Community Health Assessments

A Community Health Assessment is a process for identifying community resources and strengths. The assessment focuses on the capabilities of a community and provides a framework for developing services and building communities. Community assessments may consist of demographic data from census records, results of other surveys, or informal feedback from partners and stakeholders. Other methods include focus group discussions, interviews, and surveys of partnership members. In general, community health assessments should include a number of key measures and identify the most relevant and important community resources.

Evidence gap exists in community health assessments

There is a significant evidence gap in community health assessments. These evaluations are important to inform policymakers, but little research has been done on the generalizability of findings. One reason for the lack of granular measures is the high degree of variability among LHAs. For instance, the same LHA may measure different aspects of health in different communities. Using community health assessments to make policy recommendations can help identify areas for improvement and identify ways to improve existing services.

The current evidence available to guide decisions regarding community health and disease prevention and control is inadequate, particularly in areas where people are most vulnerable. There are several key issues that must be addressed in community health assessments. A significant evidence gap exists when the best available evidence does not translate into effective policy and practice. For example, community health assessment tools should be more detailed than the standardized questionnaires that are used in policy-making. Developing these tools should be undertaken by a reputable organization and should be implemented by a qualified individual.

Looking for Community Health Assesment Writing Help? Order your Assignment Here

Another major problem is the lack of policy-evidence partnerships. Several authors, including Briss, have addressed this issue. They note that many of the studies in the literature do not have policy-relevant contexts. Consequently, policymakers and researchers have conflicting perceptions of the processes of evidence use. Rather than relying on researchers' accounts of policy-making processes, researchers should approach policy-makers in a non-prejudiced manner, asking about their activities and how they steer policies.

Another potential problem is that communities and local government agencies do not use community health assessments to determine the effectiveness of community health programs. They might have delivered such programs in the past without having a community health assessment. If this were the case, community health assessments could help local governments identify gaps and maintain adequate service provision. It is possible that there is a reverse causal pathway between community health assessments and chronic disease prevention activities. This may have some unintended consequences, but the findings still support the need for these assessments.

Methods

Methods for community health assessments are tools that combine qualitative and quantitative data to identify specific public health needs and priorities in a community. They should also allow for the identification of health inequities according to socioeconomic status, race, and geography. In addition, they should identify meaningful health indicators. These tools can help communities understand and address the issues that they face. The purpose of community health assessments is to help communities address the challenges of aging and other chronic diseases.

The goal of a community health assessment is to identify key factors that affect the health of a community and determine its resources. Community health assessment data should identify gaps in health services that can be improved through interventions. By gathering and analyzing community data, community health boards can prioritize issues for improvement. In addition to identifying community health needs, the process of community health assessment involves engaging community members and coordinating community resources for impact. The end result is a better community for everyone.

To be effective, community health assessments must be based on valid, actionable measures of community health. Community health assessments can help health departments, hospitals, and other entities better meet community goals and prioritize their services. These data are also important for ensuring accountability in public health and community development. So, it's important to understand how the results of community health assessments are used and how they compare to the results of other health assessments. With this information, community leaders and stakeholders can develop a community health assessment.

A focus group is a valuable tool in conducting a community health assessment. It's important to consider the needs of vulnerable communities when selecting the appropriate questionnaire and interview questions. The survey should be distributed in public places in areas where people live. Distributing it through health fairs and businesses can reach out to people who are not necessarily aware of the existence of the community's health issues. If possible, participants should be asked if they would be willing to participate in a community health assessment in the future. For those who don't live in large cities, using social media, local organizations, and PFACs will be a great help. The survey can be supplemented by interviews with community stakeholders.

Scope

Before starting a community health assessment, you must decide on its scope. Depending on the purpose of your community assessment, it may focus on a single population or a wider geographic area. However, it may also focus on a specific group or community that has disproportionate needs. You should prioritize your data collection and decide what information is important. After collecting all the data, document your findings. Once the community has been surveyed, you can then plan the next steps to improve health and wellness in the community.

Community health assessments will review the demographic and health characteristics of a community and include information about the population's education, racial and ethnic makeup, and smoking habits. They may also examine the incidence of disease, infant mortality, and preventable hospitalization. The process should involve participation from local community groups, schools, and social service providers, in order to accurately reflect the health conditions of the community. They will also be used to guide advocacy efforts and develop policy changes.

To start a community health assessment, it is important to define the focus and the questions to be asked. Community issues are complex, and they often overlap with each other. You can choose to focus on a single issue, or focus on several related issues. Regardless of the scope of the community health assessment, it is essential to establish a shared understanding of the community. So, how do you choose the appropriate focus? There are many ways to conduct a community assessment, but a focus can help you develop a clear path to success.

Community health assessments have several advantages. Community health assessments can reduce health disparities and act as a basis for public health planning and programming. By involving community leaders and local residents, community health assessments can help a community understand which issues are of greatest importance. This information can also help communities understand which resources can be best directed. When a community health assessment is done in the right way, the community can focus on the most important issues in improving health and wellbeing.

Process measures

The Community Health Improvement Process, a framework for health improvement, has been developed by the IOM. It includes two interacting cycles: measurement and action. The first cycle should include the production of a community health profile, which provides the community with basic information about its health. The second cycle should include data-driven recommendations. In addition to process measures, the community health profile should also provide data on the community's quality of life and the number of children with chronic diseases.

In addition to process measures, community health assessments also incorporate a wide range of social and economic factors. For example, the quality and access of health care in a community is measured by the Social and Economic Factors, such as income, employment, family support, and community safety. Lastly, the physical environment and air and water quality are considered in the final health factors category. The final outcome score is an equal-weighted composite of mortality and health-related quality-of-life measures.

Moreover, process measures of community health assessments should be able to track the progress of a community over time. The same goes for community health assessment results that show disparities in the population. Often, a community health assessment report will only highlight those areas where improvements are needed the most. Moreover, the process measures of community health assessments should include data that measure improvements over time, as well as those that compare health outcomes with other communities and the state or national averages.

Process measures of community health assessments should also take into account the collaboration and participation of stakeholders. When implementing a community health assessment, it is important to involve people from outside of the health department, as this will reduce the amount of data collection and reduce confusion caused by multiple studies in one community. Additionally, a collaborative assessment process will ensure greater involvement from citizens in the assessment process, which is a key goal of the IOM Committee on Performance Monitoring in Community Health Improvement.

One method to evaluate community health assessment processes is to create a list of community health-related databases and information systems. These databases and information systems can be used to make decisions based on the information they provide to the community. These databases should be compared with other community health assessments to help build an evidence-base for future CHW programs. This approach is crucial for the community health improvement process. So, how do we measure public health?

Introduction 

The case "Gates v. the Syrian Arab Republic" was filed on August 25th in 2008 at the United States District Court of Columbia by the plaintiffs, who included Francis Gates and Jan Smith. The case was filed against Defendants, who incorporated the Syrian Arab Republic or Syria, the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad; the military of Syria referred to as al-Mukhabarat al-Askariya; and the Director of Military Intelligence, called General Asif Shawkat. In this case, a group of men, who belonged to the terrorist group known as Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad beheaded US civilian contractors, Jack Amstrong and Jack Hensley. They later videotaped the whole incident and played it via the internet for everyone in the world to view, and ultimately, the United States District Court of Columbia to see as well. In this case, the plaintiffs stated that the Syrian government equipped and supported the terrorist group, Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and its leader, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, with resources to perpetrate the criminal acts to the American citizens. As a result, the plaintiffs asserted courses of actions under the FSIA Act as well as under the state law. This case is significant because it elaborated the treatment of claims brought under state law and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against a sovereign and its principals for monetary damages for terrorist actions committed by an organization supported by a sovereign state.

Facts 

In this case, several facts are taken into considerations before arriving at the issues that lead to the ruling. For instance, it is essential to note the fact that Jack Armstrong and Jack Hensley were U.S. civilians and non-combatants who were working for a private construction company in Iraq. These individuals did not offer any armed security or bodyguard security services but offered technical and operational assistance services for the military in non-combat regions in Iraq. Besides, Armstrong had a history of working in foreign countries as a civil construction engineer. Similarly, Jack Hensley had a degree in mathematics and computer science and also worked for an international construction and engineering firm in a foreign land. Further, after the brutal murder, the terrorist group glorified its acts on the internet, which was followed by condemnation by the Muslim world. 

The families (Plaintiff) of the beheaded U.S. civilian contractors, Armstrong and Hensley, alleged that the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) (Defendant), its president (Defendant), and its intelligence minister (Defendant), were liable under the FSIA, for money damages for the beheadings because Syria actively and knowingly supported al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad also known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" beheaded U.S. civilian contractors Armstrong and Hensley, and their families brought suit against Syria, its president, and its intelligence minister, seeking damages under the FSIA and asserting state-law claims for battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death; survival damages, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. 

The plaintiffs also claimed that Syria, acting through· the principals of the defendants, offered material assistance and resources to al-Qaeda in Iraq and its leader. Because none of the defendants filed an answer or otherwise appeared, the Court proceeded to a default setting, which under the FSIA requires the entry of a default judgment against a non-responding foreign state where the claimant proves its case to the Court's satisfaction. After reviewing the evidence presented, the Court concluded that support for Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda network from Syrian territory or Syrian government actors could not have been accomplished without the authorization of the Syrian government and its military intelligence. The Court then addressed the issue of whether Syria could be held liable for money damages under the FSIA for the beheadings of Armstrong and Hensley.

Issues 

There are several issues involved in this case. For instance, the first issue consists of the question, which tends to inquire whether state-law claims can be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. The other issue is whether a sovereign state may be held liable under the FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism exception, where it is shown that terrorist acts against U.S. citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign state to advance the sovereign's policy objectives. Further, another issue involves whether money damages for economic damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor. Once these issues are wholly considered, the Court can then proceed to offer the verdict of the case. The decision will be based on the fact and matters of the case at hand.

Decision 

In this case, the Court ruled that state law claims must be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Similarly, the Court ruled that a sovereign state may be held liable under the FISA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception, where it is shown that terrorist acts against US citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign to advance the sovereign’s policy objectives. Further, the Court ruled that monetary damages for economic damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against US citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor.

Reasoning on the Decision 

In this case, the damages provision used by the court to award various money damages in this case was enacted in 2008 in an effort by Congress to assist victims in satisfying their judgments against state sponsors of terrorism as well as for the clarification that the cause of acts provided in the terrorist state exception applies not only to agents, employees, or officials of the state sponsorship but also to the state itself. As a result, the state-law claims must be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Under the FSIA Act, U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorist acts can sue a responsible foreign state directly. As a result, the Congress offered the "specific source of law" for recovering and thus eliminated the inconsistencies that arose under state law in such cases. In this case, the families, who are the Plaintiffs effectively brought suit only against Syria, the defendant, because they claimed that all the named defendants should be treated as the foreign state itself. The only cause of action permissible against Syria was the federal cause of action under the FSIA Act, and the state-law claims must be dismissed. 

Besides, from the ruling, a sovereign may be held liable under the FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism Act except in cases where it is proven that terrorist actions against U.S. citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign state to advance the sovereign's policy objectives. In this case, it has been illustrated to the court's satisfaction that it was Syria’s foreign policy to support al-Qaeda in Iraq to topple the nascent Iraqi democratic government and thwart the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Syria's aid to the terrorist group's leader for at least three years was not unknowing, and, given prior actions of terrorism against civilians by al-Qaeda in Iraq, it was foreseeable that Zarqawi and his terrorist organization would again repeat similar actions. Thus, the murders of Armstrong and Hensley were a foreseeable consequence of Syria's aid and support to Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq, and there is jurisdiction over Syria to support damages under the FSIA. 

Further, from the ruling, money damages for economic damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA Act against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor. Damages for a private action for proven acts of terrorism by foreign states under the FSIA Act may include economic losses, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. The amount of punitive damages awarded for personal injury or death resulting from an act of state-sponsored terrorism depends on the nature of the injury, the character of the terrorist act, the need for deterrence, and the wealth of the state sponsor. As with other punitive damages, the goal is to punish those who engage in outrageous conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar behavior. Besides, if various significant punitive damages awards issued against foreign state sponsorship of terrorism, the state's financial capacity to provide funding will be curtailed. Therefore, a default judgment is entered against Syria in the following amounts as decided by the Court.

Bibliography

Güçtürk, Yavuz. "War crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria." Insight Turkey 17, no. 1 (2015): 27.

Hilpold, Peter. "The evolving right of counter-terrorism: An analysis of SC resolution 2249 (2015) in view of some basic contributions in International Law literature." Questions of International Law 24 (2016): 15-34.

Lajeunesse, Gabriel C. "Francis Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 2008 WL 4367284 (DDC 2008)." (2009).

Passafaro, Thomas E. "Statutory Interpretation-Plain Language Reading of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Precludes Terrorist Victims from Retribution-Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 830 F. 3d 470 (7th Cir. 2016)." Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 40 (2017): 203.

Speichert, Alyssa N. "The Persepolis Complex: A Case for Making the Collections Process Easier Under Section 1610 (g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for Victims of Foreign State-Sponsored Terrorism." Mich. St. L. Rev. (2017): 547.

Scholarly writing in nursing is writing of formal work in an academic setting to convey ideas and make arguments for scholarly conversation. Scholarly writing is impersonal but formal and factual. Term paper, research paper, these and dissertation are some of the works that nursing students write. Most academic papers might have their stylistic conventions, but they share writing characteristics that that help in writing a quality paper.

A nursing associate (NA) is a position to work within the nursing team providing care and support to patients and other healthcare service users. It is among the new roles in nursing that started in England. Trainees get an apprenticeship for all areas of nursing enabling them to work across different healthcare areas. Most of the trainees are recruits from existing roles they perform as healthcare assistants. The purpose of a nursing associate role is to train healthcare workers who bridge the gap between registered nurses and health care assistants.