Sample Solution
Health care leaders can achieve an overall culture of quality while allowing for varied subcultures within their organizations by taking a multifaceted approach that focuses on creating balance between the two (Vaccaro et al., 2016). Leaders should first identify the core values they wish to integrate into their organizational culture. These values should promote quality and patient safety, as well as collaboration among staff members, respect for individuals and teams, open communication, and accountability. This step is essential in establishing a baseline of expectations across all areas of the organization (Vaccaro et al., 2016).
Once these core values have been established, leaders can then begin to foster more localized cultures within each area or department. To do this effectively, it is important for leaders to encourage dialogue between departments and work together to create individualized strategies that align with the overarching goals of high-quality healthcare delivery (Rainsford & Ehrmann-Feldman, 2014). This involves actively listening to staff members’ comments and feedback about existing processes so that improvements can be made accordingly. It also entails providing opportunities for staff development so that new skill sets can be acquired if desired by employees. Finally, it means recognizing excellence through awards or other forms of recognition when applicable (Rainsford & Ehrmann-Feldman, 2014).
By implementing these measures in combination with one another, health care leaders can create an overall environment focused on high-quality standards while still giving room for varied subcultures throughout their organization(s) (Vaccaro et al., 2016). Doing so encourages employee engagement which will ultimately lead to improved services being provided at all levels of the organization (Rainsford & Ehrmann-Feldman 2014).
ombatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for figh
