former environment ministers consulted by the president before the veto, praises her attempt to strike a balance. Treating small landowners more leniently was both practical, he thinks − they account for 90% of rural properties by number but just 24% by area − and socially just: few could afford much replanting.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/21556245?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a) 

 Para responder a questão, considere o texto a seguir:                          

Environmental law in Brazil

      BRAZIL’S gridlocked Congress often ends up passing contentious laws only after the combatants collapse in exhaustion. So it is with the revision of the Forest Code, a set of rules that, ...A... the name, apply to all privately owned rural land, not just plots in wooded areas. The code, originally approved in 1965, requires owners to keep native vegetation on parts of their land − 80% in the Amazon, less elsewhere − and in erosion-prone and biodiverse areas such as riverbanks and mangrove swamps. But it was long ignored.

      Since harsher penalties and enforcement were introduced in the late 1990s the ruralistas, as Brazil’s powerful farming lobby is known, have been trying to revise the code. On April 25th, after 13 years of arguments, rewrites and stalling, the final text landed on the desk of the president, Dilma Rousseff. It was far from the version she wanted. Two government defeats in the ruralista-packed lower house meant it contained few of her own previous revisions or those of the more green-friendly Senate.

      The president faced a difficult choice: to scrap the text and start again − which would probably be taken as a declaration of war by the ruralistas − or to make the best of a bad job. She chose the latter. On May 25th ministers went to Congress to say that the president would veto 12 of the new code’s 84 articles and make 32 smaller cuts. The resulting holes would be backfilled in a separate executive decree. Only on May 28th were the details published.

       Under Ms Rousseff’s veto, the amnesty sought by ruralistas will apply only to smallholders, who will still have to replant 20% of their plots. Everyone else will have five years to right past wrongs and add their properties to a new Rural Environmental Register. Holdouts will be denied bank loans and face prosecution.

      Rubens Ricupero, one of ten former environment ministers consulted by the president before the veto, praises her attempt to strike a balance. Treating small landowners more leniently was both practical, he thinks − they account for 90% of rural properties by number but just 24% by area − and socially just: few could afford much replanting.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/21556245?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a) 

 Para responder a questão, considere o texto a seguir:                          

Environmental law in Brazil

      BRAZIL’S gridlocked Congress often ends up passing contentious laws only after the combatants collapse in exhaustion. So it is with the revision of the Forest Code, a set of rules that, ...A... the name, apply to all privately owned rural land, not just plots in wooded areas. The code, originally approved in 1965, requires owners to keep native vegetation on parts of their land − 80% in the Amazon, less elsewhere − and in erosion-prone and biodiverse areas such as riverbanks and mangrove swamps. But it was long ignored.

      Since harsher penalties and enforcement were introduced in the late 1990s the ruralistas, as Brazil’s powerful farming lobby is known, have been trying to revise the code. On April 25th, after 13 years of arguments, rewrites and stalling, the final text landed on the desk of the president, Dilma Rousseff. It was far from the version she wanted. Two government defeats in the ruralista-packed lower house meant it contained few of her own previous revisions or those of the more green-friendly Senate.

      The president faced a difficult choice: to scrap the text and start again − which would probably be taken as a declaration of war by the ruralistas − or to make the best of a bad job. She chose the latter. On May 25th ministers went to Congress to say that the president would veto 12 of the new code’s 84 articles and make 32 smaller cuts. The resulting holes would be backfilled in a separate executive decree. Only on May 28th were the details published.

       Under Ms Rousseff’s veto, the amnesty sought by ruralistas will apply only to smallholders, who will still have to replant 20% of their plots. Everyone else will have five years to right past wrongs and add their properties to a new Rural Environmental Register. Holdouts will be denied bank loans and face prosecution.

      Rubens Ricupero, one of ten former environment ministers consulted by the president before the veto, praises her attempt to strike a balance. Treating small landowners more leniently was both practical, he thinks − they account for 90% of rural properties by number but just 24% by area − and socially just: few could afford much replanting.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/21556245?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a) 

 Para responder a questão, considere o texto a seguir:                          

Environmental law in Brazil

      BRAZIL’S gridlocked Congress often ends up passing contentious laws only after the combatants collapse in exhaustion. So it is with the revision of the Forest Code, a set of rules that, ...A... the name, apply to all privately owned rural land, not just plots in wooded areas. The code, originally approved in 1965, requires owners to keep native vegetation on parts of their land − 80% in the Amazon, less elsewhere − and in erosion-prone and biodiverse areas such as riverbanks and mangrove swamps. But it was long ignored.

      Since harsher penalties and enforcement were introduced in the late 1990s the ruralistas, as Brazil’s powerful farming lobby is known, have been trying to revise the code. On April 25th, after 13 years of arguments, rewrites and stalling, the final text landed on the desk of the president, Dilma Rousseff. It was far from the version she wanted. Two government defeats in the ruralista-packed lower house meant it contained few of her own previous revisions or those of the more green-friendly Senate.

      The president faced a difficult choice: to scrap the text and start again − which would probably be taken as a declaration of war by the ruralistas − or to make the best of a bad job. She chose the latter. On May 25th ministers went to Congress to say that the president would veto 12 of the new code’s 84 articles and make 32 smaller cuts. The resulting holes would be backfilled in a separate executive decree. Only on May 28th were the details published.

       Under Ms Rousseff’s veto, the amnesty sought by ruralistas will apply only to smallholders, who will still have to replant 20% of their plots. Everyone else will have five years to right past wrongs and add their properties to a new Rural Environmental Register. Holdouts will be denied bank loans and face prosecution.

      Rubens Ricupero, one of ten former environment ministers consulted by the president before the veto, praises her attempt to strike a balance. Treating small landowners more leniently was both practical, he thinks − they account for 90% of rural properties by number but just 24% by area − and socially just: few could afford much replanting.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/21556245?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a) 

 Para responder a questão, considere o texto a seguir:

       Historically, cachaça is directly linked to the introduction of sugarcane and the production of sugar in Brazil during the mid- 1500s. The slaves who were working at the sugar mills discovered that the garapa, the cooked sugarcane juice that was left standing, would ferment, turning into an alcoholic beverage. Apparently in the beginning, the beverage was given only to slaves at the end of their workday, but soon it became a popular drink consumed by all types of people. With the increase of demand, cachaça distilleries proliferated, and cachaça turned into the favorite alcoholic drink of the whole colony, becoming a threat to bagaceira, a Portuguese brandy made with grapes. As a consequence, during the gold rush, the consumption of cachaça was such that a royal court order of 1743 prohibited the distilleries in all Minas Gerais, probably starting cachaça’s first steps on its long social underground history. (Only in the 1990s did cachaça exit this social stigma to gain status and national and then international recognition.)

      With the excuse of producing sugar, people continued to secretly produce cachaça, which prompted the court to attach high taxation on the Brazilian beverage.

      Later, during the first movements for independence, cachaça was converted to a political statement when Brazilians served it instead of Porto wine during important receptions.

(Roberts, Yara Castro & Richard Roberts. 2009. The Brazilian Table. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith., p. 29) 

Neglect contributed to death of patient at community hospital

16 August 2012 | By Sarah Calkin

      A patient who choked to death at a hospital run by Somerset Partnership Foundation Trust had been neglected by staff, a coroner has ruled.

      Parkinson’s sufferer Diana Mansfield, 78, was struggling to swallow during her stay at Frome Community Hospital in September 2011. On 3 September she choked and died. East Somerset coroner Tony Williams found ..ART1... primary cause of death was ....ART2... acute upper airway obstruction and dysphagia, ...ART3... common side effect of Parkinson’s.

      Following the inquest in July he identified failings made in the nursing care received by Ms Mansfield and recorded a verdict of accidental death aggravated by neglect.

      The Care Quality Commission visited the 28-bed hospital earlier this year in response to concerns about care and welfare of patients and staffing levels arising from Ms Mansfield’s death.

      Inspectors judged the hospital was meeting standards overall. .....CONECTIVO.... it raised minor concerns about staffing levels, noting the ward had a sickness absence rate of nearly 10 per cent and cover was not always available for absent staff for a whole shift.

      The full staffing establishment on the 12-bed ward where Ms Mansfield stayed was three registered nurses and four healthcare assistants on the early shift and five staff - usually two nurses and three HCAs - on the late shift. Some nurses complained this was not always adequate to meet the needs of patients and said it was sometimes a struggle to complete all their tasks. 

Neglect contributed to death of patient at community hospital

16 August 2012 | By Sarah Calkin

      A patient who choked to death at a hospital run by Somerset Partnership Foundation Trust had been neglected by staff, a coroner has ruled.

      Parkinson’s sufferer Diana Mansfield, 78, was struggling to swallow during her stay at Frome Community Hospital in September 2011. On 3 September she choked and died. East Somerset coroner Tony Williams found ..ART1... primary cause of death was ....ART2... acute upper airway obstruction and dysphagia, ...ART3... common side effect of Parkinson’s.

      Following the inquest in July he identified failings made in the nursing care received by Ms Mansfield and recorded a verdict of accidental death aggravated by neglect.

      The Care Quality Commission visited the 28-bed hospital earlier this year in response to concerns about care and welfare of patients and staffing levels arising from Ms Mansfield’s death.

      Inspectors judged the hospital was meeting standards overall. .....CONECTIVO.... it raised minor concerns about staffing levels, noting the ward had a sickness absence rate of nearly 10 per cent and cover was not always available for absent staff for a whole shift.

      The full staffing establishment on the 12-bed ward where Ms Mansfield stayed was three registered nurses and four healthcare assistants on the early shift and five staff - usually two nurses and three HCAs - on the late shift. Some nurses complained this was not always adequate to meet the needs of patients and said it was sometimes a struggle to complete all their tasks. 

Neglect contributed to death of patient at community hospital

16 August 2012 | By Sarah Calkin

      A patient who choked to death at a hospital run by Somerset Partnership Foundation Trust had been neglected by staff, a coroner has ruled.

      Parkinson’s sufferer Diana Mansfield, 78, was struggling to swallow during her stay at Frome Community Hospital in September 2011. On 3 September she choked and died. East Somerset coroner Tony Williams found ..ART1... primary cause of death was ....ART2... acute upper airway obstruction and dysphagia, ...ART3... common side effect of Parkinson’s.

      Following the inquest in July he identified failings made in the nursing care received by Ms Mansfield and recorded a verdict of accidental death aggravated by neglect.

      The Care Quality Commission visited the 28-bed hospital earlier this year in response to concerns about care and welfare of patients and staffing levels arising from Ms Mansfield’s death.

      Inspectors judged the hospital was meeting standards overall. .....CONECTIVO.... it raised minor concerns about staffing levels, noting the ward had a sickness absence rate of nearly 10 per cent and cover was not always available for absent staff for a whole shift.

      The full staffing establishment on the 12-bed ward where Ms Mansfield stayed was three registered nurses and four healthcare assistants on the early shift and five staff - usually two nurses and three HCAs - on the late shift. Some nurses complained this was not always adequate to meet the needs of patients and said it was sometimes a struggle to complete all their tasks. 

Neglect contributed to death of patient at community hospital

16 August 2012 | By Sarah Calkin

      A patient who choked to death at a hospital run by Somerset Partnership Foundation Trust had been neglected by staff, a coroner has ruled.

      Parkinson’s sufferer Diana Mansfield, 78, was struggling to swallow during her stay at Frome Community Hospital in September 2011. On 3 September she choked and died. East Somerset coroner Tony Williams found ..ART1... primary cause of death was ....ART2... acute upper airway obstruction and dysphagia, ...ART3... common side effect of Parkinson’s.

      Following the inquest in July he identified failings made in the nursing care received by Ms Mansfield and recorded a verdict of accidental death aggravated by neglect.

      The Care Quality Commission visited the 28-bed hospital earlier this year in response to concerns about care and welfare of patients and staffing levels arising from Ms Mansfield’s death.

      Inspectors judged the hospital was meeting standards overall. .....CONECTIVO.... it raised minor concerns about staffing levels, noting the ward had a sickness absence rate of nearly 10 per cent and cover was not always available for absent staff for a whole shift.

      The full staffing establishment on the 12-bed ward where Ms Mansfield stayed was three registered nurses and four healthcare assistants on the early shift and five staff - usually two nurses and three HCAs - on the late shift. Some nurses complained this was not always adequate to meet the needs of patients and said it was sometimes a struggle to complete all their tasks. 

The Great Wall of China

Walls and wall building have played a very important role in Chinese culture. These people, from the dim mists of prehistory have been wallconscious; from the Neolithic period – when barriers were used - to the Communist Revolution, walls were an essential part of any village. Not only towns and villages; the houses and the temples within them were somehow walled, and the houses also had no windows overlooking the street, thus giving the feeling of wandering around a huge maze. The name for “city” in Chinese (ch’eng) means wall, and over these walled cities, villages, houses and temples presides the god of walls and mounts, whose duties were, and still are, to protect and be responsible for the welfare of the inhabitants. Thus a great and extremely laborious task such as constructing a wall, which was supposed to run throughout the country, must not have seemed such an absurdity. 

However, it is indeed a common mistake to perceive the Great Wall as a single architectural structure, and it would also be erroneous to assume that it was built during a single dynasty. For the building of the wall connected the various dynasties, and each of these dynasties somehow contributed to the refurbishing and the construction of a wall, whose foundations had been laid many centuries ago. It was during the fourth and third century B.C. that each warring state started building walls to protect their kingdoms, both against one another and against the northern nomads. Especially three of these states: the Ch’in, the Chao and the Yen, corresponding respectively to the modern provinces of Shensi, Shanzi and Hopei, over and above building walls that surrounded their kingdoms, also laid the foundations on which Ch’in Shih Huang Di would build his first continuous Great Wall. 

The role that the Great Wall played in the growth of Chinese economy was an important one. Throughout the centuries many settlements were established along the new border. The garrison troops were instructed to reclaim wasteland and to plant crops on it, roads and canals were built, to mention just a few of the works carried out. All these undertakings greatly helped to increase the country’s trade and cultural exchanges with many remote areas and also with the southern, central and western parts of Asia – the formation of the Silk Route. Builders, garrisons, artisans, farmers and peasants left behind a trail of objects, including inscribed tablets, household articles, and written work, which have become extremely valuable archaeological evidence to the study of defence institutions of the Great Wall and the everyday life of these people who lived and died along the wall

The Great Wall of China

Walls and wall building have played a very important role in Chinese culture. These people, from the dim mists of prehistory have been wallconscious; from the Neolithic period – when barriers were used - to the Communist Revolution, walls were an essential part of any village. Not only towns and villages; the houses and the temples within them were somehow walled, and the houses also had no windows overlooking the street, thus giving the feeling of wandering around a huge maze. The name for “city” in Chinese (ch’eng) means wall, and over these walled cities, villages, houses and temples presides the god of walls and mounts, whose duties were, and still are, to protect and be responsible for the welfare of the inhabitants. Thus a great and extremely laborious task such as constructing a wall, which was supposed to run throughout the country, must not have seemed such an absurdity. 

However, it is indeed a common mistake to perceive the Great Wall as a single architectural structure, and it would also be erroneous to assume that it was built during a single dynasty. For the building of the wall connected the various dynasties, and each of these dynasties somehow contributed to the refurbishing and the construction of a wall, whose foundations had been laid many centuries ago. It was during the fourth and third century B.C. that each warring state started building walls to protect their kingdoms, both against one another and against the northern nomads. Especially three of these states: the Ch’in, the Chao and the Yen, corresponding respectively to the modern provinces of Shensi, Shanzi and Hopei, over and above building walls that surrounded their kingdoms, also laid the foundations on which Ch’in Shih Huang Di would build his first continuous Great Wall. 

The role that the Great Wall played in the growth of Chinese economy was an important one. Throughout the centuries many settlements were established along the new border. The garrison troops were instructed to reclaim wasteland and to plant crops on it, roads and canals were built, to mention just a few of the works carried out. All these undertakings greatly helped to increase the country’s trade and cultural exchanges with many remote areas and also with the southern, central and western parts of Asia – the formation of the Silk Route. Builders, garrisons, artisans, farmers and peasants left behind a trail of objects, including inscribed tablets, household articles, and written work, which have become extremely valuable archaeological evidence to the study of defence institutions of the Great Wall and the everyday life of these people who lived and died along the wall

The Great Wall of China

Walls and wall building have played a very important role in Chinese culture. These people, from the dim mists of prehistory have been wallconscious; from the Neolithic period – when barriers were used - to the Communist Revolution, walls were an essential part of any village. Not only towns and villages; the houses and the temples within them were somehow walled, and the houses also had no windows overlooking the street, thus giving the feeling of wandering around a huge maze. The name for “city” in Chinese (ch’eng) means wall, and over these walled cities, villages, houses and temples presides the god of walls and mounts, whose duties were, and still are, to protect and be responsible for the welfare of the inhabitants. Thus a great and extremely laborious task such as constructing a wall, which was supposed to run throughout the country, must not have seemed such an absurdity. 

However, it is indeed a common mistake to perceive the Great Wall as a single architectural structure, and it would also be erroneous to assume that it was built during a single dynasty. For the building of the wall connected the various dynasties, and each of these dynasties somehow contributed to the refurbishing and the construction of a wall, whose foundations had been laid many centuries ago. It was during the fourth and third century B.C. that each warring state started building walls to protect their kingdoms, both against one another and against the northern nomads. Especially three of these states: the Ch’in, the Chao and the Yen, corresponding respectively to the modern provinces of Shensi, Shanzi and Hopei, over and above building walls that surrounded their kingdoms, also laid the foundations on which Ch’in Shih Huang Di would build his first continuous Great Wall. 

The role that the Great Wall played in the growth of Chinese economy was an important one. Throughout the centuries many settlements were established along the new border. The garrison troops were instructed to reclaim wasteland and to plant crops on it, roads and canals were built, to mention just a few of the works carried out. All these undertakings greatly helped to increase the country’s trade and cultural exchanges with many remote areas and also with the southern, central and western parts of Asia – the formation of the Silk Route. Builders, garrisons, artisans, farmers and peasants left behind a trail of objects, including inscribed tablets, household articles, and written work, which have become extremely valuable archaeological evidence to the study of defence institutions of the Great Wall and the everyday life of these people who lived and died along the wall