write minimum 350 words based on the instructions

cite only the attached article!

Case Study: Yahoo

•Drawing on the readings by Andreesen, Salhman, and Technology Ventures, what made Yahoo such an attractive opportunity (and not just a good idea) in 1995?

•Identify the major risks in each of these categories at the time of the case:

•Technology

•Market

•Team

•Financial

•What is the most critical category for the founders to address in the short run? Why?

I attached the reading part for this assignment

Thank you

– Essay Answers | www.essayanswers.org

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion addresses fewer than 4 interviewing techniques used for assessing the patient’s social determinants in the comprehensive health assessment. Or the interview techniques used are not evidence based. Or the discussion is not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses 4 evidence-based interviewing techniques used for assessing the patient’s social determinants in the comprehensive health assessment. The discussion is well supported by a scholarly source.

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not provide any justifications.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission provides a justification for 1–4 of the social determinants of health. Or 1 or more of the justifications are illogical. Or the patient’s responses are not included.

COMPETENT

The submission provides a logical justification for the questions used to assess each of the patient’s 5 social determinants of health, and it includes the patient’s responses.

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided, or it does not address the patient’s nursing plan of care.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of the patient’s responses does not logically inform the patient’s nursing plan of care.

COMPETENT

The explanation of the patient’s responses logically informs the patient’s nursing plan of care.

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of how the patient’s economic stability affects access to healthcare is not provided, or none of the given points are addressed.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation illogically interprets how the patient’s economic stability affects access to healthcare. Or the explanation only addresses 1 or 2 of the given points.

COMPETENT

The explanation logically interprets how the patient’s economic stability affects access to healthcare. The explanation addresses all 3 given points.

NOT EVIDENT

An analysis is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The analysis demonstrates a limited understanding of the patient’s educational status and how it affects health, or the analysis makes no reference to the patient’s educational status. Or the analysis is poorly reasoned or not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The analysis demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s educational status and how it affects health. The analysis is well reasoned and well supported by a scholarly source.

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not address specific healthcare barriers and opportunities the patient might face due to educational status.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses specific healthcare barriers and opportunities patient might face due to educational status.

NOT EVIDENT

An analysis is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The analysis demonstrates limited understanding of how the patient’s health or healthcare status affect quality of life. Or the analysis is poorly reasoned or not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The analysis demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how the patient’s health and healthcare status affect quality of life. The analysis is well reasoned and well supported by a scholarly source.

NOT EVIDENT

An analysis is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The analysis demonstrates a limited understanding of health literacy, or it demonstrates a misunderstanding of how literacy affects health. The analysis is poorly reasoned or not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The analysis demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of health literacy and how it affects health. The analysis is well reasoned and well supported by a scholarly source.

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of how the patient’s neighborhood and environment affects access to health is illogical, or the explanation makes no reference to how the patient’s neighborhood or environment affects access to health.

COMPETENT

The explanation of how the patient’s neighborhood and environment affects access to health is logical.

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include a comparison of the healthcare received by patients living in low- versus high-income areas.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission provides a shallow or inaccurate comparison of the similarities or differences in the healthcare a patient receives in low- versus high-income areas.

COMPETENT

The submission provides a comprehensive, accurate comparison of the similarities and differences in the healthcare a patient receives in low- versus high-income areas.

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not logically address how access to healthcare differs for patients living in rural versus urban areas, or the discussion is not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The discussion logically addresses how access to healthcare differs for patients living in rural versus urban areas, and the discussion is well supported by a scholarly source.

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not provide specific reasons for how the patient’s neighborhood affects access to healthy food options.

COMPETENT

The discussion provides specific reasons for how the patient’s neighborhood affects access to healthy food options.

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion demonstrates a limited understanding of why social determinants need to be addressed in the comprehensive health assessment. The ideas presented are illogical or are not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The discussion demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of why social determinants need to be addressed in the comprehensive health assessment. The ideas presented are logical and well supported by a scholarly source.

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not identify any social determinants.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission identifies only 1 or 2 of the highest priority social determinants, or the identified social determinants are illogical or unrelated to the patient.

COMPETENT

The submission identifies the 3 highest priority social determinants, and they are logical and related to the patient.

NOT EVIDENT

A nursing plan of care is not provided, or it does not address any social determinants from part B1.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The nursing plan of care is illogical, or it addresses only 1 or 2 of the social determinants from part B1.

COMPETENT

The nursing plan of care is logical and addresses the 3 social determinants from part B1.

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided, or it does not address any of the 3 social determinants from part B1.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation does not logically address the implementation of the nursing plan of care based on the identified social determinants from part B1, or it addresses only 1 or 2 social determinants from part B1.

COMPETENT

The explanation logically addresses the implementation of the nursing plan of care based on the 3 identified social determinants from part B1.

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include a discussion of barriers, or the discussion does not address barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care for any of the 3 social determinants identified in part B1.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission discusses barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care from part B2, but they are illogical or irrelevant. Or the discussion addresses barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care for only 1 or 2 of the social determinants identified in part B1.

COMPETENT

The submission discusses logical and relevant barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care from part B2 for each of the 3 social determinants identified in part B1.

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include a discussion, or the discussion does not address any of the 3 social determinants from part B1.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission discusses the individuals who need to be involved in the nursing plan of care, but the individuals are irrelevant to the nursing plan of care from part B2. Or the discussion addresses only 1 or 2 of the social determinants from part B1.

COMPETENT

The submission discusses the individuals who need to be involved in the nursing plan of care, and the individuals are relevant to the nursing plan of care from part B2, and the discussion addresses each of the 3 social determinants from part B1.

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of how to evaluate the effectiveness of the patient’s nursing plan of care is subjective, or the explanation is not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The explanation of how to evaluate the effectiveness of the patient’s nursing plan of care is objective. The explanation is well supported by a scholarly source.

NOT EVIDENT

A summary is not provided.

Eyewitness identification becomes less accurate when the witness...

1. You have been assigned... Scroll to top