Introduction
In healthcare, statistics have a critical application because they help healthcare professionals to make evidence-based decisions, improve care delivery, enhance patient outcomes, and advance hospitals’ quality. Oster and Enders (2018) recommend that healthcare providers have statistical competence to boost their capacity to consume research findings and translate them into practice and further studies. An increasing body of knowledge compels healthcare providers to update their practices to be in line with novel results which are reliable and useful in delivering care. Moreover, the quality improvement of procedures, processes, and systems requires continual research activities through statistics. According to Guetterman (2019), statistics offer a systematic and rigorous process of generating valid and reliable healthcare findings. For healthcare providers, including nurses, managers, and physicians, to deliver optimal care, they apply statistical analyses to adopt evidence-based practices. In this view, this paper focuses on examining the application of statistics in healthcare aspects of quality, safety, promotion, and leadership, along with the routine application in nursing.
Application in Healthcare
Since healthcare services are sensitive and specific to patients’ unique needs, quality is an important attribute that determines health outcomes. The use of statistics enables healthcare providers to evaluate and establish if the nature of the care they deliver to patients meets the standards or deviates significantly from them. For instance, the World Health Organization has established standards and guidelines for healthcare providers to follow and ensure they deliver a specific quality of care to different patients. Diagnoses, treatment interventions, and patient outcomes are significant parameters analyzed using statistics to establish health quality (Oster & Enders, 2018). Accurate diagnosis of diseases requires statistics to determine if disease markers are reliable to make informed decisions regarding patients’ conditions. Variations in demographics and the needs of diseases necessitate applying statistics to customize treatment interventions among patients to achieve specific health outcomes. Overall, statistics allow healthcare providers to deliver care that is consistent with the established standards and guidelines.
The risk of medical errors in healthcare organizations requires applying statistics to ensure that diagnoses and treatments are safe. Patients’ diagnoses ought to be accurate to protect them from undue harm stemming from the use of drugs. In essence, the diagnosis should ensure that they provide precise information for the appropriate prescription of drugs. In drug design, statistics enable the determination of therapeutic indices and safety margins for doctors to prescribe the right doses and ensure safety from adverse effects (Oster & Enders, 2018). Furthermore, the statistical analysis aids in evaluating the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of drugs for safety prescriptions to patients. By adhering to drugs’ safety margins, healthcare providers prevent medical errors related to dosage.
For healthcare organizations to undertake health promotion, they have to survey the target population and identify their unique needs. The process of doing a needs assessment requires statistics in the questionnaire design, sampling of individuals, information collection, and data analysis (Guetterman, 2019). Information such as prevalence, distribution, and risks enable epidemiologists to formulate effective interventions for health promotion. For example, the prevalence rates and the distribution of Coronavirus empower the health care systems to make informed decisions regarding preventive measures and guidelines necessary for effective health promotion among the target population.
Leaders play a critical role in healthcare organizations because they determine the nature of policies, guidelines, programs, and interventions to deliver quality care. To keep abreast of advancements in care, leaders read, interpret, and translate novel findings into effective interventions that ensure quality improvement (Guetterman, 2019). Researchers report their results using descriptive and inferential statistics for the target audience to consume and apply in their respective areas of specialization. Leaders’ work is to help their teams understand research findings and use them to advance the delivery of care. Significance, validity, and reliability are vital statistical parameters that leaders examine when interpreting and translating research findings.
Application in Nursing
As a specialty area, nursing requires statistical knowledge in undertaking research activities to improve the delivery of care to patients. Guetterman (2019) explains that applying statistics in research involves formulating a hypothesis, collecting data, analyzing information, interpreting analyses, and reporting findings. The formulation of a hypothesis is an integral step in research since it determines the nature of data and tests. Data collection entails obtaining relevant and representative information from individuals in the target population. The analysis of information needs descriptive and inferential statistics for an effective interpretation and reporting of findings.
In nursing, I would obtain statistical data by collecting information from patients using questionnaires, interviews, or measurements. Since nurses interact with patients during visits from the point of admission to discharge, and in follow-ups, they collect relevant data for monitoring health outcomes. Moreover, the emergence of electronic health records has eased data collection for nurses to analyze and make informed decisions regarding patients’ prognosis (Kruse et al., 2018). Therefore, electronic health records have enabled healthcare providers to collect and store data, which are essential in monitoring patient outcomes. Statistical analysis of the collected data generates meaningful information that allows evaluating trends of diseases and infections. Nurses can determine morbidity rates, length of stay, prognosis, and mortality rates based on data. Additionally, nurses can also establish a relationship between treatment interventions and risk factors among different patients.
In nursing, I would apply statistical knowledge in making appropriate decisions concerning the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Since different treatment regimens have varied influences on patient outcomes and the recovery process, statistics are integral in identifying effective interventions. Moreover, the analysis of the trend of vital signs would indicate if a patient requires continued medical attention, discharge, or follow-up. Thus, statistical knowledge offers an evidence-based approach to delivering nursing care to patients, resulting in enhanced health outcomes.
Conclusion
In healthcare, statistics play a significant role by ensuring the application of evidence-based practices, programs, and systems. Healthcare providers utilize statistics to offer quality care, ensure safety, promote health, and advance evidence-based decisions through leadership. Hence, statistical knowledge applies to collecting information, analyzing data, and interpreting findings in nursing for effective monitoring of patients to improve their outcomes.
References
Guetterman T. C. (2019). Basics of statistics for primary care research. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2), 11-17.
Kruse, C. S., Stein, A., Thomas, H., & Kaur, H. (2018). The use of electronic health records to support population health: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of medical systems, 42(214), 1-16.
Oster, R. A., & Enders, F. T. (2018). The importance of statistical competencies for medical research learners. Journal of Statistics Education, 26(2), 137-142.
Essay Voice-over
Religious Discrimination At The Workplace
Along with the ethnic and gender identities, religious ones are likely to be stigmatized at the workplace due to stereotyping. There are many documented cases regarding discrimination against specific religious groups. For instance, Christians are stereotyped as close-minded and naïve, Jewish – as disloyal and greedy, Muslims – as menacing and backward. In turn, pagans (druids, Wiccans, and adherents of Santeria and voodoo) are believed to be untrustworthy as atheists and nonconformists (Rayan & Gardner, 2018).
The majority status varying in cultural context results in the variability of objects being the harassment target (for example, in Egypt, Coptic Christians are considered a stigmatized minority). The legacies of stereotypes in today’s workplace are based on historical divisions like those between Muslims and Hindus in India, and others (Rayan & Gardner, 2018). Moreover, the willingness to preserve the temporal nature of the workplace often results in harassment even in cases when a religious group is in the majority.
Company Matters
EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) enforced the laws prohibiting intentional discrimination of the applicants or employees based on their sex (including pregnancy), race, religion, color, national origin, and disabilities. Still, there is a number of small companies where the CEOs practice the so-called “employment at will” – firing the employees for any reason. For example, CEO of a consulting company with a 60-person staff based in Ohio says that he “fired people from my company for cause, but I’ve also fired people who I think just don’t get what we’re about” (Feffer, 2018).
He added that “frankly, I don’t lose a minute of sleep when I fire someone who I think isn’t working out, for whatever reason. Of course, I drive my HR person nuts when I do that” (Feffer, 2018). He was actually lucky never to be sued by his former employees as the legal experts and employment attorneys suppose the cases would not be winning for him. Large state companies pay more attention to the legitimacy of their actions. Therefore, it is evident that the company type often matters when it comes to hiring and firing issues.
Documented Cases
Religious discrimination implies unfavorable treating an employee or an applicant due to his or her religious preferences and beliefs. Nevertheless, it is a common situation when an individual is treated differently, being married to a person of a specific religion or even associated with him or her. Religious discrimination is not limited by one form: it includes being denied promotion or work, denied accommodation at the workplace, or harassment. Employees are protected from involvement in religious discrimination by the “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”
For example, one anonymous source describes his experience as follows: “I was on a hiring committee, and we interviewed a woman who wore a headscarf. After the interview, someone said we shouldn’t hire her because the headscarf is a safety concern. I told them that there was safety equipment we could easily buy to accommodate her. My manager said it wasn’t worth the hassle and decided not to hire her” (“Would you,” n.d.). There are many similar cases based on religious discrimination in the U.S.
Another famous case took place in Farmington, Blue Moon Diner LLC. The federal law was violated through subjecting a Muslim female employee, Samantha Bandy, to religious discrimination (“Blue Moon,” 2018). The company refused to accommodate the woman requesting to work wearing her hijab (a female headscarf worn for religious purposes).
Hence, EEOC stated in its lawsuit that the company discharged Samantha Bandy due to her religion. Additionally, it was claimed that “such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and retaliation for opposition to discrimination” (“Religious discrimination,” n.d.).
The suit was filed in New Mexico and asked the court to force the employer to relieve Bandy appropriately, including reimbursement of punitive and compensatory damages, back wages, and a permanent injunction forbidding the company to take part in any religious discrimination in future. Additionally, the court was asked to make the company carry out practices and policies preventing and eradicating religious discrimination in the workplace.
Under Title VII, the hijab (as well as yarmulke or turban) requires the employer to provide the applicant with the appropriate accommodation being the religious article of clothing. The employer is obliged to fulfill the accommodation without undue hardship or a burden (“Religious discrimination,” n.d.). Sometimes the employers try to justify the denial to wear the religious clothing by the employees based on worries that the customers are likely to be lost or offended.
Nevertheless, this might never be a justification for any discriminatory practice. Moreover, it is illegal to refuse hiring an applicant based on concerns that co-workers may feel uncomfortable with their national origin or religion. This prohibition also covers such employment decisions as transfers, promotions, wages, and work assignments. Hence, Bandy should have been either explained and proved that preventing her from wearing hijab posed an undue hardship to the company and its business or accommodated accordingly.
Undue hardship may be justified only through safety and health issues. For example, the assembly line workers of the factory are obliged to wear pants as the machinery may catch clothing. Additionally, wearing dresses by female employees increases the risks of suffering burns. In this case, the company has a legal right to fire the employee refusing to wear pants as it would undermine the safety policy.
In Bandy’s case, she was asked not to wear or remove her hijab being the part of her religious identity though it never posed a safety threat. Hence, her request for an employer’s accommodation is legally justified. People involved in such conflicts are advised to quickly consult with the state or federal anti-discrimination agency or attorney before risking termination or discipline (“Prohibited employment,” n.d.). Otherwise, undoing harm might be complicated once an individual is already disciplined or terminated.
Conclusion
Generally, an employer should establish a dress code applicable to employees within specific job categories or to the whole staff. Nevertheless, there are several possible exceptions to prevent conflicts. For instance, if the company requires all employers to follow a dress code, they should be treated equally without preferences or concessions for any group. For example, if a dress code prohibits wearing ethnic dresses like East Indian or traditional African attire, it should similarly treat casual dress for other employees.
Otherwise, the company’s attitude might be considered illegal due to ethnic controversies and discrimination based on national origin. Unless the employee’s accommodation is likely to result in an undue hardship, the employer must provide it by request according to the worker’s religious practices and permit an exception of the settled dress code or modify it. Analogically, if an employee’s appeal of accommodation is based on his or her disability, the dress code should be altered or have special exceptions.
References
Blue Moon Diner sued by EEOC for religious discrimination. (2018). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Web.
Feffer, M. (2018). ‘Employment at will’ isn’t a blank check to terminate employees you don’t like. SHRM. Web.
Prohibited employment policies/practices. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Web.
Rayan, M. A., & Gardner, D. M. (2018). Religious harassment and bullying in the workplace. Web.
Religious discrimination. (n.d.). Workplace Fairness. Web.
Would you recognize workplace discrimination? 9 examples of what it could look like. (n.d.). CPLEA. Web.
English Courts And Their Lifting The Corporate Veil
For very many years, since a precedent was set in the case of Salomon vs A Salomon & Co. LTD in 1897, it has been a fundamental tenet in the English company law that a company duly formed and registered within the law was a separate legal entity with rights and liabilities similar, but distinct from those of its shareholders. As a matter of fact, the Companies Act 2006 sec 16[2&3] does emphasize that an incorporated company has a personality that distinguishes it from the personalities of its member shareholders. For this particular reason, the English courts have been very firm in the interpretation of the doctrine of separate legal personality for cases involving incorporated companies.
For some reason, however, the strict interpretation of the doctrine has been challenged by some quarters with some viewing it as a leeway created by law to avoid justice. Some of the legal practitioners who oppose or call for leniency in the strict application of the doctrine have advanced their argument that notwithstanding the legal standing of the doctrine the courts should, in certain circumstances, consider the substance of the situation at hand before making a determination in order for fairness and justice to be seen to be done. This argument is often referred to as a piercing or lifting the veil of incorporation, and sometimes described as an upholding substance over form which is akin to identifying the spirit of a statement in the law, rather than just following the script in the law. To the effect that English courts have since softened their stance in the application of the Salomon principle in order to pursue justice and fairness, as suggested by Mohanty and Bhandari in their statement. In my opinion, I contest that this has not been the case. In the subsequent discussion, I intend to show that English courts have been particularly cautious in lifting the corporate veil4 and merely serving justice.
In the United Kingdom, the latter view that the strict interpretation of the doctrine of separate legal entity should be exercised with a bit of caution has somehow received some lukewarm acceptance in the English courts. In many cases, the English courts held that it was simply not justifiable to pierce the corporate veil in pursuit of justice, or simply because there has been some impropriety. However, for the courts to allow such advancements, the claimant[s] must show, beyond any doubt, that the corporate structure for which they are trying to persuade the court to disregard, was used with a very clear intent of perpetrating the fraud. A case in point somehow ushered the concept of lifting the veil in common law practice, but as the contrary illustrates, also the English court’s reluctance to pierce the corporate veil merely for the purpose of pursuing justice is the Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990]. B.C.C. 786.
In the particular referred case, the matter at hand that required the court’s determination was whether a ruling made in the US seeking to compel Cape a British company to be held responsible over actions of its dissolved subsidiary in the US. The court ruling, however, was very clear about the circumstances under which the corporate veil could be pierced. The court ruling, in its determination of the case, identified three instances where the corporate veil could be pierced to allow liability over actions by a subsidiary to be transferred to the parent company. First, the court of appeal found that if the veil of incorporation was to be lifted, it will only be possible if it treats the Cape group as one single economic entity. However, the judges observed that where such a view had been adopted previously in court rulings the court was either trying to resolve clarity in the interpretation of a statute or a document. For this reason, the court ruled that no interpretation of a statute or document was required in the Cape case and, as such, it could not apply the single entity principle. In coming to the determination of this matter, the court concluded that;
save in cases that turn on the wording of particular statutes or contracts, the court is not free to disregard the principle of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 merely because it considers that justice so requires. Our law, for better or worse, recognizes the creation of subsidiary companies, which though in one sense the creatures of their parent companies, will nevertheless under the general law fall to be treated as separate legal entities with all the rights and liabilities which would normally attach to separate legal entities.
The second instance was where the incorporation in question was merely a façade to conceal impropriety and thirdly, where there was proof that the subsidiary was expressly acting as an agent of the parent company.
Since the above-mentioned landmark ruling over how and when an exception to the Salomon principle can be granted, there have been various attempts to persuade the courts to lift the veil based on the circumstances identified in the Adams v. Cape Industries case as the basis for exemption of the Salomon principle. Over the single economic unit, a circumstance most notably after the ruling in DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets wherein the court treated the overall business operation as a single economic unit, there has been some reluctance to follow this precedence in subsequent judgments. Among cases where this has been declined is the Bank of Tokyo v Karoon case where Lord Goff held the legal conception of the corporate structure was very much independent from the economic construction, and in Ord v Bellhaven where Hobhouse LJ described as heresy, English law allowed lifting the corporate veil sentiments also shared by Moritt in Trustor v Smallbone10 that corporate veil could not merely be lifted because justice requires it.
Aside from the grounds seeking to persuade the court to apply the single economic entity principle, several other grounds have been used to persuade the court to pierce the corporate veil. Most notably, two circumstances have succeeded in persuading the courts to disregard the principle of the separate legal entity of a corporation. These are; where it has been shown that the incorporation was intended to façade or hide behind the corporate veil to commit fraud and, in rare occasions, where it was in the interest of shareholders to disregard the corporate structure. Whereas on these two grounds English courts have been persuaded to pierce the carapace of the corporate entity, it should be noted that this has not been done based on the company law, but on some application of other statutes in the rule of law. A case in demonstration is the R v Seager [2009] where the court of appeal determination relied on the English criminal law to lift the veil. In Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & Ors v Stepanovs [2011], Burton J. cautioned defendants against persuading the court to lift the veil to serve justice. Particularly, he refuted their reliance on a ruling in Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms & Ors [2006] saying that necessity to serve justice was not “fetter” to a claim to lift the corporate veil which, on the contrary, required to be “pleaded or proved in limine”.
References
Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & Ors v Stepanovs [2011], EWHC 333 (Comm), Web.
Dadourian Group International Inc & Ors v Simms & Ors [2006] EWHC 2973 (Ch). Web.
Gallagher, L. & P. Zeigler ‘Lifting the corporate veil in the pursuit of justice’, [1990]. Web.
Linsen International Ltd & Ors v Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd & Ors, Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm). Case No: 2009. Web.
Lowry, J.P. ‘Lifting the corporate veil’, JBL 41, January, pp.41–42, 1993.
Lowry, J.P. & Edmunds ‘Holding the tension between Salomon and the personal liability of directors’, Can Bar Rev 467, 1998.
Muchlinski, P.T. ‘Holding multinationals to account: recent developments in English litigation and the Company Law Review’, Co Law, p.168, 2002.
Rixon, F.G. ’Lifting the veil between holding and subsidiary companies’, 102 LQR415, 1986.
Trustor AB v Smallbone & Ors [2001] EWHC 703 (Ch), Web.