Having a culture that encourages and elevates safety efforts has been recognized in healthcare organizations as an essential component in improving patient safety (Singer, Gaba, Geppert, Sinaiko, Howard & Park, 2003). Healthcare organizations have appropriated safety culture theories from trades such as aviation and nuclear energy by applying communication and teamwork models, and producing working situations that encourage patient safety. The main factors of a culture of safety include an obligation to safety at the uppermost levels of management and mutual values and beliefs, and that there is honesty in reporting errors and problems. The reaction to an error emphasizes refining system performance rather than on singular blame and is non-punitive (McCarthy & Blumenthal, 2006).
All Rights Reserved 2017-2017 Paper-
All orders at are delivered exceptionally for research purposes.
Highly recommended books and articles used for this essay : Bar-Yam, Y. (2004) Making things work: Solving complex problems in a complex world.
The basic criticisms that each position makes of the other are simple. Kantians are vulnerable to the charge that they do not give a proper account of the role of feeling and emotion in the moral life. They can also be accused of reifying our capacity for reason in a way that makes mysterious how human beings’ capacities for reason and morality might have evolved. Humeans are vulnerable to the charge that they cannot give any account of the validity of reasoning beyond the boundaries of what we might feel inclined to endorse or reject: Can the Humean really hold that moral reasoning has any validity for people who do not feel concern for others? Contemporary philosophers have developed both positions so as to take account of such criticisms, which has led to rather technical debates about the nature of reason (for instance, Bernard Williams’ (1981) well-known distinction between internal and external reasons) and normativity (what it is for something to provide a reason to act or think in a certain way, for example, Korsgaard, 1996). So far as responsibility is concerned, Wallace (1994) is a well-regarded attempt to mediate between the two approaches. Rather differently, Pettit (2001) uses our susceptibility to reasons as the basis for an essentially interactive account of moral agency.