The use of Gantt Chart DHA-AMERICA HEALTHCARE (HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION) Depict a Milestone Timeline for Completing Your Final Applied Doctoral Project As a student of Healthcare Administration, to s
1st Week 2nd Week 3rd Week 4th Week Step One Step Two Step Three Step Four Step Five Step Six Step Seven Figure 1: Gantt Chart The use of Gantt Chart DHA-AMERICA HEALTHCARE (HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION) Depict a Milestone Timeline for Completing Your Final Applied Doctoral Project As a student of Healthcare Administration, to start your Dissertation, Use Gantt Chart to create Milestone Timeline (12 weeks) that demonstrate thoughtful consideration of a visual to represent the relationship between tasks and the estimated time it will take to complete these tasks. In addition, you will have a 1-page summary of the importance of project planning, and how this chart will keep you on track. A title page and a reference page are required. The completed Milestone Timeline should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. The content should reflect scholarly writing and current 7th edition APA standards. References: Include a minimum of 3 scholarly resources. 2

I need help with an abstract. It needs to be 600-2000 words. Topic is “Incidents that occur during high school sport transportation” I have attached an example of an abstract.
Little League liability: Sport-related bunk bed use issues Twelve-year old Easton Oliverson sustained a skull fracture, brain bleed, and ensuing staph infection after falling from a bunk bed and hitting his head on a hard floor in the dormitory housing his team on August 15, 2022 during the Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA. His parents sued Little League Baseball, Inc, a New York corporation maintaining their primary business in Williamsport, and bunk bed manufacturer Savoy Contract Furniture, incorporated in Williamsport, for negligence in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County on September 16, 2022. The suit alleges that Little League failed to provide upper bunks with rails to protect individuals, causing Oliverson to fall, while Savoy sold “dangerous and defective” beds that caused “significant and permanent injuries to” the boy (Reed, 2022). Sleeping quarters for the teams included a large dorm room with seven bunk beds, with coaches in two adjacent rooms. Two days after the fall, Little League released the following statement: “Since 1992, Little League has used institutional-style bunk beds to offer the most space for the players to enjoy their time in the dorms,” … “While these beds do not have guardrails, Little League is unaware of any serious injuries ever occurring during that period of time” (Yu, 2022). Following the injury, Little League removed all bunk beds from dormitories and replaced them with single beds with frames securely rooted to the ground. While Little League has decided that bunk beds will no longer be a part of their lodging situation for the tournament, the serious injury to Easton Oliverson highlights the responsibilities sport organizations have and the hazards they face when hosting children in overnight competitions. This presentation will address how that case can help sport managers think about sleeping and lodging safety and liability for their organizations and protect those who rely on them. Furthermore, this presentation will discuss the current case status at the time of the conference (if updates are available), consider the consumer codes related to bunk bed manufacturing, analyze the case law related to negligence and premises liability in related cases, and apply this information to the topic of housing minors in sports tournaments and sports camps. Bunk bed requirements Federal law stipulates that bunk beds are subject to certain standards. Under 16 CFR 1513.3 guardrails are required on bunk beds. “Any bunk bed shall provide at least two guardrails, at least one on each side of the bed, for each bed having the underside of its foundation more than 30 inches (760 mm) from the floor.” (16 CFR 1513.3) In this case, the bunk bed was 60 inches high, yet lacked rails. The bed manufacturer stated that it recommended the use of rails if the beds were bunked or lofted. Thus, it appears that the bunk beds used in the Little League Baseball World Series dormitories did not meet federal requirements or the maker’s own guidelines. Bunk bed negligence case law Negligence is an act or omission that fails to meet a legal duty of care established to protect an individual from unreasonable risks of harm (Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 282, 1965). The theory of negligence is relied upon in cases where a child falls out of a bunk bed on the landowner’s premises. A plaintiff establishes a common law prima facie case of negligence when it proves the following: “the defendant owed the plaintiff some sort of duty, a breach of that duty occurred, there was a causal connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s breach, and that the plaintiff indeed suffered a provable injury” (Levine et al., 2019, p. 102). Three cases are most relevant to the Little League Baseball bunk bed case at issue here: Yun V. Great Wolf Lodge of the Poconos, LLC, (182 F. Supp. 3d 182); Buck ex rel. Buck v Camp Wilkes, Inc. (906 So.2d 778); and Rubin v Olympic (198 N.Y.S.2d 408). In Yun v. Great Wolf Lodge of Poconos, LLC, parents sued the hotel when their four-year-old child fell out of the top bunk of a bed in the hotel. They asserted premises and product liability claims based on their child’s injuries from the fall. The district court held that the hotel did not have duty under Pennsylvania law to provide the family with a room that did not contain bunk beds. “In Pennsylvania, 1) the elements of a negligence claim are: a duty or obligation recognized by law requiring the defendant conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks; 2) defendant’s failure to conform to a certain standard; 3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; 4) actual loss or damage resulting to the plaintiff” (182 F. Supp.3d 186). In considering the premises liability claim, the court applied Section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which has been adopted by Pennsylvania in other such cases. Section 343 states as follows: “A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm causes to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if he Knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invites, and Should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and Fails to exercise reasonable case to protect them against the danger” This Restatement provision states that the landowner is not liable to invitees for physical harm for dangers that are known or obvious unless the possessor of the land “should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness” (Restatement (2nd) of Torts §343A). Great Wolf Lodge relied on the Rubin and Buck cases to show that bunk beds do not constitute a dangerous condition. In Rubin v Olympic Resort, Inc, N.Y.S. 2d. 408, a six-year-old child fell out of bunk bed with no rail. The court found that the condition of the bed as obvious and that it was up to the parents to consider whether the bed was suitable for the children. In Buck ex rel. v Camp Wilkes, Inc., a thirteen-year-old girl fell out of a bunk bed without guardrails. The Mississippi court in the Buck case was unwilling to state that a bunk bed used by a thirteen-year-old was inherently dangerous. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the bed failed to comply with applicable standards or that a bunk bed is a hidden or concealed danger (906 So.2d, 778). Bunk beds are not considered to be hidden or concealed dangers with regard to premises liability. Rubin and Bucks provide persuasive precedents for the Oliverson v Little League case, but Yun is a binding precedent since it was decided in the same jurisdiction, Pennsylvania. The bunk beds in Yun exceeded federal standards. However, in the current case it seems that the Little League bunk beds lacked rails specifically recommended by the manufacturer and may have also failed to meet the standard of care established for bunk beds based on both federal law and the reasonably prudent standard. What is likely to happen in the Oliverson v Little League case? The Oliversons have sued for $50,000 and punitive damages. While the suit was only filed in late September and thus little information is available by the conference abstract deadline, there are a few potential outcomes in the case that are worth predicting. In this case it appears that Little League Baseball may indeed have been negligent by not providing a bed with rails, which would meet the standard of care, which is recommended by the bed manufacturer, Savoy. The law applied in the Yun case would be applicable in this case due to the case’s being heard in Pennsylvania, presumably under that state’s law. Thus, an application of Section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts would apply to the presence of the bunk bed, without guardrails, on the Little League Baseball World Series dormitory premises. It would not be surprising if Little League is found to have some liability for negligence for providing bunk beds that violate 16 CFR 1513.3(a) related to the presence of guardrails on bunk beds. (Note, however, that discovery may disclose extenuating facts, such as horseplay or intervening acts by third-parties that could reduce or eliminate Little League’s liability.) If it is indeed true that Savoy recommends that guardrails should be purchased when using the beds as bunk beds, and repeatedly warned Little League Baseball to use guardrails (Maroney, 2022) it seems possible that Savoy will not be liable in this case. Implications and future research It is reasonably foreseeable that children could get hurt while sleeping in bunk beds, particularly if they are used in a sport-related lodging situation. This high-profile accident is likely to influence other organizations that must house sporting event participants to eliminate the use of bunk beds in their lodgings. It seems likely that the risk management tactic of elimination is the best possible course when weighing the potential risk of injury from bunk beds whether it is due to sleeping-related injuries or foreseeable horseplay, which is not discussed in the present analysis but worthy of future treatment. While the present research focuses on an analysis of bunk bed liability related to an incident in the sport tournament context of Little League Baseball, future research will consider the topic of liability for sleeping quarter injuries in sport-related lodging situations including both sleeping-related and arising from horseplay in the premises. References 16 CFR 1513.3 (2022) Requirements for Bunk Beds. American Law Institute. (1965). Restatement of the Law, Second: Torts 2nd [rev. and Enl.] (Vol. 1). American Law Institute Publishers. Buck ex rel. Buck v. Camp Wilkes. Inc. 906 So.2d, 778 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) Levine, J. F., Cintron, A. M., & McCray, K. L. (2019). Legal implications of conducting background checks on intercollegiate student athletes. Marquette Sports Law Review, 30(1), 85-115. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1766&context=sportslaw Maroney, M (2022, September 22). Savoy: Bed bunks come with warnings. Williamsport Sun-Gazette. https://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2022/09/savoy-bed-bunks-come-with-warnings/ Oliverson v. Little League Baseball, Inc., No. 839. (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Phil. Co. Sept. 16, 2022). Reed, C. (2022, August 16). UPDATED: Little League World Series removes bunk beds as local player continues to improve. St George News. https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/08/16/injured-little-league-world-series-all-star-responsive-speeding-on-basepath-to-recovery/#.Y0BwBLbMKUn Rubin v Olympic Resort, Inc, N.Y.S.2d.408, (1960) Yu, Y (2022, September 20). Little Leaguer seriously injured in fall goes home from hospital: ‘So grateful’ ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/leaguer-injured-fall-home-hospital-grateful/story?id=90201135 Yun v. Great Wolf Lodge of the Poconos, LLC. 182 F. Supp. 3d 182. (M.D. Pa. 2016)

Lesson Plan and Analysis Purpose: Most of you are quite experienced with lesson plans, but this one may be different from what you are used to seeing. This time you will incorporate what you have lear
Purdue University Global School of Education General Lesson Plan Template (This template may be modified as needed to fit district or school lesson plan formats.) Grade Level:       Subject / Content area:       Unit of Study:      Lesson Title:       Be certain to attach any handouts, activities, templates, PPT decks that will be utilized with this lesson. Central Focus for the learning segment: What is the central focus or big idea of the lesson?       Content Standard(s): State Standards (CCLS, NGSS, etc.) List the number and text of the standard. If only a portion of a standard is being addressed, then only list the relevant part(s).       ITSE Technology Standard(s): Visit http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016 to determine the applicable standard(s) for this lesson. If only a portion of a standard is being addressed, then only list the relevant part(s). Learning Objectives: Thinking Skill – What cognitive process(es) will students be engaged in during the lesson? Refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy or Depth of Knowledge. Content – What content will students have access to during this lesson? Refer to the standards referenced above. Product –What will students know and be able to do by the end of the lesson?       Language Development: Language Objectives – What will students be expected to utilize when illustrating or demonstrating understanding? Vocabulary – What key vocabulary is in the lesson? Materials/Resources: Provide a list of the materials and resources you will use as sources of input for the students during this lesson. At least one resource must be technology used for instructional purposes that is supported by the ITSE standard(s) referenced above. Context: Knowledge of Students: Prior learning and Prerequisite Skills: What prior knowledge do students need to use and build upon to be successful? Misconceptions: Identify common misconceptions regarding the concepts that are addressed in the lesson. Explain how your plans linked student’s prior academic learning and personal/cultural/community assets to new learning.       Plan Details: Write a detailed plan that describes the procedure of your class session including model of instruction, conceptual/skill development, activities, questions, and conclusion.       Instructional Strategies and Learning Tasks: How will you support diverse student needs? Include what you and students will be doing:       Differentiation and planned universal supports: What will you use for the whole class, individuals, and/or students with specific learning needs? How will you address the needs of GATE, EL, or students with special needs during this lesson? Students with IEP or 504 must be included indicating necessary supports to achieve the learning objectives.       Literacy Skills & Strategies : A. Literacy Strategies: Identify at least one strategy used to help students comprehend and/or compose text within the lesson. B. Skills: Identify the requisite literacy skills students will develop and practice while learning the identified literacy strategy. C. Connection between Reading/Writing: Identify how your lesson helps student make the connection between reading and writing.       Type of Student Assessments and what is being assessed: How will you know whether students are making progress towards the learning goal(s) and how will you assess the extent to which they have met the goal(s)? You must justify at least 2 formative or summative assessment strategies that occur in your plan. You must describe how the assessment is aligned with the stated objectives, which objective(s) it is assessing, how the strategy provides evidence of student understanding, and how you will provide feedback to the student on each of the 2 assessment strategies. Formative Assessment:      What objective(s) is this assessing? How will you know students have mastered the objective(s)? Summative Assessment:      What objective (s) is this assessing? How will you know students have mastered the objective(s)? Modifications to the Assessments for students with diverse needs:      Evaluation Criteria and/or Rubric:       Relevant theories and/or research best practices:       APA References: Lesson Timeline: