Suchergebnisse

The First Conference of Independent African States, attended by representatives of the independent states of western and northern Africa (Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, the Sudan, Tunisia, and the United Arab Republic), was held in Accra, Ghana, from April 15 to 22, 1958. The purpose of the conference was: 1) to discuss problems of common interest; 2) to formulate and coordinate methods aimed at accelerating mutual understanding; 3) to consider means of safeguarding the independence and sovereignty of participating countries and of assisting dependent African territories in their efforts toward the attainment of self-government; and 4) to plan cultural exchanges and mutual assistance schemes.

Nightingale's View of Nursing's Future -- IHI's Triple (Now Quadruple) Aim Initiative -- Today's Nurse Leaders and the Quadruple Aim -- Quadruple Aim Goal 1 : Improving the Experience of Care for Individuals -- Quadruple Aim Goal 2 : Improving the Health of Populations -- Quadruple Aim Goal 3 : Reducing Per Capita Costs of Healthcare -- Quadruple Aim Goal 4 : Improvement of Provider Work Life (Team Vitality) -- Quadruple Aim : Nurses Leading the Way -- The Path to Success -- The Journey Continues -- 2020 and Beyond : Population Health -- 2020 and Beyond : Improving the Individual Experience of Care -- 2020 and Beyond : Reducing Per Capita Cost of Healthcare -- 2020 and Beyond : Improving Provider Work Life (Team Vitality) -- Preparing Future Nurse Leaders to Address the Quadruple Aim.

How it began : the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and nursing -- Remove scope-of-practice barriers -- Opportunities for nurses to lead and diffuse collaborative improvement efforts -- Implement nurse residency programs -- Increase proportion of nurses with a baccalaureate degree to 80% by 2020 -- Double the number of nurses with doctorates by 2020 -- Ensure that nurses engage in lifelong learning -- Prepare and enable nurses to lead change to advance health -- Build an infrastructure to collect and analyze interprofessional health care workforce data -- Afterword : Where do we go from here?

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has undermined the division between the private sphere of the home and the public sphere of politics that has traditionally disadvantaged women political leaders. Whereas male political leaders historically drew on their traditional role as the male head of household to display forms of masculine protectionism toward citizens, women leaders are now able to draw on their traditional motherly role—for example, as the member of the household who traditionally cares for the sick—to display forms of feminine protectionism. As a result, international women leaders have managed to leverage women's role in the home to their advantage in the political sphere. Significantly, an appreciation of traditionally feminine attributes in women political leaders has been displayed in much media coverage, providing more favorable coverage of female political leaders than was previously the case.

This article explores why there have been such different trajectories in regard to same-sex marriage in Australia and Canada. Canada was one of the first countries to introduce same-sex marriage (in 2005) and, at time of writing, Australia still had not done so.1The comparison is particularly interesting given that Australia and Canada have relatively similar political institutions except that Australia has no Charter of Rights. Miriam Smith has suggested that institutional factors explain the different trajectories of policies on same-sex marriage in Canada and the US. However, the shift in comparative lens to Canada and Australia provides new insights into the key role of factors influencing 'political will' in regard to same-sex marriage in both countries. Those multiple influences do include institutions but also the role played by party electoral strategies. Consequently, the article provides insights into the factors that can influence minority group rights in different national democratic settings.

English
Accounts of British Labour's 'third way' tend to leave out an important antecedent for Blair's 'new' politics – the Australian Labor governments of 1983–96. In this article, we argue that labour governments in Australia and Britain have pursued similar strategies for melding neoliberalism with social democracy. Key failures of Australian Labor are instructive for thinking about the future of the New Labour project, while the progressive features of Labor politics in Australia offer a challenge to Third Way social conservatism. Most critically, the Australian experience indicates how parties of the right can regroup in the face of new-style labour governments.