Selecting the Ideal Disinfectant One Size does not

Selecting the Ideal Disinfectant One Size does not

Selecting the Ideal Disinfectant One Size does not Fit All Jim Gauthier, MLT, CIC Senior Clinical Advisor Infection Prevention Objectives Review the characteristics of the ideal disinfectant Highlight important characteristics for disinfection selection Review procedures and validation that make up effective disinfection

Rutala WA, et al. ICHE 2014;35(7):855-65 3 Criteria of an Ideal Disinfectant 1. Broad spectrum kills Healthcare pathogens of concern 2. Fast acting short contact times (for pathogens of concern) 3. Remains wet must keep surfaces wet for entire contact time in single application 4. Unaffected by environmental factors not affected by organic soil or hard water 5. Non-toxic and non-irritating to the user should have lowest

possible safety risk to user 6. Compatible with surfaces should be proven compatible with common Healthcare surfaces and equipment 7. Persistence should have a residual effect on surfaces Criteria of an Ideal Disinfectant 8. Easy to use available in multiple forms to align with highest convenience for users 9. Acceptable odor should have an acceptable odor for patients and staff 10.Economical should not be cost prohibitive for facility 11.Soluble in water so will not cause issues when it contacts water

12.Stable - in concentrate and end use dilution 13.Cleaner - good cleaning ability 14.Nonflammable should have a flash point over 150F The Environment Plays a Role in the Risk of Transmission Direct Transmission Susceptible Patient Ha nd

Hy gi en e En vi H ron yg m ie en n e ta

l Contaminated Environmental Surfaces Hands of Healthcare Providers Healthcare Associated Infections HAI(p) = PA + HH + ASP + CP + FWM + ED Where:

HAI(p) = Healthcare Associated Infection Prevention PA = Patient Acuity HH = Hand Hygiene ASP = Antibiotic Stewardship Program CP = Clinical Practices FWM = Fecal Waste Management ED = Environmental Disinfection

Healthcare Associated Infections HAI(p) = PAvent+PApoe+PAold+PAabtic+PAco-m+ HHprod+HHplace+HHaudit+HHmom+HHchamp+HHpat+HHfam/vis + ASPdrug+ASProute+ASPduration+ASPdose+ASPrestriction CPskinprep+CPdecol+CPprophy+CPbundle+ FWMcontainer+FWMppe+FWMno rinse+FWMprotocol + EDevs+ EDaudit+ EDnurse+ EDother+ EDfamily+ EDprod+ EDppe+ EDcontact+ EDdilute + EDcompat + EDresource Effective Disinfection: 3 Key Elements

The use of an effective disinfectant cleaner A clearly defined protocol with education Compliance monitoring with staff feedback 9

Key Considerations for Selecting the Optimal Disinfectant for Your Facility Rutala 2014(2) Criteria of Ideal Disinfectant: 5 Considerations Updated HICPAC/CDC Guidance for Selection of an Ideal Disinfectant - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Vol. 35, No.7 (July 2014), pp. 855-865) Kill Claims for the most prevalent healthcare pathogens Fast Kill times and acceptable wet contact time to ensure proper

disinfection of non-critical surfaces and patient care equipment Safety Ease of Use Other Factors - manufacturer support; overall cost OSF Critical Require Effectiveness; Broad r Kill tim Safety in use; Haza

Single product, same 12Odor; Diffe Support/ed Kill Claims Does the product kill the most prevalent healthcare pathogens, including those that: Cause most HAIs*? Cause most outbreaks? Are of concern in your facility? +

~27% ~53% 79% (without Yeasts) Rutala 2014 Magill 2014

65% Most common causes of outbreaks and ward closures by causative pathogen, which are relatively hard to kill Clostridium difficile spores Norovirus Aspergillus Rotavirus Adenovirus Viral Pathogens

Enveloped Viruses (Easy to Kill) Influenza Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Parainfluenza virus Human Metapneumovirus

Hepatitis B and C HIV Colds 18 Viral Pathogens Non-Enveloped Viruses (Not Easy to kill)

Norovirus Rhinovirus Enterovirus Hepatitis A *Adenovirus (larger easier to kill) 19 Effect of Disinfectants on Microorganisms

R^ Organism Type Examples Bacterial Spores Spore

Bacillus anthracis, Clostridium difficile Mycobacteria Bacteria M. tuberculosis Small non-enveloped virus Virus

Poliovirus, Norovirus Fungal spores Fungus Aspergillus, Penicillium, Trichophyton Gram negative bacteria Bacteria

E. coli, Klebsiella including CRE, Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter Fungi (Vegetative) Fungus Candida Large Virus (non-enveloped) Virus

Adenovirus, Rotavirus Gram positive bacteria Bacteria Staphylococcus including MRSA Enterococcus including VRE Virus (enveloped)

Virus HIV, HBV, HCV, Influenza Low Level S* Resistant Sensitive ^ *

Adapted from Rutala et al. ICHE 2014;35(7):862 Task Oriented vs. C. Diff isolation Daily Use 21 Criteria of an Ideal Disinfectant: 5

Considerations Updated HICPAC/CDC Guidance for Selection of an Ideal Disinfectant - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Vol. 35, No.7 (July 2014), pp. 855-865) Kill Claims for the most prevalent healthcare pathogens Fast Kill times and acceptable wet contact time to ensure proper disinfection of non-critical surfaces and patient care equipment Safety Ease of Use Other Factors - manufacturer support; overall cost OSF Critical Require

Effectiveness; Broad r Kill tim Safety in use; Haza Single product, same 22Odor; Diffe Support/ed Kill Times and Wet-Contact Time How quickly does the product kill the prevalent healthcare

pathogens? Does the product keep surfaces visibly wet for the kill times listed on its label? Dry Time vs. Label Contact Time Omidbakhsh 2010 IHP (0.5% Hydrogen peroxide)

24 Criteria of an Ideal Disinfectant: 5 Considerations Updated HICPAC/CDC Guidance for Selection of an Ideal Disinfectant - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Vol. 35, No.7 (July 2014), pp. 855-865) Kill Claims for the most prevalent healthcare pathogens Fast Kill times and acceptable wet contact time to ensure proper disinfection of non-critical surfaces and patient care equipment Safety Ease of Use

Other Factors - manufacturer support; overall cost OSF Critical Require Effectiveness; Broad r Kill tim Safety in use; Haza Single product, same Odor; Diffe 25

Support/ed Safety Does the product have an acceptable toxicity rating? Does the product have an acceptable flammability rating? Is a minimum level of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) required? Is the product compatible with the common surfaces in your facility? Sporicidal Everywhere? Effectiveness of an environmental cleaning management

plan implemented by the quality department Change Management Plan Interventions: Stakeholder meetings Education Cleaning carts and checklists Daily duties distributed to staff Switched to sporicidal for daily

cleaning Mahmutoglu D, Haque J, Graham Munoz-Price LS. Division of Infectious Diseases, Medical College of WI SHEA 2016 Poster High Touch Surfaces 100% 80% 60% 64% 48%50%

35% 24% 40% 20% 0% 49% 35% 12%

Bedrail Bedside Table IV Pump Overall Before Intervention After Intervention Different Units 100% 90% 80% 70%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 56% 41% 28%

BMT 44% 40% 31% Hem Onc 1 Hem Onc 2 53% 33%

MICU Before Intervention After Intervention Conclusions A quality-driven change management plan was unsuccessful to improve environmental cleaning Both daily and terminal cleaning were found suboptimal before and after the implementation of interventions Cleaning of bedrails was found significantly less after the

implementation of interventions New sporicidal daily cleaning solutions which have a strong and irritating odor might be playing a major role in this decrease Criteria of an Ideal Disinfectant: 5 Considerations Updated HICPAC/CDC Guidance for Selection of an Ideal Disinfectant - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Vol. 35, No.7 (July 2014), pp. 855-865) Kill Claims for the most prevalent healthcare pathogens Fast Kill times and acceptable wet contact time to ensure proper disinfection of non-critical surfaces and patient care equipment

Safety Ease of Use Other Factors - manufacturer support; overall cost OSF Critical Require Effectiveness; Broad r Kill tim Safety in use; Haza Single product, same

33Odor; Diffe Support/ed Ease of Use Is the product odor considered acceptable? Does the product have an acceptable shelf-life? Does the product come in convenient forms to meet your facilitys needs (e.g. liquids, sprays, refills, and multiple wipe sizes, etc.)? Ease of Use Does the product work in the presence of organic matter?

Is the product water soluble? Does the product clean and disinfect in a single step? Are the directions for use simple and clear? Disposable Disinfectant Wipes Study Demonstrated Disinfectant wipes increased compliance and improved speed. Disinfectant wipes yielded a cost savings over

traditional towel and bucket method Wiemken et al. AJIC 2014;42:329-30 36 Microfiber vs. Disposable Wipes Quat Binding Some cleaning tool fabrics, such as cotton and microfiber, are known to bind with quaternary ammonium compounds

(quats). This is known as quat binding Active ingredients (quat) have a tendency to become attracted to, and absorbed into, microfiber and cotton fabrics Cotton fabrics and most microfibers are negatively charged or anionic Quat Binding Quats are positively charged, or cationic, and are attracted to the negatively charged fabric surfaces Some non-woven disposable wipes have no charge, and do not

demonstrate binding with quats or other disinfectants CONSEQUENCE: A portion of the quat actives become unavailable to disinfect hard surfaces making the disinfection process ineffective! 39 Quat Binding Microfiber wipers, cotton towels, and 1 of 2 types of disposable wipes

soaked in a Quat disinfectant revealed significant binding of the disinfectant. Boyce 2016 Dispensers 33 Stations Number of Dispensers Issue

7 <200 ppm 17 200-400 ppm 6 400-600 ppm

2 No Concentrate 1 Inoperative Other Factors Does the supplier offer comprehensive training and ongoing education, both in-person and virtual?

Does the supplier offer 24-7 customer support? Is the overall cost of the product acceptable (considering product capabilities, costs of infections that may be prevented and costs per compliant use)? Can the product help standardize disinfectants used in your facility? Total Score? Consideration Kill Claims Kill Times and Wet Contact Time Safety

Ease of Use Other Factors Score (1-10) Procedures Integrating safe, and effective products and tools, into cleaning processes to deliver better outcomes Understand current cleaning methods Integrating the products, tools, and equipment to drive improved results and operational efficiency Finding the comprehensive bundle for the specified needs

Roles and Responsibilities Define Who? When? What?

Where? How? 46 Cleaning and Disinfection What surfaces/equipment need to be cleaned, how often, what product should be used, what cleaning tool, what dilution, amount needed, contact time? Is there product available where/when needed? Is the product being used properly, PPE donned correctly (if needed), right technique used, contact time achieved,

feedback provided? Cleaning and Disinfection Assess the adequacy of room cleaning If room cleaning and disinfection practices are deemed to be inadequate, focus on reviewing and improving cleaning and disinfection techniques Create a unit-specific checklist based on cleaning protocols and

perform observations to monitor cleaning practice Consider environmental decontamination with sodium hypochlorite or EPA-approved sporicidal agent if room cleaning and disinfection is deemed to be adequate but there is ongoing CDI transmission (Dubberke 2014 Elbow grease does the job Efficacy of Different Cleaning and Disinfection Methods against Clostridium difficile Spores: Importance of Physical Removal versus Sporicidal Inactivation

Tested the removal of C. difficile spores from environmental surfaces using various cleaners, disinfectants and wipes. Wipes with a non-sporicidal agent showed 2.9 log10 reductions of C. difficile spores. Wiping with a sporicidal agent increased the removal efficacy by 1 log10 (3.9 log10). Results: Just wiping the surface (physical removal) resulted in a ~3 log10 reduction in C. difficile spores Rutala 2012 C. difficile Eradication from Toilets Few alternatives to bleach for non-outbreak conditions have been evaluated in controlled healthcare studies. METHODS:

This study was a prospective clinical comparison during non-outbreak conditions of the efficacy of an improved hydrogen peroxide cleaner (0.5%) with respect to spore removal from toilets in a tertiary care facility. CONCLUSION: IHP formulation evaluated that has some sporicidal activity and provides a onestep process that significantly lowers the C. difficile spore level in toilets during non-outbreak conditions without the workplace safety concerns associated with 5000 ppm bleach. 2-3 Log10 kill after 1 minute Alfa 2010 Proven Solution to Reduce HAI First Clinical study to show that improved compliance with environmental surface disinfection using IHP reduced HAI rates for VRE, MRSA and C. difficile

All rates reduced by > 20% 3 key components to ensure reduction of HAI: The use of an effective disinfectant cleaner A clearly defined protocol with education

Cost avoidance of $668,000/year due to HAI rate reduction Alfa 2015 Compliance monitoring with staff feedback Quat Binding Dr. Alfas study would be very applicable in this case! A New Study with Improved Hydrogen peroxide (IHP) Presented at APIC 2016

AJIC 2016;44(6)Suppl:S16 John M. Boyce, MD Study Design 12-month prospective trial with cross-over design conducted on two campuses of a university-affiliated hospital On each campus, 2 wards were randomized to have EVS perform routine daily cleaning/disinfection of surfaces: IHP disinfectant wipes containing 0.5% IHP Quat disinfectant currently used in the hospital , applied using a disposable wipe made of meltblown polypropylene (same material

as disposable wipe above) Study Design The 4 study wards included: An MICU and its step-down unit on one campus Two general medical wards on the other campus After the initial 6 months, ward assignments were changed Two Facilities Two Technologies One: Quat-based disinfectant cleaner/meltblown polypropylene disposable wipes for daily cleaning; addition of

bleach wipes for C. diff rooms (EVS and Clinical) Two: Improved hydrogen peroxide (0.5%IHP) for all cleaning; all quat and bleach wipes removed from the wards Hand hygiene compliance rates comparable on study wards Methods Analysis included data for months when wipe rates on study wards were > 80% IHP wards 16 months (10,741 patient-days) Quat wards 17 months (11,490 patient-days) Results

Mean ACC/surface after cleaning: On IHP wards (14.0 CFUs/surface) On Quat wards (22.2 CFUs/surface) (p = 0.003) Results Logistic regression analysis revealed that the proportion of surfaces yielding no growth after cleaning On IHP wards (240/501 [47.9%])

On Quat wards (182/517 [35.2%]) (p < 0.0001) Both microbiological outcomes favored IHP over Quat Results 23% fewer cases/1000 Pt-days on IHP wards Antibiotic usage: Non-C. difficile agent use was 10.8% higher on IHP wards which would be expected to lead to more VRE, MRSA and CDI outcomes, not fewer as observed Training & Tools Drives Competence

Facilitate best practice adoption Support tools that demonstrate the proper workflow and procedures Training content delivery in multiple languages and formats to support needs Bringing optimized procedures to life adapting to individual facilities needs

m a Ex e l p m a Ex

e l p Are we missing anything? The Patients Environment EVS cleans 1x per day What happens the other 23.5 hrs?

Patient Room Entries (Cohen) Between 5 AM and 8 PM, (ICU and Med/Surg Unit) Number of room entries = 5.5/hour (28 max) Number of different staff entering room = 3.5/hour (18 max) Number of people in room during waking hours = 15 hrs * 5.5 /hr = 82.5 people

Who came in room? 45% = Nursing staff 23% = Personal visitors 17% = Medical staff 8% = Nonclinical staff 4% = Other clinical staff What do they touch while in the room? 33.5% = contact with the environment only Most common level of touch

27.1% = patients intact skin 17.8% = blood or body fluids 16.0% = the person touched nothing in the room Cohen, et. al., Frequency of patient contact with health care personnel and visitors: implications for infection prevention, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Safety, 2012; 38 (12): 560-565 What do they touch while in the room? Staff frequently enter a room and either touch nothing or only touch the

environment. This may help explain low hand hygiene rates. Cohen, et. al., Frequency of patient contact with health care personnel and visitors: implications for infection prevention, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Safety, 2012; 38 (12): 560-565 Surface Contact Huslage and Rutala (2010) studied HTS in an ICU and a general medsurg unit. In the ICU (contacts per interaction):

Bedrails = 7.8 Bed surface = 6 Supply cart = 4 Surface Contact In the Med-Surg unit (contact per interaction) Bedrails = 3.1

Over-bed table = 1.6 IV pump = 1.4 Bed surface = 1.3 Average surfaces per interaction: ICU = 44, Med-Surg = 15 More Math! Room entries per hour = 5.5 Bedrail contacts per hour = 17.1 (5.5 x 3.1) Bedrail contacts per 15 hour patient awake day = 256 Number of times per day bedrail is disinfected by EVS = 1

Probability of EVS disinfecting the bedrail = 50% ?255? Math! Number of times per day bedrail is disinfected by the clinical staff = ? (probably zero) Probability of Clinical staff performing hand hygiene = 40% We should not be surprised that surfaces in the patient zone contribute to infection risk given the frequency of contact and the limited disinfection

Environmental Disinfection (ED) Recognize that high touch surfaces are done every 24 hours Subsets may be done 2x per day Point of Care Prevention Certain procedures need disinfection of surfaces Point of Care Disinfection It is everyones job to disinfect, but it is not everyones job to disinfect everything

Training cards for: Clinician workstation on wheels, bed rails Food servers over bed table, sanitize patient hands CNAs bedrails, other bed controls Blood lab tech bedrail, bed controls Respiratory therapists bedrail, bed controls

6 Moments of Surface Disinfection 1. Before placing a food tray on an over-bed table 2. After any procedure involving feces (or body fluids) within the patient bed space 3. After any wound dressing change 4. After patient bathing (within bed space) 5. After assistance with productive cough or vomiting 6. Any time surfaces are visibly soiled Point of Care Disinfection Disinfectant at point of care!

0/0/0 HMIS cant be flammable, cant be caustic Fast contact time Suggestion Family and Visitors Feel free to use our disinfectant wipe on hard surfaces around the patient (not a baby wipe) Dispose in the regular garbage Please do not flush!

Validation Are you Confident? The Job has been completed? All areas are in compliance? All surfaces are cleaned? Procedures are followed?

CDC Guidance Based on strong evidence that transmission of HAPs is related to contamination of near patient surfaces and equipment CDC issued a guidance document Options for Evaluating Environmental Cleaning, December 2010 Recommends that all hospitals develop programs to optimize the thoroughness of high-touch surface cleaning as part of terminal room cleaning http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/toolkits/Evaluating-Environmental-Cleaning.html

Cleaning and Disinfection Routinely assess adherence to protocols and adequacy of cleaning and disinfection Assess the adequacy of cleaning and disinfection practices before changing to a new cleaning product (e.g. bleach) Dubberke 2014 Cleaning and Disinfection Consider sporicidal if:

Cleaning and disinfection are deemed adequate, but still ongoing CDI transmission For disinfection of the environment in outbreak or hyperendemic settings in conjunction with other IPC measures Environmental Cleaning Evaluation Program Level I Program Cleaning responsibilities and frequencies clearly defined Structured education of staff Implementation of a monitoring system that measures staff competency and incorporates patient satisfaction survey results Continuous monitoring of the program

Interventions to improve the quality of cleaning and disinfection Consideration and documentation of feasibility of moving to a Level II program www.cdc.gov/HAI/pdfs/toolkits/Environ-Cleaning-Eval-Toolkit12-2-2010.pdf Environmental Cleaning Evaluation Program Level II Everything in Level I AND Implementation of a monitoring system that covertly assesses terminal room thoroughness of surface disinfection cleaning using one or more generally accepted methods The learning from the monitoring of surfaces should be used to

improve processes and overall cleaning outcomes Accepted Methods - Direct Observation - Fluorescence - ATP - Culturing Not recommended - Post Cleaning Inspections Establishing a Baseline for Cleaning Evaluation Program

The program requires a baseline to be established 10-15% of rooms should be included in the baseline calculation - or 15 rooms if the facility has less than 150 rooms This is referred to as the pre-intervention thoroughness of disinfectant cleaning (TDC score) TDC Score = # of objects cleaned/total number of objects evaluated X 100

The baseline learning should be used to optimize programmatic interventions Cleaning Evaluation Program Ongoing measurement of high touch surfaces is recommended at least 3 times/year The ongoing measurement should be compared to the baseline to determine if cleaning practices are improving or deteriorating Validation Deploy for Compliance

Monitoring and Improvement Measure Analyze Activate Improve Florescent Marker, Light & Audit Tool

Simple web-based data entry and analysis On-line, Real-time Reporting Monitoring and ongoing feedback are key Summary 89 Sporicide vs. Effective Cleaning and Disinfection Most of our pathogens are easy to kill

If you have transmission of MRSA, VRE, ESBL or CRE moving to a sporicide will not help! Find your ideal disinfectant Review the moments for environmental disinfection! 90 m a Ex Products that staff can use confidently and

efficiently. Fast-acting disinfectant cleaners kill tough pathogens in as little as one minute, but are gentle on staff and surfaces. e l p Procedures that

standardize processes and help ensure consistent performance. Training programs and best-practice protocols enhance cleaning and disinfection efficiency and effectiveness. Validation system that provides actionable intelligence that can be used to provide feedback to employees, improve the cleaning

and disinfection of high touch surfaces and empower employees to drive continuous 91 improvement. Procedures Vali dati on cts

u d Pro 92 Questions? References Alfa MJ et al. Improved eradication of Clostridium difficile spores from toilets of hospitalized patients using an accelerated hydrogen peroxide as the cleaning agent. BMC Infect Dis 2010:10:268-76. http://

www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/10/268 Alfa MJ, et al. Use of a daily disinfectant cleaner instead of a daily cleaner reduced hospital-acquired infection rates. AJIC 2015;43:141-6 Boyce JM, et al. Quaternary Ammonium Disinfectant Issues Encountered in an Environmental Services Department. ICHE 2016;37(3):340-2 References Cohen, et. al., Frequency of patient contact with health care personnel and visitors: implications for infection prevention, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Safety, 2012; 38 (12): 560-565 Dubberke ER, et al. Strategies to prevent Clostridium difficile infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 Update. ICHE 2014;35(6):628-45

Hawley B, et al. Respiratory symptoms and skin irritation amoung hospital workers using a new disinfection product Pennsylvania, 2015. MMWR 2005;65(10):400-1 Huslage K et al. A Quantitative approach to defining hightouch surfaces in hospitals. ICHE 2010;31(8):850-3 References Kundrapu S, et al. Daily disinfection of high-touch surfaces in isolation rooms to reduce contamination of healthcare workers hands. ICHE 2012;33(10):1039-42 Magill SS, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health careassociated infections. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1198-208. Omidbakhsh N. Theoretical and experimental aspects of microbicidal activities

of hard surface disinfectants: are their label claims based on testing under field conditions? J AOAC Inter 2010;93(6):1-8 Rutala WA, et al. Efficacy of different cleaning and disinfection methods against spores: Clostridium difficile: importance of physical removal versus sporicidal inactivation ICHE 2012;33(12):1255-8 References Rutala WA, et al. Selection of the ideal disinfectant. ICHE 2014;35(7):855-65 Rutala 2014(2). Selection of the ideal disinfectant. Accessed 20160111 from: Disinfectionandsterilization.org Wiemken TL, et al. The value of ready-to-use disinfectant wipes: compliance, employee time, and costs. AJIC 2014;42:329-30

[email protected] [email protected]

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • George Orwell&#x27;s Animal Farm

    George Orwell's Animal Farm

    Tahoma Arial Wingdings Calibri Textured George Orwell's Animal Farm Nine Essential Vocabulary Words 1. Allegory 2. Propaganda 3. Totalitarianism 4. Ensconce 5. Ignominious 6. Communism 7. Pseudonym 8. Revolution 9.
  • Asistencia Tanatologica - Google Groups

    Asistencia Tanatologica - Google Groups

    Cuidados Tanatológicos Mtro. Julio Hernández Falcón La Enfermería Tanatológica La enfermería Tanatológica considera al hombre como un todo, con sus realidades físicas, psicológicas, espirituales, sociales y culturales; focalizando sus cuidados primero al enfermo terminal y luego a quienes lo rodean.
  • INFO FOR FESTIVAL LIAISONS - GALA Choruses

    INFO FOR FESTIVAL LIAISONS - GALA Choruses

    April 2020: Video introductions and Production worksheets due. July 4th, 2020: Festival events begin. DELEGATE REGISTRATION. All registrations will be done online through the Integra Planner software. There will be a limited number of Early-Registration discounts available. This is not...
  • Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New ... - fac.ksu.edu.sa

    Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New ... - fac.ksu.edu.sa

    Learning Objectives. 4.1 Describe business models and discuss their importance.. 4.2. Identify and describe the two general types of business models—standard and disruptive. 4.3. Explain the components of the Barringer/Ireland Business Model Template that entrepreneurs can use to develop a...
  • Tr a n s i t i o

    Tr a n s i t i o

    TDA 'Pre-Pilot' Informal opportunity to see what Nebraska students might write on a TDA. 2,077 responses from 14 districts statewide. Primarily administered online with the exception of grades 6 & 7. October 2015. New item type
  • Part 5: Micro -Purchasing Option - ode.state.or.us

    Part 5: Micro -Purchasing Option - ode.state.or.us

    In Part 1 - Procurement Overview, the ODE CNP Federal Procurement Roadmap was introduced. This roadmap presents a decision-making flowchart to help in determining which method of procurement to use. When the question: "Is the purchase or contact worth more...
  • Accelerated Reader Wibsey Primary School Parent Workshops Thursday

    Accelerated Reader Wibsey Primary School Parent Workshops Thursday

    What happens when your child has finished a book? Log on to AR to take a quiz. This will be done in school. There are 27,000 book quizzes to measure comprehension
  • Methods for Evaluating Validity Two steps in testing

    Methods for Evaluating Validity Two steps in testing

    Locate some simple arguments forms that are obviously valid. 2. Use them to validate more complex argument forms. Methods for Evaluating Validity > Out A>B A B > Out A>B A B >Out a.k.a Modus Ponens >Out > > Out...