Case Study Of Jean Watson Caring Theory Sample Essay

Rico Sandoval, a 39-year old truck driver is admitted to the hospitalfollowing an accident which caused the front of his truck to catchfire. He suffered from burns and was rushed to the ER, diagnosedwith deep split- thickness and full thickness burns of the anteriorchest, arms and hands. His vital signs are as follows: T: 96. 2 F;PR=140/min; BP=98/60. A rapid infusion of lactated ringers wasstarted and he was also receiving 40% humidified oxygen via facialmask. Lung sounds indicate inspiratory and expiratory wheezingand a persistent cough reveals sooty sputum production.

A foleycatheter is inserted and initially drains a moderate amount of dark concentrated urine. He is alert and oriented but complains of severepain associated with the burn injuries.


How the client assessment structured? 

Watson points out that nursing process contains the same steps as the scientific research process. They both try to solve a problem. Both provide a framework for decisionmaking.  Assessment phase is a opportunity for Formation of a Humanistic-altruistic system of values, Instillation of faith-hope, Cultivation of sensitivity to one’s self and to others andDevelopment of a helping-trusting, human caring relationship.

Watson’s theory of caring insists that a holistic approach, assessment may include thesocial history of the patient, as it allows the interviewer to understand a more completeapproach to the patient’s care. The environment in which patient lives as well as hishabits within that environment, help to provide a more complete and potentially moresuccessful plan of care.  Watson elaborates assessment as for him, it involves observation, identification andreview of the problem; use of applicable knowledge in literature.

How the client data is analyzed?

Watson’s theory analyze data by the formulation of hypothesis; defining variables thatwill be examined in solving the problem. • Formulation of Nursing Diagnosis such as Ineffective Airway Clearance r/t brochialsecretions, Fluid Volume Deficit r/t active volume loss, Risk For Infection r/t InadequatePrimary defense and Pain r/t tissue injury.

How the client needs are labeled?

  • Watson indicates that needs are interrelated. The science of caring suggests that the nurserecognize and assist with each of the interrelated needs in order to reach the highest order need of self-actualization. Watson’s ordering of needs. Higher order needs (psychosocial needs) – The need for achievement – The need for affiliation.
  • Higher order need (intrapersonal-interpersonal need) – The need for self-actualization ? Lower order needs (psychophysical needs) – The need for activity – The need for sexuality.
  • Lower order needs (biophysical needs) The need for food and fluid – The need for elimination – The need for ventilation.

How is care planned and delivered? 

Watson elaborated that planning includes a conceptual approach or design for problemsolving. It determines what data would be collected and how on whom.  Provision for a supportive, protective, and/or corrective mental, physical, societal, andspiritual environment.  Promoting interpersonal teaching-learning. Assistance with gratification of human needs.

How is client response/care evaluated?

According to Watson, evaluation includes analysis of the data as well as the examinationof the effects of interventions based on the data. Includes the interpretation of the results,the degree to which positive outcome has occurred and whether the result can begeneralized.  Watson believes that harmony of “Body , mind, and spirit” of the caregiver and the patient is one of the greatest outcome of care.


  1. http://www. scribd. com/doc/33854915/Jean-Watson

Case Note On Liverpool City Council

The case Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239 involved a legal action brought by the plaintiff, Liverpool City Council, against the defendants, Leslie and Maureen Irwin. The House of Lords heard the appeal on February 16th, 17th, 18th, and March 31st, 1977. The council owned a 15-story block located on Hai Heights in Everton, Liverpool where the defendants were tenants. They resided in a maisonette situated on the building’s 9th and 10th floors.

The contract of tenancy was a form that outlined the obligations of the tenants but not the landlord. The form lacked the signature of the landlord, making it an incomplete or one-sided contract. This omission in the “tenancy document” leads the courts to interpret the parties’ intentions and imply terms necessary for the contract’s validity.

The courts have the authority to imply terms into a contract in order to ensure its efficacy for business purposes. Additionally, there are various other grounds on which a court may choose to imply terms into an incomplete contract or one that necessitates the court’s involvement in order to strike a fair balance between the rights and obligations of both parties involved. This is carried out with the aim of preventing one party from shouldering all the risks, losses, or gains associated with the transaction at hand. In this particular scenario, the landlord initiated legal proceedings in the county court subsequent to the defendants ceasing their rent payments.

The tenants lodged a counterclaim for minimal compensation, alleging that the plaintiffs had breached section 32(1) of the Housing Act 1961 by failing to uphold the proper functioning of installations within the dwelling house. Furthermore, the tenants contended that there was an unwritten obligation to maintain communal areas such as lighting, stairs, lifts, and rubbish chutes. Additionally, they argued their right to peaceful occupation as stipulated in their tenancy agreement. After examining the property, the court concluded that it was in an appalling state.

The defendants were awarded nominal damages by the court as their counter claim was successful. The landlord was granted possession but ordered to pay ? 10 in nominal damages. The Liverpool City Council appealed to the court of appeal, arguing that they had no contractual obligation to maintain and repair common parts, did not violate any statutory laws in section 32(1) of the housing act, and did not breach the tenants’ implied right to quiet enjoyment.

The court allowed the appeal and determined that the plaintiff did not violate section 32(1) and was not contractually obligated to maintain common areas. Additionally, the court believed that including such a requirement in the contract was not necessary for its business effectiveness. Lord Denning disagreed with this decision and believed that the test should be based on what a reasonable person would do. Would the plaintiff have taken appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance and repair of common areas?

Denning and other justices concluded that the plaintiff did not breach any obligations. The Irwin family appealed this decision to the House of Lords, arguing that the landlord had an unambiguous duty to maintain and repair common areas. They also claimed that the landlord violated section 32(1) of the housing act because there was a cistern in their house that would flood when flushed. The Irwin family contended that this system could not be considered as being in “proper working order”.

During the trial, various issues were brought up, including the landlord’s pursuit of possession due to unpaid rent and the tenants’ counter-claim for nominal damages. The tenants contended that the council had neglected the building, resulting in blocked rubbish chutes, unlit stairs, and non-functional lifts. They also alleged a breach of the implied covenant for quiet possession and a violation of section 32(1) of the housing act concerning proper maintenance of appliances. Their arguments relied on the precedent set by Milter V Hancock. This case established that landlords can be held accountable for failing to maintain shared areas such as stairs, as evidenced by an injury sustained by a visitor to the property. The court determined that defendants have a responsibility to ensure staircase upkeep for reasonable enjoyment of the premises. Despite being overturned, this ruling continues to be frequently cited.

The court in Liverpool City Council V Irwin ruled in favor of the tenant and granted all the tenants’ counter claims based on their site inspection. On appeal, the majority of judges concluded that the defendant cannot be obligated to repair and maintain common parts, as such a term was not explicitly stated in the tenancy agreement. They determined that it is unnecessary for business efficacy and would impose an excessive burden on the landlord.

The landlord was found to have not violated section 32(1) of the housing act. However, Lord Denning disagreed with the majority’s decision and argued that landlords should be responsible for maintaining and repairing communal areas. He believed it was the duty of landlords to ensure these spaces were well-maintained in order to take care of their tenants. Despite his dissent, Lord Denning ultimately agreed with his fellow judges in determining there was insufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the landlord, leading him to conclude that the landlord was not at fault.

The tenants’ appeal before the House of Lords raises issues regarding the interpretation and nature of a current contract between the parties. Furthermore, it is argued that previous cases involving landlords and tenants of multi-storey buildings establish an implied easement for “common parts,” which grants legal rights of way relating to legal easements. Additionally, there is concern regarding the extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain these common parts. The specific debate centers on whether the standard should be reasonable care or a stricter requirement.

Justice Salmon suggests that there is a contractual relationship between Liverpool City Council and the Irwin’s, with legal obligations for both parties. This conclusion can be drawn from the fact that there is possession in an incomplete contract, as seen in this case. Lord Wilberforce asserts that the actions of the parties can fill in the missing elements. Examining the actions of the parties, it becomes clear that the tenant has had possession since 1966, while the landlord has maintained control over common areas such as lifts, staircases, and rubbish chutes.

The tenants in this scenario live in a maisonette on the 9th and 10th floors. Their relationship is that of landlord and tenant, with corresponding duties and liabilities. Lord Salmon states that there is an implied license from the landlord for tenants of the 15-storey block to use the lifts and stairs. There are two differing opinions on easements. One suggests that the landlord’s liability should be limited to ensuring the safety of those using the stairs, making sure they are safe for use. Liverpool City Council denies liability for repair and maintenance, only conceding responsibility for safety based on the Safety Occupiers Act of 1957. They argue that they are not required, by common law, to rent out a habitable dwelling, suggesting it would be a stretch to expect them to repair and maintain the tenant’s right of way. The second opinion implies that the landlord has a duty to repair and maintain common areas so they are always available for use by tenants and their visitors.

In Miller V Hancock, Lord Wilberforce argues that the test should be necessity. The essential parts required for the tenant’s occupancy must be kept in reasonable repair and suitability by the landlord. The majority of Lord Wilberforce’s colleagues concluded that the landlord is obligated to exercise reasonable care, rather than facing charges of failing to do so. This duty includes maintaining, repairing, and ensuring proper lighting for staircases. The tenant heavily relied on Moorcock during the court proceedings.

The Moorcock case involved ship-owners (plaintiffs) and jetty operators (defendants) who entered into an agreement for the use of the defendants’ facilities for loading and unloading goods. During low tide, the plaintiffs’ boat ran aground while at the defendants’ jets. The defendants, who collect tolls and fees for their services, argued that they were not responsible for the incident because the bed one must pass through to access their jetty was under the control of the conservation SOC.

The court determined that the ship-owners did not possess knowledge about the low or high tide that could potentially cause harm to their ship. This information was exclusive to the jetty owners who were responsible for such knowledge. Consequently, the jetty owners had a responsibility to inform their customers about any imminent danger, which resulted in the defendant being held accountable for compensating the plaintiff. In the case of Liverpool City Council, Mr. [counsel for the tenant] represented the tenant’s interests.

Godfrey states that the landlord retains control over the stairs and lift in this scenario. The responsibility for repairing and maintaining these easements is crucial for the contract to operate effectively. Additionally, during the appeal, there was a discussion about including section 32(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1961 as a default provision in the tenancy agreement, despite not being explicitly stated.

Section 32(1)(b) of the lease agreement requires the leaser to maintain and repair the installations in the dwelling house. The Irwin’s argued that their apartment’s water listern was defective, causing the floor to flood when flushed. Consequently, the Irwin’s claimed that the Liverpool city council violated this section. Mr.

Godfrey, counsel for the Irwin’s, submitted that in lettings of this type, the general law not only grants an easement of access but also provides a legal remedy if access is denied. This means that the owner responsible for repairs must ensure that they are carried out, even though the owner benefiting from the easement is the one directly enjoying it. Lord Edmund-Davies concluded that the only way a flat like this can be used is if the Liverpool city council maintains the common areas.

Both His lordship and Miller V Hancock opined on the need to clarify whether this implied term should be absolute or qualified. However, Dunstar V Hollis provides a more accurate ruling. It states that the obligation to maintain and repair common parts only applies in tenancies when the demised property is a multi-story building. In the appeal of Section 32, it was determined that the appeal should be allowed and the tenants were awarded a nominal fee of ?5.

In the decision of Hancock V Miller and Lister V Rumford, it was further clarified whether the landlord’s duty to repair is contractual or statutory. The application of section 32(1) of the housing act has shifted this responsibility from contractual to statutory. If the parties explicitly agree, it may still be considered contractual. However, when there is no agreement, section 32(1) of the housing act fills in the gaps. Liverpool City Council V Irwin exemplifies the distinction between implied terms of law and implied terms of fact. As the case progressed to the House of Lords, LCC V Irwin became a notable example of implied terms of law. Implied terms in law frequently arise in recurring similar cases, such as the mutual trust and confidence rule in employer/employee contracts. Implied terms of fact, on the other hand, stem from the court’s attempt to determine the presumed intentions of the parties involved.

Examples of implied terms of fact can be seen in cases such as the Moorcock case. Implied terms of fact refer to those terms that are deemed to be understood or intended by both parties involved in a contract. These terms are often imposed by law to ensure the efficient conduct of business transactions. If an opportunity to question the parties arises, and they are asked whether the desired outcome sought by the plaintiff is what the defendant intended, their response would determine the inclusion of implied terms. Therefore, it is not solely based on necessity but also on reasonableness given the specific circumstances.

A duty of care that is reasonably necessary is postulated by Lord Denning. The case LCC V Irwin brings up the question of whether landlords should be held liable for common parts as an absolute obligation. It suggests that a distinction should be made in cases where the landlord/tenancy agreement involves multi-storey premises. In these cases, there is an implied term that guides the landlord/tenant relations and places a duty of care on the landlord regarding common areas.

The duty of care to maintain the common areas for the tenants’ enjoyment is a reasonable right, not an absolute one. Initially, the counter-claim in LCC V Irwin granted this right without reservation. However, other courts were less lenient in granting this right, and ultimately, the House of Lords established a standard that was necessary for effective business functioning. Additionally, another emerging test is the consideration of wider factors, such as the reasonable expectations of the parties, rather than strict necessity. This suggests a lower standard.

Sometimes, a matter may not be governed by fact or law, resulting in no implication being made. Lord Denning had difficulty classifying Liverpool City Council V Irwin as falling under either fact or law, but the majority of other justices consider it to be implied terms of law.


1) Housing Act 1961- Section 32(1)

2) Housing Act 1961- Section 32(1)(b)

3) Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. [1957] A. C. 555; [1957] 2 W. L. R. 158; [1957] 1 All E. R. 125

4) Miller V Hancock [1893] 2 Q. B. 177, C. A.

5) Moorcock, The (1889) 14 P. D. 64

Importance Of Planning

Importance of Planning Ahead One of the most important lessons in life is to learn how to properly plan ahead for any situation that one may encounter; from daily life to planning your career one must learn how to properly plan. Short term planning must take place so that immediate goals are achieved. As Well, as long term planning so that larger more distant goals can be reached. Without proper planning many of life’s daily tasks would not be accomplished. Having a plan is a good start but one must also have a backup plan to ensure success.

However, following through is the most important part of any plan that is going to be successful. If these three basic ideas, that there needs to be a plan, there needs to be a backup plan, and finally that action needs to be taken for the successful completion one will have the means to successfully complete most any task. The planning of short term goals is what enables one to complete simple tasks, many of these tasks need to be completed on a daily basis. For example, before going to sleep at night you might ask yourself “What do I need to accomplish tomorrow? . This is the first step in your planning process, your setting those goals no matter how simple they may be. From getting up in the morning to going to sleep at night you have a plan. Some plans are easily made without a second thought. For instance setting your alarm to wake up the next morning would be an example of simple planning that only takes the smallest amount of thought. If the same plan for your daily life is made over and over it becomes routine.

Maybe you wake up the same time every morning, go to work the same way everyday, eat lunch at the same place same time everyday, make the same stops everyday on your way home from work. Eventually you don’t even realize that you’ve planned this into your day because it’s become a routine. Planning is a part of our daily lives it’s something we often do without even thinking about it. Long term planning is just as essential to one’s life as is the short term. If only short term plans are made it would be almost impossible to get larger more complex goals accomplished.

For more complex goals more effort is needed in planning. A long term plan is made up of several short term plans. If you pick out a large goal and just set out to accomplish it without a plan chances are you’re going to fall short. For example if you want to run a perfect PFT and you never make a plan on how you’re going to achieve it then chances are that goal will not be achieved. If you have no smaller goals to build up to the larger goal the task will become overwhelming and you’re more likely to give up. When you incorporate the smaller goals you are able to track your accomplishments.

That way you can see you’re making progress and become motivated to reach the next step in your plan instead of becoming overwhelmed and feeling that no matter what you do the goal is to far away to reach. However, if you fail to reach one of your smaller goals that has been set that does not mean achievement of your end goal is out of the question it just means that you need adapt your plan. All plans need flexibility built into them so that they can change and arise to the exact needs of the situation. Being flexible with your options is important in order to achieve your goals.

Everyone loves a plan that goes without any hitches. But the truth of the matter is that in some way or another, plans get derailed and adjustments must be made. As pessimistic as it sounds, it is a reality that we have to face. Some would disagree but statistics and probability will back me up on this. Opportunities, some usually unexpected, present themselves and must be taken for better results. Suffice to say, activities are never always implemented as they were planned. Plans provide us with the backbone of how we want things to be accomplished.

Our flexibility on the other hand provides us the chance to modify it as it is needed. We often take so much time to create the perfect plan but no matter how we try to calculate everything that may come in our way, there are some things that we just can’t quantify. At times we take so much time making up the best plan, trying to hone it over and over again that we lose our sight on the objective. General George S. Patton, a well respected officer of the US armed forces once said that “I would rather have a good plan today than a perfect plan two weeks from now. What is essential is our deep understanding of our goals. The wind may blow our boat in different ways but it is up to us to stir towards the right way no matter from where the wind blows. Knowing the objective and keeping our focus on it will help us maneuver around obstacles no matter how daunting it may be. The objective is always above the plan. Our flexibility and our openness will help us push forward closer to our goals if we truly commit ourselves to achieving it and not simply plan for it.

Making a plan and not taking action is a complete waste of time and effort. A plan in and of itself will accomplish nothing. Action planning is a process which will help you to focus your ideas and to decide what steps you need to take to achieve particular goals that you may have. It is a statement of what you want to achieve over a given period of time. Preparing an action plan is a good way to help you to reach your objectives in life: don’t worry about the future, start planning for it!

An effective action plan should give you a concrete timetable and set of clearly defined steps to help you to reach your objective, rather than aimlessly wondering what to do next. It helps you to focus your ideas and provides you with an answer to the question ‘‘What do I do to achieve my objective? ’’. It’s okay to have several objectives, but you will need to make a separate action plan for each, otherwise things get confused. No matter how much planning is done there are always setbacks and unexpected occurrences.

That is the reason that any well constructed plan also has a contingency plan. Not only one backup plan but several. Obviously it is impossible to plan for every single thing that could go wrong but an effort should be made to cover the biggest holes in a plan. We must plan for the short term and the long term to truly be successful. While doing this we must not forget that not everything is going to happen as planned. For these reasons we must keep a certain degree of flexibility in our plans. We must always improvise, overcome, and adapt when our plans fall through.

error: Content is protected !!