Interview a nurse manager to explore the external factors that influence decision making such as health policy, regulatory requirements, accreditation, health care financing. Write a 4 â 5 page paper summarizing and analyzing your interview with the nurse manager. Rubric is at the end of the syllabus.
Goal: Identify the external factors that influence nurse managerâs decision making.
Content requirements for this assignment:
- Provide an overview of the role of the nurse manager interviewed. Summarize the information from the interview (do not report the interview question by question)
- Perceptions related to impact on health policy on decision. Perceptions related to impact of regulatory agencies on decision making. Perceptions related to impact of health care financing on decision making.
- Analysis of the interview supported by the literature.
Sample Solution
The doctrine of âResponsibility to Protectâ (R2P) was founded upon the notion that the international community ought to never again repeat the same mistakes in their failure to intervene in the Rwandan crisis, which led to an escalation of humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold war era. Theories concerning humanitarian intervention are often sceptical of its justifiability, citing that coercive means of engaging in military intervention are contradictory of its purpose, namely to end the abuse of human rights. Until today, popular discourse surrounding the rights of states to intervene remain in disagreement particularly with regards to a stateâs obligation to respond towards âcrimes against humanityâ directed at those beyond their borders (Evans and Sahnoun, 2002). Nevertheless, the crises of Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s prompted the international community to reassess its abilities and moral obligations when contemplating intervention, especially considering the failure of the United Nations in responding âtoo little too lateâ in the Rwandan crisis and NATOâs intervention in Kosovo that gave rise to the unpopularity of intervention. In response, the international community aimed to establish a redefinition of intervention, in which a stateâs sovereign rights were no longer to be framed as having the âright to interveneâ but rather the âresponsibility to protectâ. As a result, in 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) drafted the framework based on just war principles which came to be known as the âResponsibility to Protectâ (R2P) doctrine. The doctrine called for states to fulfil their obligations in their responsibility to prevent, react and rebuild in response to the four mass atrocities of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As expected, the adoption of the framework by the UN garnered mixed reactions, dividing the international community into camps of those in support of intervention to protect human rights against states who strongly defended their sovereign rights to self-determination of their domestic affairs. Regardless, since the adoption of the R2P principle in 2005, its existence as a norm endorsed by the United Nations has not revolutionised humanitarian intervention in any practical terms, more than it has been in theory, generally due to the absence of the political will of states to engage in interve>
The doctrine of âResponsibility to Protectâ (R2P) was founded upon the notion that the international community ought to never again repeat the same mistakes in their failure to intervene in the Rwandan crisis, which led to an escalation of humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold war era. Theories concerning humanitarian intervention are often sceptical of its justifiability, citing that coercive means of engaging in military intervention are contradictory of its purpose, namely to end the abuse of human rights. Until today, popular discourse surrounding the rights of states to intervene remain in disagreement particularly with regards to a stateâs obligation to respond towards âcrimes against humanityâ directed at those beyond their borders (Evans and Sahnoun, 2002). Nevertheless, the crises of Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s prompted the international community to reassess its abilities and moral obligations when contemplating intervention, especially considering the failure of the United Nations in responding âtoo little too lateâ in the Rwandan crisis and NATOâs intervention in Kosovo that gave rise to the unpopularity of intervention. In response, the international community aimed to establish a redefinition of intervention, in which a stateâs sovereign rights were no longer to be framed as having the âright to interveneâ but rather the âresponsibility to protectâ. As a result, in 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) drafted the framework based on just war principles which came to be known as the âResponsibility to Protectâ (R2P) doctrine. The doctrine called for states to fulfil their obligations in their responsibility to prevent, react and rebuild in response to the four mass atrocities of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As expected, the adoption of the framework by the UN garnered mixed reactions, dividing the international community into camps of those in support of intervention to protect human rights against states who strongly defended their sovereign rights to self-determination of their domestic affairs. Regardless, since the adoption of the R2P principle in 2005, its existence as a norm endorsed by the United Nations has not revolutionised humanitarian intervention in any practical terms, more than it has been in theory, generally due to the absence of the political will of states to engage in interve>
