EMOTIONAL-INTELLIGENCE-PRESENTATION Emotional Intelligence and the Trump Administration may not have as much in common as the prior administration of Barak Obama but, the Trump administration does put forth a great opposing view of how emotional intelligence or EI can be understood. What I am suggesting is having a high EQ as opposed to IQ would serve as an ability allowing you to understand the folks under your leadership and those exposed to the environments, affected by your choice decisions. No one can read minds, but if you could, reading the minds of a person and understanding exactly why they do what they do, the logical idea in a child’s mind might suggest you’d use that power as a super hero or X Men. I’m not intentionally diverting from political correctness X Lady doesn’t quite have the same conditional tone, does it? But, if you, DNA mutant for good knew when the time called upon your skill as the Emotional Intelligence (EI) hero you would become the ultimate conflict resolution-ist. And, depending on your quotient or EQ strength you’d become one among the greats. I’m sure this would be a good point to discuss political views between the former Obama administration and the current Trump administration but, I’m not one to lead you to making the decisions my EQ isn’t quite that high, yet. But, if you realize which of these characters possessing the greatest skills in leadership would contend with the opposition, draw upon their superlative talents as the EI hero and voilà, the student would emerge to enter the mastery of understanding, emotional intellect would kick in (Trushell, 2004). Emotional Intelligence is described as ability “to build relationships” (DuBrin, 2012, p. 481). Although, it would be great to be seen as having superior or super human capabilities as implied by writer John M. Trushell. Emotional intelligence as a fantasy of American pulp fiction as I allude to in the opening does not totally have to result in fictitious results.
EI, is the motive to engage innate abilities as empathy and trust. Trust, however has to have some degree of disciplined control. Among capable leadership and those who are under the subjection EI can produce amazing collaboration and resolution. EI results in actions performed by and between individuals, groups or organizations making those who take steps to engage “constructive use of … emotion” more effective through their administrative processes (DuBrin, 2012, p.481). Imagine the difference among subordinate members of a group who have two persons to follow. One person is seen among the group as a leader and the other person is seen as an authority figure but, not a leader. The superior individual with the highest level of EI would be described as the person viewed as being aware of the needs of the subordinates. And, the title of leader may apply to anyone among this group possessing the advantage of emotional trust from members of the group. Identifying the second category of highly ranked heroes of administration can be difficult since, they aren’t necessarily specified by managerial appointment they are recognized by the way their peers engage with them.
Scores that have been adopted to measure a level of emotional intelligence such as MSCEIT, its scoring process determines a person’s EI based on a scale identified as a quotient. There are highly questionable methods to these measurements. Measurements that could determine if a person is able to control their anger must take into consideration more than the scope of anger management tools as psychometric assessments as the, HCR-20. Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios, (2003) contend there are concerns regarding the reliability of such tests. They challenge validity of emotional intelligence itself and whether results of tests will provide consistent results. In my own self-examination, I have been evaluated a having “Good EQ”, in theory. I do believe I have some degree of leadership abilities which would support good EQ results. However, I don’t believe my results would replicate if I would take a similar study under slightly different questions or different demands they might indicate some similarity but highly unlikely to be the same. DuBrin (2012) describes this as an ability to connect with people and understand their emotions” (p. 162). Is it truly necessary to connect? I believe having what is described to be emotional intelligence leads to a better understanding of what makes a great leader, better. Connecting to people is essential to administration and leadership even though EI claims are made to imply being first in this regard scientist credit Darwinian ideals as emotional expression as the central token of adaptive leadership traits. For further edification, I have taken liberty to provide you with reference resources, until next time I sit with my pen – ENJOY THE SITES!
You can judge me by the following references:
Bar-On, R. (2001). Emotional intelligence and self-actualization. Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry, 82-97.
DuBrin, A. J. (2012). Ethics and corporate social responsibility: In essentials of management. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emotion, 3(1), 97.
Trushell, J. M. (2004). American Dreams of Mutants: The X‐Men—“Pulp” Fiction, Science Fiction, and Superheroes. The Journal of Popular Culture, 38(1),
The issue to provide healthcare and no harm, obligates agents within every medical platoon and members of reform measures to social responsibilities that ensure reduction rates of nosocomial infections, through a focus targeted on the duty to serve. In this service, obligation to maintain quality efforts that successfully prevent the spread of nosocomials are the inherent standard. Practices such as handwashing and donning of gloves before and after personal contact with patients is a typical surveillance event with less than 50% compliance according to a joint commission review (Sahud, Bhanot, Radhakrishnan, Bajwa, Manyam, & Post, 2010). Such efforts leading to improve the practice of both handwashing and donning of gloves is critical to ensure the reduction of transmitting pathogens within a healthcare clinical environment and they share goals to improve on a consistent basis. There are other common practices such as wearing protective personal equipment, sterile techniques, and accurate diagnosis, all must be recognized as quality concerns for reduction of risks in their repetitive practice. Studies have been conducted on each of these interventions yielding results of various efficiencies.
However, considering possible threats and outbreaks of virulent diseases such as Ebola and Flu, emergency protocols should be incorporated as standard practices of nosocomial prevention and training. Seasonal vaccinations among healthcare agents should be inclusive annual practices to ensure a continual reduction of hospital acquired diseases in all areas. The case for mandatory vaccination treatments is feasible; resulting in vaccination rejection rates of 2% among vaccine healthcare workers according, to a five-year study conducted at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, Washington. This first to be known infectious control mandate yielded a 98% uptake compliance rate among Health Care Workers (HCW). Policy accommodations for religious and other considerations were granted due to possible concerns relating specifically to medical diagnoses (Rakita, Hagar, Crome, & Lammert, 2010). Although, the study highlights a significant percentage for vaccination uptake, it also pays to recognize the small percentage of vaccination resistant HCW which, includes a fewer number of vaccination resistant workers who withdrew their employment.
This proposal intends to suggest the best practice to ensure a reduction of influenza as a nosocomial disease is to implement vaccination uptake as part of standard training procedures for infection control (e.g. handwashing, personal protective equipment, sterile techniques, vaccination uptake) ensuring education of the HCW recognizes that vaccination uptake, when considered part of standard infectious control procedures and healthcare no harm responsibility rule, will act as an additional form of patient protection in hopes to coincide with core public value. After all, incorporating the standard practices of infectious control and uptake responsibility, vaccinating should be treated as a standard of care regardless of one’s personal value. From the core debate surrounding vaccinations, public value has been stirred into a melting pot mixture of divergent medical practice ideals from which, agents of healthcare must eventually accept reconciliation and collaborate on behalf and presence of clients.
CONCLUSION: A perception of best practice and prioritization among healthcare agents can lead to determining factors that reduce the spread of nosocomial infections. If wearing a face mask during patient care, he or she may experience greater collaboration if vaccination uptake workers would also wear face masks while providing patient care during seasonal outbreaks, a practice would condone collaborative efforts over values of elitist. Such recognition in behavior can be an effective tool to provide the highest standards of care amongst the agents duty to serve. This practice when implemented as standard could be taught and expressed as professional practice counteracting inverse care among vulnerable patient populations. Recognizing parameters of these established behaviors and values for nosocomial or hospitalization case designs are warranted for preventive inquiries and investigations into expected and anticipated behaviors of laggard resistance and of laggard hesitancy in non-nosocomial environments should greater events or threats occur. Review by gap analysis for productive gains of gene delivery through systems of modern Nano-technology vaccine deliveries would benefit from aforetime observances of laggard adaptations.
Talbot, T.R., & Schaffner, W. (2010). On being the first: Virginia Mason Medical Center and mandatory influenza vaccination of healthcare workers.
Sahud, A.G., Bhanot, N., Radhakrishnan, A., Bajwa, R., Manyam, H., & Post, J.C. (2010), An electronic hand hygiene surveillance device: a pilot study exploring hand hygiene surveillance device: a pilot study exploring surrogate markers for hand hygiene compliance. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 31(6), 634-63
We have engaged upon a time when proactive participation is measured by the willingness of submissive support. The debate over viral inoculations has caused a collision between homeopathic beliefs and evidence-based research. These adverse ideals have begun to thicken over a gulf-crisis between medical’s best practice and homeopathy’s survival of the fittest. Collections of viral activity data under the 2017-18 surveillance by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Respiratory and Enteric Viral Surveillance System (NREVSS), and the World Health Organization (WHO) present a rampant and growing trend of influenza-like activity spreading in the United States. Schisms and arguments opposing mandated vaccinations in hospital settings have been responsible for facilitating productivity cost factors, resulting in productivity and liability losses and greater economic burdens by simply not addressing the cyclical flu patterns among seasonal outbreaks and within organizational healthcare workers and the patients they are in contact with. But, the resistant behavior should not be held as the sole perpetrator of influenza’s upward trend more investigation is required to see exactly what is responsible. In the meantime, to prevent continued upward shifts of viral activity nosocomial deterrent collaboration conjoined with modified behavioral practices opposed to the vaccination uptake movement, resistant arguments must no longer go unanswered. Here, I present the concern related to inclusion of influenza vaccinations as a prophylactic uptake for best practice standards of care while used as a component of nosocomial deterrents.
Nosocomial deterrents, vaccination uptake, vaccination resistance, hand hygiene, standard precautions
Table of Contents
Value Management 5
Job planning 7
Trend tracking 9
Literature review 14
Studies review 18
Prevalence review 20
Behavioral theory 21
Risk Factors 27
Reference page 30
Vaccination Uptake, Improving Nosocomial
Deterrent Best Hygiene Practice
Mandatory treatments are steadily resulting in less rejection rates among medical professional support groups and parental behavior of preschoolers, but less amongst role models in healthcare, the nursing staff (Davis & Gaglia, 2005; Naleway, Henkle, Ball, Bozeman, Gaglani, Kennedy, & Thompson, 2014). A selection of four states California, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Mississippi indicate health promotion programs which mandated flu shots are gaining more results in numbers but, also show the mandatory requirements creates agitation and argumentative discourse amongst many of healthcare’s professional teams. In this paper, I will take a close look at the problem of these optional opinions and organizational choices to mandated vaccination policies. Although, seeking community information from healthcare workers, adult students and participants of public service facilities such as libraries, shelters and police stations provides a general access to public information, it is the goal of this paper to discover a specific strategy that can be used to reduce the rate of noncompliant practices. Current upward trends of influenza have demonstrated that resistance is futile and as a less effective strategy it should not be considered as a best practice in healthcare’s patient to patient exposure. If mandated vaccinations are required in employment & hiring practices, inclusive staff training of added deterrents and patient safety practices are established as best practices evidence and necessary for patient safety. Incorporating the vaccination with other standards of care will improve the outcome of delivering healthcare services according to the Ziegler study.
In the Ziegler study, vaccines were determined essential deterrents for possible sepsis conditions, this was amongst the first successful adjuvant therapy as a prophylactic study in healthcare related to sepsis prevention (Cross, 2014). Identifying the reasons for immunization rejections among select communities in healthcare, may lead to fashioning better strategies for preventing nosocomial disease. Information discovery may be formatted to the requirements of participant state department of Health and Human Services and shelter base programs that have participation access to health promotion programs leading to national 2020 Healthy People and the developing 2030 Healthy People, CDC outreach goals. In order to provide results for an endeavor to improve patient care services and risks reduction healthcare workers should familiarize themselves with the goals of the Healthy People campaign.
FAST DIAGRAM: figure 1
An organization who identifies a problem properly apart from its symptoms, has an obligation to clearly define the problem before seeking out a solution. In order to define the problem, you have to find out what it needs. Symptom management, may inspire the right ideas in order to bring forth a proper solution to the problem – the right fix, to the need. Kaufman (1998) discusses ideal strategies for a FAST remedy to improve an organizations response to the needs of its customers in his Value management: Creating competitive advantage culture.
Identifying what the customer needs must always come first as a practice. Leadership will embrace actions necessary to promote resolution of the client needs; especially the foremost need of the customer at hand. In a healthcare environment, my focus on embracing every action designed to promote nosocomial deterrents, while reducing associated barriers, are synonymous to enhancing the safety of the patient and fulfilling their need. Thus, incorporating healthcare vaccinations together with other nosocomial deterrent practices should be considered part of the medical service community’s embedded Quality Function Design (QFD). QFD is rarely considered a possibility for the service industries according to researchers Lieuwe Dijkstra and Hans van der Bij, (2002). But, as a possible function for this professional service towards achieving patient safety goals, vaccination uptake can be incorporated into a QFD as a best practice and nosocomial deterrent standard of care.
As a FAST response, embedded in practice for quick unanticipated burdens related to productivity loss, staffing shortages, and nosocomial outbreaks vaccination uptake is an essential tool to measure for effectiveness of quality care and functional deterrence. FAST, the value management strategy for functional analysis and systematic techniques, are also mapping techniques used in conjunction to value management strategies that addresses a plethora of issues which carry potential negative impacts on production design and service cost to business organizations. In his Value management: Creating competitive advantage article, Kaufman argues for the importance of rapid response in cost reduction and value improvement in achieving worthwhile objectives (Kaufman, 1998). Discovery of competitive advantages versus longer hospital stay durations for patients or rising productivity cost due to staff call-ins and shortages are added burdens of higher demands necessary for shift coverage. QFD will promote resolute objectives unforeseen through improper value management which goes undetected during strategic planning operations. This form of an organizations capital investment management, where organizations fulfill the cost planning allocated and obligated to its membership productivity, patient stay minimalization, staff training, and skill deployment establishes vital components key to value management methods.
As part of the value management system, an organizations job is to establish an effective method and approach that will consistently guide collaborative efforts through opportunities of problem resolutions. Pioneer and Value Management System Creator Lawrence D. Miles is quoted as saying, “all cost is for function … because the customer wants something done” (Kaufman, 1998, p. 3). In his five-step job plan, Kaufman would suggest job planning begins first by evaluating all available and relevant information pertaining to project series. In a healthcare environment a cyclical pattern of nosocomial transmission and seasonal flu trends associated with viral diseases, such as influenza, have credible resources available through CDC, WHO, and NREVSS. Evaluation of information and data trends from these reputable agencies can provide preliminary steps to initiate QFD. The second step of the planning process is to develop a list of ideas that relate to QFD guidelines or performances but, not as solutions. Implementing nosocomial deterrents such as handwashing, isolation gowning, and flu vaccinations are reasonable ideas against potential hazards of disease transference. In step number three, planners should evaluate the list of ideas suitable for best practice. Improvement of vaccination uptake rates improves risk reduction potentials of shared exposure according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clustering the best practice methods, such as these nosocomial deterrents mentioned herein, can provide measurable components important to evaluation of scenarios that include financial risk and health-risk reduction during patient care events especially during seasonal flu outbreaks. Step five, brings proposed recommendations to stakeholders for approval and funding of these best practice ideals. Continual use of nosocomial deterrents including influenza vaccination uptake is a building block process, which over time will improve patient safety, awareness. and the overall quality of healthcare services.
QFD, requires step-by-step process evaluations in order to maintain and secure cost efficiency and to guide a successful and disciplined approach for opportunity or to overcome problems successfully. Kaufman, provides Miles’ five-step solution as a FAST response needed for unanticipated critical problems, which I believe can be applied to the healthcare workforce vaccination resistance movement. Development and practice of information building, builds shared support within the organization as collaborative knowledge, skills, and abilities among team participants continues to improve the patient care setting. Training designed to meet the environmental conditions surrounding quality efficiency can promote team-skill development and team confidence among participating members. Throughout each step of the evaluation process evaluation of the value of the training, goals and objectives of the QFD, and review of the idea development provides the opportunity for FAST resolutions. This is a valued lesson which allows for stakeholders and vulnerable patient exposed to unprotected contacts to gain experience from learned behavior vaccination resistant members and develop improvements to a conjoined workforce that will ultimately affect the medical cost’s return on investment (ROI) ultimately at the patient’s expense.
H1N1, a viral contagion most often seen to cause infections amongst swine. In 2009, this “swine flu” outbreak was responsible for 1.9 per million deaths around the world according to (Chuang, Huang, Liu, Chou, Chang, Chiu, . . . Menéndez-arias, 2012). In 2005, China succumbed to the “Bird flu. The social impact of current noncompliant conditions according to Centers for Disease Control, allows potential outbreaks of influenza at pandemic levels. At the CDC surveillance records of 4.8% to a minimal rate of 4.2% or more are indications of viral confirmed cases amassed. Current indications suggest that the number of reported cases of influenza, as of February 5, 2017, have increased to 4.8%. This percentage is above the national baseline of 2.2% according to informative records as of February 12, 2017, (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm).
CDC INFLUENZA TRACKING: figure 2
The issue to provide healthcare and no harm, obligates its agents within every medical service group and members of the holistic reform to social responsibilities that ensure reduction rates of nosocomial infections. A focus targeted on the duty to serve and providing quality patient care, critical urgent care, and patient safety measures can demonstrate effective planning of the healthcare role model and incorporate an evaluation system of best practice evidence. In the service of healthcare obligations to maintain best practice successfully, intention to prevent the spread of nosocomial contagions is a vital practice of care, contingent on the witness of collaborative actions. The action of nosocomial deterrent practice would be considered inclusive to the inherent standards; which, patients oftentimes are unaware of risks associated throughout the duration of care. Practices such as handwashing and donning of gloves before and after personal contact with patients are a typical surveillance event with less than 50% compliance according to joint commission reviews (Sahud, Bhanot, Radhakrishnan, Bajwa, Manyam, & Post, 2010) a result most likely unknown by the inpatient status quo. Such efforts leading to improving practices of handwashing, isolation protocols, and donning gloves between patient-to-patient care and vaccination uptake are critical to ensure the reduction of transmitting pathogens within a healthcare clinical environment. These deterrents shared in the goal to improve outcome results on a yearly basis are critical to patient care. There are other common practices depended upon location of services (i.e. ICU, OR, ER/ED) where wearing protective personal equipment, sterile techniques, and accurate diagnosis are recognized as higher quality-controlled environments and lean towards improved reduction of health risks associated to the patient’s admitting diagnoses. The patient’s repetitive exposures to staff is less likely to be compromised by a cluster of nosocomial deterrent practice (Cross, 2014).
Following steps that include early access to medical care, smoking cessation participation, frequent handwashing, involvement in weight reduction, patient education, annual compliance to medical visits and early vaccination can provide reassurance for healthier outcome results another form of deterrent practice. The National Institute of Health (NIH, 2017) offers suggestions to incorporate into lifestyle behavioral changes which, can be practiced daily (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5222627/). But, during the time those infected with influenza and other viral contagions in the care of public health monitoring agencies, according to CDC and NIH epidemiology studies, vaccination is paramount to countering the rapid spread of seasonal outbreaks and other viral disease.
Finkelstein, Hedberg, Hopkins, Hashmi, & Larson, (2011) describe events of states in demand for vaccines, waiting in anticipation for the uninfected to receive immune defensive prophylactic treatments, necessary to fight a threat for potential pandemic outbreak. Currently a time at rest, crucial demands for preparedness nursing staff and inpatient vaccination are needed. What is already known about the seasonal outbreak of influenza becomes archaic and dated once agencies enter into the influenza cyclical pattern under duress of its effects on inpatient populations.
The existing knowledge of the H1N1 strain quickly became the scrutiny of 2017 according Potter 1, Stott, Roberts, Elder, O’Donnell, Knight, and Carman (1997) indicating no control studies in support of the effectiveness of vaccination uptake as best practice among healthcare workers. The study Influenza vaccination of health care workers in long-term-care hospitals reduces the mortality of elderly patients. Journal of Infectious Disease objectively dismisses claims that would support flu shot uptake as a remedy to reduce nosocomial exposures due to the lack of evidence-based research. In fact, arguments to this position would suggest a need more investigation to questions of accountability from both sides of influenza uptake and resistance debate to support improvement to the patient problem among seen by healthcare professionals.
An additional idea to present during the job planning of a nosocomial deterrent strategy to achieve stakeholders’ objectives against productivity cost burdens and steps toward improved prevention and a quality health maintenance system remains transparent to the customer. H1N1’s viral distinction was first identified as a strain with a recognizable pattern which, traces back to the year 1918. Most notable is its distinct and unstable protein cytoplasmic structure. Researchers Hrincius, Liedmann, Finkelstein, Vogel, Gansebom, Ehrhardt, & McCullers (2015) identify rapid development of cytoplasmic proteins, identified as Protein 1, during laboratory transference of the virus. According to these researchers it is the principal assumption, due to the final location of the tested pathogen, that results of viral contamination occur as a respiratory tract infection (caused by aerosols not necessarily air borne) and not necessarily a pathogenic sequence i.e. from hand to mouth. The majority of symptoms of H1N1 are due to “massive edema formation facilitated by secondary pneumonia” (Hrincius , etal., 2015). In close observation, of hospitalized patients, the researchers noted respiratory symptoms had distinct displays of variant cases from mild to extremely severe. These conditions were also influenced by three major pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, congenital respiratory defects and obesity; fundamental areas for patient education and transparency.
The social impact of efforts to improve preventative maintenance systems for seasonal outbreaks is faced with challenges that influence public safety. Virulent patterns of disease are constantly reemerging as new strains due to the instability of protein 1. The term “spatiotemporal” describes two influences which affect research outcomes in the investigations of vaccine development. According to researchers Bedford, Riley, Barr, Broor, Chadha, Cox & Smith (2015) the interval between space and time emergence creates repetitive challenges from laboratory to laboratory globally, that are faced with a variant of seasonal flu distributions. The importance of sharing knowledge in open forums of communication is expected to lead to a better preventative solution.
Vaccination hesitancy and resistance have emerged as a result of distrust, misinformation, and a lack of public knowledge. Yaqub, Castle-Clarke, Sevdalis, & Chataway (2014),provide details describing the prevalence of hesitation amongst the public at large and healthcare workers who willing may concede to vaccination. Yaqub etal., in pursuit of an explanation of hesitancy prevalence inform readers of distinctions between hesitancy and resistance. The platform of healthcare related incidents finds an erosion of public trust can be attributed to fears influenced by threatened pandemic outbreaks such as those from 2009, which never occurred. The results from public health narratives may support hesitancy motives attributed to overstated claims pandemic threats and low perceived severity concerns as those debated over viral illnesses.
self-vaccinating healthcare professionals’ attitudes and their citation frequency: figure 3
Patient-vaccinating healthcare professionals’ attitudes and their citation frequency: figure 4
General population’s reasons for vaccination attitudes and the number of times such kinds of reasons are cited in the literature we reviewed: figure 5
Studies have been conducted on each of these nosocomial interventions yielding results of various efficiencies. However, considering possible threats and outbreaks of virulent diseases such as influenza, emergency protocols should be incorporated as standard practices of nosocomial prevention and training. Seasonal vaccinations among healthcare agents should be inclusive annual practices to ensure a continual reduction of hospital acquired disease risks are in place, in all areas of operation. The case for mandatory vaccination treatments is feasible; since, resulting in vaccination rejection rates of 2% among vaccine healthcare workers according to a five-year study conducted at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, Washington. This first to be known infectious control mandate yielded a 98% uptake compliance rate among healthcare workers (HCW). Policy accommodations for religious and other considerations were granted due to possible concerns relating specifically to medical diagnoses (Rakita, Hagar, Crome, & Lammert, 2010). Although, the study highlights a significant percentage for vaccination uptake, it also pays to recognize the small percentage of vaccination resistant HCW which, includes a fewer number of most vaccination resistant healthcare workers in other national studies, who also willing to withdraw their employment further adding to healthcare’s productivity cost burdens.
This combines or bundles nosocomial deterrents into one collective practice including flu shots as an intent action toward best practice behavior and the prevention of influenza as a nosocomial disease. This proposal suggests the implementation of vaccination uptake as a standard practice incorporated in the procedures for infection control (e.g. handwashing, personal protective equipment, sterile techniques, vaccination uptake) ensuring education of the HCW includes recognizing vaccination uptake, as part of standard infectious control procedures and healthcare no harm responsibility rule; cooperation will act as an added form of patient safety as a core public health value commitment. After all, incorporating the standard practices of infectious control and uptake responsibility, vaccinating should be treated as a standard of care regardless of the adoption of one’s personal value. Absent from the core value measurement debate surrounding vaccinations, public health is stirred into a melting pot mixture of divergent medical practice ideals from which, agents of healthcare share less responsibility toward effective deterrent actions. Eventually, the accepted reconciliation and collaborate efforts on behalf of patient care must outweigh the diversities which divert the possibility of an efficient QFD.
A perception by the patient-clients of best practice implementation and prioritization demonstrated by the healthcare agents can lead to determining factors that help educate patients about the spread of nosocomial infections. If a vaccination resistant worker, during an active seasonal outbreak of influenza is seen wearing a face mask during patient care, he or she may experience greater collaboration in their patient service. If vaccination uptake workers also wore facemasks while providing patient care during seasonal outbreaks the practice would be an effective demonstration of collaboration by the healthcare team membership. Evidence of best practice would condone collaborative efforts such as these over values of the elitist perspective of resistance. Such recognition in behavior can be an effective tool to provide the highest standards of care amongst an agent’s duty to serve. This practice when implemented as a standard of care could be taught, expressed, and considered as a professional practice counteracting an inverse of care among vulnerable patient populations.
TB skin tests, rubella, rubeola, hepatitis B, and varicella vaccinations are required by a large percentage of employers in the United States and rarely rejected under organizational compliance requirements. Pandemic results of the past are now drawing attention to the sequence of potential risks to require more aggressive preventative strategies (Swan, 2016). However, according to a (2016) research study by Megan Ziegler, a large majority of these vaccination sequenced refusals, existed among several states opposed to mandating shots of any kind including polio. This paper seeks to focus on building an effective communication circuit; which, will be key to improving nosocomial deterrent practice and collaboration. In an article published by Centers for Disease Control (CDC), surveillance of seasonal flu vaccination is closely monitored among pregnant women and health care professionals (HCP). In this study, the CDC has helped build preventative maintenance indicators which, are currently used to monitor outbreak potentials (see https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/). Taking steps to improve the understanding of why other ideals promote an objective sequence especially relating to flu vaccinations, an established preventative health maintenance strategy, may provide in-depth information necessary to design improvement to vaccination compliance as seen among other routine vaccination. Routine vaccination screening for virulent contagions such as tuberculosis, rubella, rubeola, hepatitis B, and varicella vaccines are given regularly and often with less levels of rejection as seen with influenza. In most cases, we may conclude these vaccine preventative measures are also required by a large percentage of employers and educational systems in the United States.
Epidemiologists, according to researchers have witnessed huge reductions in these pathogenic gateways. Diphtheria, smallpox and polio have seen as high as 100% reduction among each of these cases (Ventola, 2016). However, among flu vaccines a myriad of ideals has developed into a pattern of recognizable vaccination noncompliant groups. Cohen, & Casken, (2012) identify in their literature review a number of health care providers (HCP), namely nurses, have the most frequent and direct contact with patients. And, they are number one amongst the highest refusal group of compliance studies when compared to physicians and supplementary medical staff. In the Cohen & Casken lit review it further identifies pre-deposing factors such as “beliefs, knowledge and values” as primary resistant ideals used by all non-compliant persons. In the planning stage of this endeavor, I have reviewed related literature regarding the hazards of supply shortages and ideals related to members of the medical profession and vaccination hesitancy. In a review of “A warning shot: The 2004 Influenza Vaccine Shortage” Donya C. Arias provides reasonable arguments in support of preventative measures to avoid vaccine shortages due to underestimated trends of vaccination hesitancy, we include this information along with Cohen & Casken to identify ideals that support hesitancy behaviors and the sustainment of hazardous environmental conditions among healthcare workers and public hesitancy.
As the Theory of Planned Behavior is quite expectant as a hallmark and descriptive behavior of vaccination resistance, according to author Gregg J. (2011) an outcome determined under three spontaneous conditions resulting in a planned behavioral action. First, Gold states is an individual’s perspective of his current situation’s impediments or the facilitators intent to take responsive action. Second, Gold states a relationship to a perspective of consequences for taking action. Third, are the expected norms resulting from taking consequential actions. These three contingency factors are conditions resulting from an individual’s capacity to make choice decisions based on what is determined to be a self-efficacy principle. Identifying rationale rejections for vaccination coverage; will be identified through participant studies and survey outcomes; sampling will be compared as indicated by standards presented in the Ziegler study.
Research among these conditions will provide a focused review of the opinions these communities believe to be reasonable subjective arguments for their noncompliance to the preventative care measure of vaccination uptake. Bandura (1977) adds self-effective behavior among an individual’s peer group of a planned behavior is more likely to result into an outcome of change (Bandura, 1977). Recognizing particular noncompliant ideals may provide a broader solution to engulf concerns regarding preventative outbreak strategies of influenza. But, a continuance to take a bandwagon approach against preventative healthcare maintenance strategies enables us also irresponsibly fail collaborative behavioral risks reductions which, also interferes with preventative standards of care. Simple tasks for the healthcare personnel, should avoid risks potentials and participate in the march towards effective reduction of the spread of influenza. Personnel are not limited to this idea only but, as aforementioned, should adopt early access to care preventions, smoking cessation by example, observable handwashing, weight reduction, patient demonstration & education, annual compliance to medical visits, and early vaccinations.
The National Institute of Health (NIH) offers suggestions for these behavioral change strategies which, each medical personnel can practice independently and routinely during patient access to care (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5222627/). Exposure to an environment that has limited access to prophylactic vaccine therapy produces a cross-contaminant risk correlation. High area pollution will along with non-compliant behaviors as smoking, inactive lifestyles leading to obesity, as mentioned earlier will instill “herd affect” patterns among patient behavior potentials; which, vaccination may not be a presented benefit (Kim, Johnstone, & Loeb, 2011). The sequence of risks potential for patient individuals are anticipated to be less likely as promotional ideals of health than otherwise presented as role model teaching of best practice beneficial strategies. It would be inappropriate to bypass these concerns and treat only cases that carry better potential outcomes.
However, vaccination uptake in collaborative support to protect patients in hospital care should be a decision established on the principles of Emotional Intelligence (EI) from the goal of public healthcare organizations. EI arises as conceptual awareness from leadership values that may occur during nurse-to-patient interactions, Patients may take notice of why the caregiver didn’t wash their hands prior to providing care. Or, patients may request a provider for a spouse or trusted family member to remain at bedside in overnight situations. The importance of emotional engagement performed between patient individuals, medical participant groups and their organizations is to help establish a quality of leadership needed to reinforce steps toward a safer and improved healthcare system. As a principle engagement of leadership transforming behaviors through dynamics of EI, strong feelings demand attention and are likely to affect cognitions and behavioral processes (Yukl, 2010). Leaders who take steps to engage constructive use of emotion will become more effective in transforming behaviors of opposition through emotional intelligence. Their talents shared by supportive organizational processes focused upon using evidence-based practices seek task performance improvements. Deterring nosocomial outbreaks is essential within the practice of quality leadership centered upon intelligent awareness (DuBrin, 2012).
Socialization tenets may be key to bringing results sought after by the CDC Health People 2020 90% compliance goal among minority groups of healthcare workers. Participation or compliance with vaccination through the perceptive intel of protecting patient rights through the recovery processes is an effort that will improve the value management processes of protection for vulnerable patient populations. Vaccinating voluntarily as well as voluntary compliance of handwashing, wearing gloves between patient to patient contact, and adhering to isolation protocols builds social intelligent engagement between agents having opposing beliefs including artificial ones (Herzig, Lorini, & Pearce, 2017).
State wide collaboration may also demonstrate a great awakening when public response to efforts thwart against medical efforts to improve vaccination response rates fall as a result from the intelligence buy in collaboration of healthcare workers. Organization values and management commitment must share equally with its membership stakeholders, the mission to build a quality healthcare system in this nation. Its system must then reflect the connection each of its stakeholder share in agreement towards building a better public healthcare system to protect its citizens nationally. Emotional passions and personal experiences designed by moral persuasion have shown rates for vaccination uptake compliance can be improved. 2013 vaccination coverage improved to 75% from previous 2011 of 67% according to CDC reports researchers Thompson, Shay, Zhou, Bridges. Cheng, etal (2010). The rates revealed that compliance over mandates were possible. And, continue trending towards a 90% compliance rate. The goal of the CDC Healthy People 2020 campaign is attainable as more healthcare workers and staff view their participation as a collaborative support for safer patient care environments.
If there is capable leadership and those who are under the influence of EI it can produce amazing collaboration and resolution according many researchers. However, in opposition to these potentials others perceive EI results are mere “constructive use of … emotion” (DuBrin, 2012, p.481). Imagine these two differences as seen by subordinate members of a group who have these two personalities to follow, One leader is seen as an authority figure but, not a leader is seen as having a better understanding by the membership. The individual with the highest level of EI would be described as the person viewed as being aware of the needs of the membership. And, that title of Leader could apply to either in title alone, but among this group the one possessing the advantage is the individual who receives the emotional trust from the major portion of members in the group. Identifying this category of leaders within an organization may be difficult since, they aren’t necessarily specified by managerial appointment or designation. They are recognized in the way their peers and supportive members engage with them.
Systems adopted to measure levels of emotional intelligence such as MSCEIT, its scoring process determines a person’s EI based on a scale identified as a quotient are highly questionable. For instance, EI opposition questions can a person who is able to control their anger also manipulate this scoring tool? We can take into consideration that this and more possibilities exists and manipulating these tools are no better guarantee of emotional measuring outside of human perception. Anger management tools as the psychometric assessment HCR-20. Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios, (2003) contend there are concerns regarding the reliability of such tests yet, they are still used. Those who challenge the validity of emotional intelligence itself and whether results of any test can provide consistent results have some degree of concerns about the overall capability of leadership. DuBrin (2012) suggests, oppositional ideas cannot dismiss that some leaders are more efficient in the use of their skills than others who possess those same skills. This is the ability which must be shared in order to improve a behavior that responds positively to enforcing all nosocomial deterrents. A connection with people and understand their emotions is necessary to connect better engagement of what makes a better operating system, healthcare’s goal.
The CDC report for the 2012–2013 influenza season, there was a modest increase in the vaccination coverage rate among healthcare workers from 67% in 2011–2012, to 72% in 2012–2013 to the current 75% coverage. This is still far from reaching the US National Healthy People 2020 goal of 90% hospitals vaccination rates. The reported increase in coverage is attributed to the growing number of healthcare facilities with vaccination requirements with average rates of 96.5%. However, a few other public health interventions stir so much controversy and debate as vaccination mandates. The opposition stems from the belief that a mandatory flu shot policy violates an individual right to refuse unwanted treatment. This article outlines the historic push to achieve higher vaccination rates among healthcare professionals and a number of ethical issues arising from attempts to implement vaccination mandates. It then turns to a review of cognitive biases relevant in the context of decisions about influenza vaccination (omission bias, ambiguity aversion, present bias etc.) The article suggests that a successful strategy for policy-makers and others hoping to increase vaccination rates is to design a “choice architecture” that influences behavior of healthcare professionals without foreclosing other options. Nudges incentivize vaccinations and help better align vaccination intentions with near-term actions. Evidence from observational studies suggests that a vaccine mandate increases vaccination rates, but evidence on clinical outcomes is lacking. Although challenging, large healthcare employers planning to implement a mandate should develop a strategy to evaluate HCP and patient outcomes. Further studies documenting the impact of HCP influenza vaccination on clinical outcomes would inform decisions on the use of mandatory vaccine policies in HCP.
In seeking to identify relative risk factors relating to pre-existing health conditions genetics and genetic risk factors are identified to be most hazardous to the body’s immune systems. Genetic risk factors first acknowledged as comorbidities result in greater challenges for inpatient influenza exposure. For the asthmatic, pregnant, and respiratory ailment patient, the flu creates a slight delay in the immune system’s response secondary to a pre-existing health deterrent resulting systematically different by case. An infected person may or may not show signs and symptoms or even the presence of influenza; however, if there are certain pre-existing conditions, which may enhance the infectious course of the disease contagion it may result in the cause death. According to the CDC new studies highlight ratios of risk for patients who contract other virulent forms of influenza. Immune systems processes are needed to recognize and code against viral and bacterial infections. However, the MBL2 gene part of the body’s genetic coding is responsible for producing a coating of mannose binding lectin 2, an enzyme responsible for the body’s chemical system’s complementary pathway. In adequate levels of response by the MBL2 allows for invasive secondary infections and is frequently found to be abnormally low in cases resulting in fatality (Ferdinands, 2011).
Recognizing particular noncompliant ideals may provide a broader solution to engulf these concerns regarding preventative outbreak strategies of influenza. However, as we continue to take the bandwagon approach to incrementally improve preventative healthcare maintenance strategies let’s also respond collaboratively to the behavioral risks that interfere with prevention standards of care must be urgently addressed. The challenge remains according to the Ziegler (2016) study, that refusals go beyond the frequency of regular immunization and behavioral change to stir up and yield high rates of viral flu balances these continue to remain in dispute. In the January issue of Environmental Health Perspectives researchers argued that exposure to an environment that has limited access to vaccination therapies establishes a correlation between pollutants and viruses which, may increase hazardous risks for viral mutations. High area pollution will along with such behaviors as smoking, inactive lifestyles leading to obesity, as mentioned earlier will instill “herd affect” behavior when witness by medical personnel noncompliant patterns. Risk potential among public scrutiny, where vaccination results may appear to not be beneficial, results of sickness may increase to dangerous levels of viral mutations among the public (Kim, Johnstone, & Loeb, 2011).
The sequence of hazardous risks potentials associated with vaccination resistance, among the role models of healthcare may contribute to the result of vaccination resistance among patients and other noncompliant actors. It would be inappropriate to bypass this as a possibility, no attempts to expand preventative healthcare strategies to at-risk patient populations can be a result when healthcare workers resent vaccination uptake in their own life status. Their refusal to uptake may extend to choosing not to offer flu shots or other deterrents during their patient care. Tenacity’s to researched and recorded deterrent practices by overseers of healthcare organizations, public health’s most critical issues regarding viral efficiencies are affecting workplace safety especially in patient-to-patient contact situations. And, where practicing strict adherence to deterrent strategies to reduce all measurable actions and pandemic threats overcoming and preventing disastrous nosocomial potentials is essential to deploying a fast response in the event of an outbreak. Collaborative deterrents to improve annual vaccination rate outcomes amongst healthcare workers will set the stage for the CDC’s 2020 Healthy People results. Targeting vaccination uptake behaviors versus vaccination resistant attacks that offer solutions to improve congruent practices between nosocomial deterrents and external compliances incorporating vaccination.
Yet, continued debates over vaccination uptake versus vaccination resistance as whether shots will provide acceptable protection for personal immune system protection and essential good health-keeping practices, vulnerable population problems have not begun to resolve but, grow. This discussion synthesizes a valuable need for medical personnel’s embrace of nosocomial deterrent practices. The effort should stand against threatening potentials of spreading the disease agents within the confines of their direct patient care; environmental participation and cross-contamination. Recognize the benefits of vaccination uptake over resistance it facilitates evidence-based best practice discussions nationally and must be considered for its potential as a nosocomial deterrent. HCW should support staff collaboration toward vaccine uptake if feasible and take into consideration its best practice potential to put care for their patient first.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Bedford, T., Riley, S., Barr, I. G., Broor, S., Chadha, M., Cox, N. J., & … Smith, D. J. (2015). Global circulation patterns of seasonal back porch l influenza viruses vary with antigenic
drift. Nature, 523(7559), 217-220. doi:10.1038/nature14460
Centers for Disease Control. (2017).Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report [Data
file]. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm
Chuang, J., Huang, A., Liu, W., Chou, M., Chang, J., Chiu, F., . . . Menéndez-arias, Luis. (2012).
Nationwide Surveillance of Influenza during the Pandemic (2009–10) and Post-Pandemic
(2010–11) Periods in Taiwan (2009–11 Nationwide Flu Surveillance in Taiwan). PLoS
ONE, 7(4), E36120.
Cohen, D. L., & Casken, J. (2012). Why are Healthcare Workers so Resistant to the Acceptance
of Influenza Vaccine? a Review of the Literature to Examine Factors that Influence
Vaccine Acceptance. International Journal Of Caring Sciences, 5(1), 26-35. Louie, J. K.,
Cross, A. (2014). Anti-endotoxin vaccines. Virulence, 5(1), 219-225.
Davis, M. M., & Gaglia, M. A. (2005). Associations of daycare and school entry vaccination
requirements with varicella immunization rates. Vaccine, 23(23), 3053-3060.
DuBrin, A. J. (2012). Ethics and corporate social responsibility: In essentials of management.
Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Ferdinands, J. M. (2011). A Pilot Study of Host Genetic Variants Associated with Influenza-
associated Deaths among Children and Young Adults1-Volume 17, Number 12—
December 2011-Emerging Infectious Disease journal-CDC.
Finkelstein, S., Hedberg, K., Hopkins, J., Hashmi, S., & Larson, R. (2011). Vaccine availability
in the United States during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. American Journal Of Disaster
Medicine, 6(1), 23-30.
Hennessy, T. W., Bruden, D., Castrodale, L., Komatsu, K., Erhart, L. M., Thompson, D., … the
Investigative Team. (2016). A Case Control Study of Risk factors for death from 2009
pandemic Influenza A (H1N1): Is American Indian racial status an independent Risk
factor? Epidemiology and Infection, 144(2), 315–324.
Herzig, A., Lorini, E., & Pearce, D. (2017). Social Intelligence. AI & Society,1.
Hrincius, E. R., Liedmann, S., Finkelstein, D., Vogel, P., Gansebom, S., Ehrhardt, C., & …
McCullers, J. A. (2015). Nonstructural Protein 1 (NS1)-Mediated Inhibition of c-Abl
Results in Acute Lung Injury and Priming for Bacterial Co-infections: Insights Into 1918
H1N1 Pandemic?. Journal Of Infectious Diseases, 211(9), 1418-1428. \ doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu609
Kaufman, J. (1998). Value management: Creating competitive advantage (Crisp management
library; 21). Menlo Park, Calif.]: Crisp Publications.
Kim, T., Johnstone, J., & Loeb, M. (2011). Vaccine herd effect. Scandinavian Journal of
Infectious Diseases, 43(9), 683-689.
Lieuwe Dijkstra, Hans van der Bij, (2002) “Quality function deployment in healthcare: Methods
for meeting customer requirements in redesign and renewal”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 Issue: 1, pp.67-89,
Naleway, A. L., Henkle, E. M., Ball, S., Bozeman, S., Gaglani, M. J., Kennedy, E. D., &
Thompson, M. G. (2014). Barriers and facilitators to influenza vaccination and vaccine
coverage in a cohort of health care personnel. American journal of infection control,
Rakita, R., Hagar, B., Crome, P., & Lammert, J. (n.d.). Mandatory Influenza Vaccination of
Healthcare Workers: A 5‐Year Study. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology,
Swan, J. (2016). Influenza: Seasonal Flu 2016–2017.
Thompson, M. G., Shay, D. K., Zhou, H., Bridges, C. B., Cheng, P. Y., Burns, E., … & Cox, N.
J. (2010). Estimates of deaths associated with seasonal influenza-United States, 1976-
2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59(33), 1057-1062.
Ventola, C. L. (2016). Immunization in the United States: Recommendations, Barriers, and
Measures to Improve Compliance: Part 1: Childhood Vaccinations. P&T: A Peer-
Reviewed Journal For Managed Care & Formulary Management, 41(7), 426-436.
Yaqub, O., Castle-Clarke, S., Sevdalis, N., & Chataway, J. (2014). Attitudes to vaccination: a
critical review. Social Science & Medicine, 112, 1-11.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Ziegler, Megan (2016) Vaccines: how requirements and exemptions affect vaccination rates,
disease prevalence, and herd immunity within the United States? Master Essay,
University of Pittsburgh.
[ngg_images source=”galleries” display_type=”photocrati-nextgen_basic_slideshow” gallery_width=”600″ gallery_height=”400″ cycle_effect=”fade” cycle_interval=”10″ show_thumbnail_link=”1″ thumbnail_link_text=”[Show thumbnails]” order_by=”sortorder” order_direction=”ASC” returns=”included” maximum_entity_count=”500″]
It’s not hard if you enjoy writing and are good at it. I’m referring to ghost writing, what’s hard about it is getting paid! There are endless reasons that make something so pleasant for writers turn ghastly. If you’ve done your research in an organized manner, do expect to encounter a few disruptions in the trail leading to the bank. Getting a paycheck is the reason a writer should be “very selective” for whom they write. Here, are some of my favorite employers:
Visit the Writers Digest Website
The Renegade Writer
Poets & Writers
to name a few…
Do Monsters exist?
The purpose of this study is to examine gender bias in sentencing decreed by males vs. female judges, which is defined as a difference in the evaluation of the morality of an action depending on the gender of the person performing the action. Using the Micro Theory paradigm, I will compare civil and criminal case types for the states of Arizona, Arkansas and Colorado, by analyzing decisions made by female and male judges in cases of rape and assault, and workers compensation claims.
The foundation of our judiciary is to impart fair and impartial justice without bias or prejudice, and this study is important because it seeks to understand from an idiographic approach how gender plays a role in the judicial decisions handed down by courts with both male and female judges. Having a diversified bench is very important, as it is a representation of who we are as a nation, but the philosophy and science of our legal system is equally important. This study seeks to show that our judicial system can be fair and impartial, despite differences between genders, and I expect it will show that these differences are not detrimental to American system of law.
Understanding the behaviors a literature review
The issue of whether female and male judges approach sentencing in gender-specific ways is at the core of concern in law and criminology about the determinants of judicial decision making and the “law in action” (Peterson & Hagan 1984). It is hypothesized that decisions handed down by female judges are less lenient than those handed down by their male counterparts. Based on the hypothesis I will identify, using the gender of the judge, how “less lenient” will be determined.
For the purposes of my research, I plan to take a qualitative approach. A qualitative approach is appropriate because I will be analyzing written data on decisions for three distinct case types handed down in the states of Arizona, Arkansas and Colorado. My hypothesis will be tested by searching the WESTLAW electronic database for cases decided between 1998-2008 and analyzing the differences in decisions made between male and female judges in criminal cases involving rape and assault, and civil cases involving workers compensation claims, and whether the decisions handed down by female judges are less lenient or “for the Plaintiff” than those of their male counterparts.
To explore the impact of gender bias in the courtroom, Riger, Foster-Fishman, Nelson, and Curran (1995) conducted an analysis using data collected by the American Bar Foundation for the Illinois Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts (Schafran, 1987). Although role, age, and experience had some importance in explaining the scores, gender offered the greatest predictive power. Question on the survey asked men and women about observations and experiences with behaviors in the courtroom. A 5-point Likert scale was used to measure responses to 24 statements regarding the behavior and attitudes of judges.
Other dimensions may exist that go beyond the scope of data collected. For example, informal social networks of judges and/or attorneys may exclude women and minorities; these networks may affect the disposition of court cases or appointments to the judiciary (Riger et al., 1995). In this study women were more biased than men judges in the presence of discrimination. Moreover, some respondents felt that women use their gender to gain advantage. I didn’t feel this research analysis study contained valid information which would allow my hypothesis to be accepted or rejected.
How we capture a method
To operationalize the word “lenient” is to say that female judges are less likely to rule in favor of the plaintiff in civil cases involving workers compensation claims, or to give the minimum state-allowed or discretionary sentencing in criminal cases involving rape and assault. By reviewing decisions made by female and male judges during the time period of 1998-2008 in the states of Arizona, Arkansas and Colorado, I will explain that sentences imposed by female judges appear to be less lenient than those handed down by their male counterparts. Other factors to be considered in my research will be the education level and race and how it applies to decisions made by female judges in those states being reviewed.
Although Riger et al., (1995) had a solid foundation for analysis, as with most studies, men and women differ in their perceptions regarding gender bias and one’s role as a lawyer or judge also appears to be related to perceptions. For my project I will utilize existing data; the data sets chosen are decisions made by female and male judges in criminal cases involving rape and assault, and civil cases involving workers compensation claims. These are being chosen because the judicial decisions handed down over a ten-year period between 1998-2008 of the previously identified three states is a large enough data set to collect valid information which will allow my hypothesis to be accepted or rejected.
I have chosen to incorporate a previous study from my research to support my methodological approach. This approach has been done previously in Songer, Davis, and Haire (1994) study which suggest that early views of affirmative-action female judges had a perception of being more liberal than male judges. On the other hand, studies suggest that there are no gender differences. To test the hypotheses, Songer et al., (1994) coded the dependent variable “1” for a liberal vote and “0” for a conservative vote. Votes which could not be unambiguously classified as either liberal or conservative were excluded from analysis. In order to assess gender-based effects while controlling for a large number of independent variables Songer et al., (1994) employed logit in a multivariate analysis. Logit, which is preferred to regression when the dependent variable is dichotomous (Aldrich and Nelson 1984), permits the calculation of a maximum-likelihood coefficient for the effect that each independent variable has on the probit that the dependent variable will assume a specified value.
In this study a search utilizing the WESTLAW electronic data base identified the universe of cases whose decisions were published in the Federal Reporter. Measured was the impact of gender on judges for cases on obscenity, search and seizure, and employment discrimination. The analysis of obscenity and search and seizure cases conclude that there is little difference between male and female judges. In employment discrimination cases, females were noted to support alleged victims of discrimination as opposed to male colleagues. In summary, each of the models includes identical measures of region, the appointing president of each judge who participated on the panel, and the gender of each judge.
Ethical issues my research design might face, as with most research designs involves the task of analyzing data. It is important to work hard toward avoiding bias in data analysis and data interpretation. Riger et al, (1995) research analysis suggested that direct experience has an impact on attitudes, especially for women. Female lawyers who had experienced bias not only were more likely to believe that bias exists, they also were less optimistic about reductions in discrimination in the courts and were less likely to see bias merely as a trial tactic. Another issue potentially facing my research would be that of remaining objective versus subjective about the data. Objectivity is important in research because it is a “conceptual attempt to get beyond our individual views” [Babbey p.41]. Additionally, even if I find that my hypothesis is falsifiable I still have a duty to report on the data and findings accurately.
Finally, while my research project will utilize public records, it is important to note that the identity of judges whose cases will be analyzed for this project shall remain anonymous, since it may be harmful to their reputations if there was an appearance that said judges were being “singled out.”
Predictable Findings because they’re children
As Epstein (1988) states, the quest to identify gender differences may focus too much on differences rather than similarities and thus sometimes impair our ability to understand social phenomena. It is predicted that my findings will support my hypothesis that decisions handed down by female judges are less lenient than those handed down by their male counterparts because, even when researchers uncovered a difference in gender sentencing, results indicated that female judges were significantly more likely than their male counterparts to defer to positions taken by government rather than those of the plaintiff (in a civil case) or defendant (in a criminal case).
So what does all this mean? Studies of gender and race in the field of judicial politics have largely focused on the various roles particularly that female judges might play in their decision-making patterns (Allen & Wall, 1993). In the bigger picture, research of gender and judging highlights the debate of whether there are differences in gender and judging. As King and Greening (2007) have suggested, future research should continue “building on the general assumptions that are being made about decision-makers and test whether assumptions about gender are correct” and as research expands, it should “build better theories regarding gender-based explanations for behavior rather than assume a priori that there are simple gender relationships between men and women. Such research moves us away from “just seeing gender” to examining larger concepts about “gender justice.”
Given what I have found, the status of my hypothesis must be considered tentative. Most of the research used was conducted with archival data. This reliance on archival methodology reflects an absence of information about the sentencing behavior of female judges. In most jurisdictions the majority of judges are male leaving a few offenders to be sentenced by female judges. Despite the status of my hypothesis, research data provided support for the expectation that female judges sentence rape offenders more harshly than their male counterparts. The gender of the presiding judge might have a significant effect on the perception on an offender of either the other or the same gender. The limitations on this research point to the need for further study, again, these differences are suggestive rather than definitive.
In this study, I attempted to assess whether decisions handed down by female judges were less lenient than those handed down by their male counterparts. In particular, I found that female appeals court judges tended to vote more conservatively in criminal procedure cases, but more liberally in civil rights and liberties cases than their male colleagues. Objectivity is important in research because it is a “conceptual attempt to get beyond our individual views” [Babbey p.41]. Additionally, even if I find that my hypothesis is falsifiable I still have a duty to report on the data and findings accurately.
The results of the models provide further evidence that judge gender is an important factor in determining the voting behavior of courts of appeals judges (Songer et al.1994). A factor I found very interesting was that results of judge gender varied across issue areas. I feel it may be time to re-examine the application of Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s classic work on gender and organizations, Men and Women of the Corporation (1977), and its applicability to our judicial system. Kanter’s organizational analysis focused on structural conditions to predict behavior rather than essential sex differences to explain why tokens may conform to the dominant group.
Watch a documentary on Netflix
Aldrich, J., & Nelson, F. (1984). Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models. Sage Journals Online. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from website: http://cps.sagepub.com.
Boyd, C., Epstein, L., & Martin, A. (2007). Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging. Midwestern Political Science Association. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Allen, D. & Wall, D. (1993). Role Orientations and Women State Supreme Court Justices.
Judicature, 77, 156-165.
Babbey, E. (2007) The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from website: http://www.ebabbie.net/resource/practice/practice.html.
Epstein, C. (1988). Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender, and the Social Order. Yale University Press. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from website: http://books.google.com.
Florida Supreme Court Task Force. (1990). Report of the Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Study Commission. Tallahassee: Supreme Court of Florida. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from website: http://books.google.com.
Kenney, S. (2008). Thinking about Gender and Judging. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 15(1-2), 87-110. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
King, K., & Greening, M. (2007). Gender Justice or Just Gender? The Role of Gender in
Sexual Assault Decisions at the Criminal Tribunal of the Former Yugoslavia. Social
Science Quarterly, 1049-1071. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Martin, P., Reynolds, J., & Keith, S. (2002). Gender Bias and Feminist Consciousness Among Judges and Attorneys: A Standpoint Theory Analysis. Signs, 27(3), 665–702. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Peresie, J. (2005). Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decision Making in the Federal Appellate Courts. Yale Law Journal, 114, 1759–90. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Peterson, R. & Hagan, J. (1984). Changing Conceptions of Race: Towards an Account of Anomalous Findings of Sentencing Research. American Sociological Review, 49, 56-70. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Riger, S., Foster-Fishman, P., Nelson-Kuna, J., & Curran, B. (1995). Gender Bias in Courtroom Dynamics. Law and Human Behavior, 19(5), 465-80. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Schafran, L. (1987). Documenting Gender Bias in the Courts: The Task Force Approach. Judicature, 70, 280-290. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Solimine, M., & Wheatley, S. (1995). Rethinking Feminist Judging. Indiana Law Journal, 70(3), 891-920. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Songer, D., Davis, S., & Haire, S. (1994). A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals. Journal of Politics, 56(2), 425–9. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Steffensmeier, D., & Hebert, C. (1999). Women and Men Policymakers: Does the Judge’s Gender Affect the Sentencing of Criminal Defendants?. Social Forces, 77(3), 1163-96. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
Walker, T., & Barrow, D. (1985). The Diversification of the Federal Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications. Journal of Politics, 47(2), 596-617. Retrieved from Cline Library database.
If you subscribe to Investor’s Business Daily look up these companies and follow their growth on value stock trading. You can probably find them listed on FinViz.com: Spark Therapeutics, face++, first solar, Intel (once again) & vestas wind systems, Send your name, email confirmation, and a request for more Influences of the Markets information for subscribers to our blog.
If I were to stand and speak about this from a podium and finish off with our traditional “MICDROP” action, you readers would know we were absolutely serious about everything in this post! Check out what writer Tom Simonite has to say about Bitcoin.
Knowing about “Bitcoin” Matters it’s about to compete with cash?
In 2008, it was a programmer pretentiously known by the name submission Satoshi Nakamoto— I write this because the name is believed to be an alias—anyway in a posted online writing this programmer outlines the Bitcoin’s design to what is described as a cryptography e-mail list. After that somewhere in 2009, Satoshi releases software that will exchange the digital currency, bitcoins using the currency exchange scheme, currently maintained by an open-source community.
Jeff Garzik , a member of that community and also the founder of Bitcoin Watch, that tracks the Bitcoin economy. says “Satoshi’s a bit of a mysterious figure, I and the other core developers have occasionally corresponded with him by e-mail, but it’s always a crapshoot as to whether he responds,” says Garzik. “That and the forum are the entirety of anyone’s experience with him.” Hmmmm, I wonder if Satoshi is even male?
So, here is how Bitcoin work?
Imagine playing the virtual reality game Second Life, the concept would probably be easier to follow. Satoshi wanted people to be able to exchange money electronically securely without the need for a third party, such as a bank or a company like PayPal. Satoshi, simply based Bitcoin on person-to-person (not including government regulated banking systems) to privately exchange value, this is known to be termed as cryptographic techniques; that which, allows you to be sure that value of the exchange is indeed genuine, even if you don’t trust the other person.
You can download the Bitcoin client software, which connects world wide to the Internet and a string of decentralized network of global Bitcoin users. The software will generate unique, mathematically linked keys, which you’ll need to exchange bitcoins with any other client. One key is private and kept hidden on your computer. The other is public, it is the address given to other people so they can send you bitcoins. This scheme makes it practically impossible (even with the most powerful supercomputer) to discover someone’s private key from their public key preventing false impersonation of the users, even if they upgrade or exchange their computers, the keys are secure.
A Bitcoin address looks something like this: 21IoPaWV9zpbA8LVnbrERTzrVzN7ixNHuI. There exists online businesses and retail stores which currently accept bitcoins—for example, here is one online group listing— click the link it will provide you with their address.
When you perform a transaction, your Bitcoin software performs a mathematical operation to combine the other party’s public key and your own private key with the amount of bitcoins that you want to transfer. The result of that operation is then sent out across the distributed Bitcoin network so the transaction can be verified by Bitcoin software clients not involved in the transfer.
Those clients make two checks on a transaction. One uses the public key to confirm that the true owner of the pair sent the money, by exploiting the mathematical relationship between a person’s public and private keys; the second refers to a public transaction log stored on the computer of every Bitcoin user to confirm that the person has the bitcoins to spend.
When a client verifies a transaction, it forwards the details to others in the network to check for themselves. In this way a transaction quickly reaches and is verified by every Bitcoin client that is online. Some of those clients – “miners” – also try to add the new transfer to the public transaction log, by racing to solve a cryptographic puzzle. Once one of them wins the updated log is passed throughout the Bitcoin network. When your software receives the updated log it knows your payment was successful.
The nature of the mathematics ensures that it is computationally easy to verify a transaction but practically impossible to generate fake transactions and spend bitcoins you don’t own. The existence of a public log of all transactions also provides a deterrent to money laundering, says Garzik. “You’re looking at a global public transaction register,” he says. “You can trace the history of every single Bitcoin through that log, from its creation through every transaction.”
How can you obtain bitcoins?
Exchanges like Mt. Gox provide a place for people to trade bitcoins for other types of currency. Some enthusiasts have also started doing work, such as designing websites, in exchange for bitcoins. This jobs board advertises contract work paying in bitcoins.
But bitcoins also need to be generated in the first place. Bitcoins are “mined” when you set your Bitcoin client to a mode that has it compete to update the public log of transactions. All the clients set to this mode race to solve a cryptographic puzzle by completing the next “block” of the shared transaction log. Winning the race to complete the next block wins you a 50-Bitcoin prize. This feature exists as a way to distribute bitcoins in the currency’s early years. Eventually, new coins will not be issued this way; instead, mining will be rewarded with a small fee taken from some of the value of a verified transaction.
Mining is very computationally intensive, to the point that any computer without a powerful graphics card is unlikely to mine any bitcoins in less than a few years.
Where to spend your bitcoins
There aren’t a lot of places right now. Some Bitcoin enthusiasts with their own businesses have made it possible to swap bitcoins for tea, books, or Web design (see a comprehensive list here). But no major retailers accept the new currency yet.
If the Federal Reserve controls the dollar, who controls the Bitcoin economy?
No one. The economics of the currency are fixed into the underlying protocol developed by Nakamoto.
Nakamoto’s rules specify that the amount of bitcoins in circulation will grow at an ever-decreasing rate toward a maximum of 21 million. Currently there are just over 6 million; in 2030, there will be over 20 million bitcoins.
Nakamoto’s scheme includes one loophole, however: if more than half of the Bitcoin network’s computing power comes under the control of one entity, then the rules can change. This would prevent, for example, a criminal cartel faking a transaction log in its own favor to dupe the rest of the community.
It is unlikely that anyone will ever obtain this kind of control. “The combined power of the network is currently equal to one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world,” says Garzik. “Satoshi’s rules are probably set in stone.”
Isn’t a fixed supply of money dangerous?
It’s certainly different. “Elaborate controls to make sure that currency is not produced in greater numbers is not something any other currency, like the dollar or the euro, has,” says Russ Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University. The consequence will likely be slow and steady deflation, as the growth in circulating bitcoins declines and their value rises.
“That is considered very destructive in today’s economies, mostly because when it occurs, it is unexpected,” says Roberts. But he thinks that won’t apply in an economy where deflation is expected. “In a Bitcoin world, everyone would anticipate that, and they know what they got paid would buy more then than it would now.”
Does Bitcoin threaten the dollar or other currencies?
That’s unlikely. “It might have a niche as a way to pay for certain technical services,” says Roberts, adding that even limited success could allow Bitcoin to change the fate of more established currencies. “Competition is good, even between currencies—perhaps the example of Bitcoin could influence the behavior of the Federal Reserve.”
Central banks the world over have freely increased the money supply of their currencies in response to the global downturn. Roberts suggests that Bitcoin could set a successful, if smaller scale, example of how economies that forbid such intervention can also succeed.
More information for your reading pleasure can be found referenced below
“Watch & Learn” ®
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
Eyal, I., & Sirer, E. G. (2014, March). Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In International conference on financial cryptography and data security (pp. 436-454). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Ron, D., & Shamir, A. (2013, April). Quantitative analysis of the full bitcoin transaction graph. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 6-24). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Scaillet, O., Treccani, A., & Trevisan, C. (2017). High-frequency jump analysis of the bitcoin market.
Narayanan, A., Bonneau, J., Felten, E., Miller, A., & Goldfeder, S. (2016). Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton University Press.
Tschorsch, F., & Scheuermann, B. (2016). Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 18(3), 2084-2123.
Morgan, R. (2016). It’s All about the Blockchain: Amid the Hoopla over Bitcoin and Other Virtual Currencies, It’s the Underlying Documentation Platform That’s Revolutionizing Transactions. ABA Banking Journal, 108(2), 51.
Ali, S. T., McCorry, P., Lee, H. J. P., & Hao, F. Z. (2016). Botnets with Bitcoin. In: 2nd Workshop on Bitcoin Research, 19th
Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain Revolution: How the technology behind Bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin.