Sample Solution
Six Sigma is a process improvement methodology that focuses on eliminating errors and reducing variability in order to increase quality (Shah, 2018). The system involves the use of five key steps: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control (DMAIC) which are applied systematically to identify and eliminate sources of variation in processes or products (Shah, 2018). This involves defining the customer requirements for each product or service that is being produced; measuring and analyzing current performance against those requirements; identifying areas for improvement; implementing solutions; and controlling any new changes with ongoing monitoring (Shah, 2018).
In health care organizations, Six Sigma can be used to improve services in several ways. It can help reduce medical errors by pinpointing areas where mistakes may occur more frequently. It can also help identify issues related to patient safety such as delays in treatment or communication breakdowns between staff members. Additionally, it can be used to streamline workflow processes so they are more efficient while still meeting quality standards (O’Neill et al., 2017). Finally, it can help reduce costs associated with waste or inefficient processes because fewer resources will be wasted when potential problems are identified early on (Villasenor et al., 2011).
Overall, Six Sigma provides a comprehensive approach to process improvement by utilizing data-driven methods that allow health care organizations to evaluate their services more effectively. This leads not only to improved patient outcomes but also cost savings for the organization due its focus on eliminating waste from existing systems (O’Neill et al., 2017).
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
