Work Environment

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 1480989 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Michael Oneil - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • twombly and iqbal effects on hostile Work Environment claims
    Boston College Journal of Law and Social Justice, 2012
    Co-Authors: Michael Oneil
    Abstract:

    Abstract: The Supreme Court decided two landmark cases, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroftv. Iqbal, that interpreted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)'s pleading requirement. The Court shifted from a notice pleading standard to one that requires more factual substantiation of claims before allowing discovery. This has important ramifications in the area of employment discrimination, as courts dismiss these claims disproportionately. If the Supreme Court's new pleading standard is read to allow more judicial subjectivity, it could bar employment discrimination plaintiffs from access to courts. Lower courts often misconstrue the legal standard for a hostile Work Environment, thereby resulting in the disposition of meritorious claims. This Note explores two different interpretations of the new pleading standards, one where judicial discretion is unbridled and the other where strong limitations on discretion still exist. For the welfare of hostile Work Environment discrimination victims, lower courts should apply the latter interpretation.IntroductionIn 2002, the United States Supreme Court ended the controversy surrounding pleading requirements for employment discrimination plaintiffs.1 Less than one decade later, however, the Court handed down two decisions-Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroftv. Iqbal- that changed those standards and caused more confusion for aggrieved plaintiffs.2The Supreme Court enacted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 to create a receptive Environment in the Federal Courts and to ensure equality of access among all potential litigants.3 Since its enactment, Rule 8 has spurred debate among circuit courts, the Supreme Court, and legal commentators alike as to what a plaintiff's complaint must assert.4 A plaintiff's initial hurdle is a motion to dismiss, filed by the defendant pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules.5 The debate continues as a result of the new standard that arguably creates stricter pleading requirements and results in dismissal of a higher percentage of claims.6This standard disproportionately affects potential civil rights plaintiffs, more so than any other class of claimants.7 As a result, there is much scholarly debate surrounding the application of these new pleading standards to civil rights, and particularly to employment discrimination claims.8 Critics argue that "given the often indirect and subtle nature of employment discrimination, heightened pleading requirements make it very difficult for plaintiffs to plead the factual specificity necessary to withstand a motion to dismiss."9 Heightened pleading standards have a greater effect on these claims because the often dispositive issues of "motivation, state of mind, and insidious practices are hidden by agents and employees . . . ."10 Furthermore, the Twombly and Iqbal paradigm arguably introduced judicial subjectivity at the pleading stages, leaving lower courts unsure how to apply the standards.11 The result is that judges, some of whom look unfavorably upon employment litigation, may decide cases based on personal views before the plaintiffhas an opportunity to investigate.12Scholars and courts have two divergent interpretations of the new pleading standards: one allows judges to dismiss claims and therefore restricts access to federal courts, and the other is more flexible, particularly in the context of employment cases.13 This Note outlines these two approaches and argues that adopting the latter approach is a start to remedying the unjust results that plaintiffs may face in discrimination suits.14 Because of the prevailing judicial attitude toward employment discrimination claims, treating Twombly and Iqbal as granting a license to dismiss would be particularly damaging to these plaintiffs.15This Note looks at the possible pleading requirements of hostile Work Environment discrimination under the two interpretations.16 Reading judicial discretion into pleadings would negatively affect potential hostile Work Environment plaintiffs in numerous ways. …

  • twombly and iqbal effects on hostile Work Environment claims
    Social Science Research Network, 2011
    Co-Authors: Michael Oneil
    Abstract:

    Recently, the Supreme Court decided two landmark cases which interpreted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)’s pleading requirement. In doing so, the Court arguably shifted from a notice-pleading standard to a regime that requires more factual substantiation of claims before allowing a plaintiff to move on to discovery. This has important ramifications in the area of employment discrimination. Plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination have traditionally had low rate of success as courts have dismissed these claims at a disproportionate rate. If the Supreme Court’s new pleading standard is read to allow more judicial subjectivity into the analysis of motions to dismiss, the result could be to bar employment discrimination plaintiffs from courts. Hostile Work Environment plaintiffs are already subject to an inordinate amount of judicial subjectivity, and lower courts misconstrue the legal standard of a hostile Work Environment resulting in the disposition of meritorious claims. Therefore, if more judicial subjectivity is read into the new pleading standards, hostile Work Environment plaintiffs will suffer. This Note explores two different interpretations of the new pleading standards, one that argues judicial discretion is unbridled as a result of the new standard, and another that argues that strong limitations on that discretion still exists. From the point of view of victims of hostile Work Environment discrimination, it is imperative that lower courts apply the latter interpretation.

Linda H. Aiken - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • electronic health record adoption and nurse reports of usability and quality of care the role of Work Environment
    Applied Clinical Informatics, 2019
    Co-Authors: Ann Kutneylee, Douglas M Sloane, Kathryn H Bowles, Lawton R Burns, Linda H. Aiken
    Abstract:

    Background Despite evidence suggesting higher quality and safer care in hospitals with comprehensive electronic health record (EHR) systems, factors related to advanced system usability remain largely unknown, particularly among nurses. Little empirical research has examined sociotechnical factors, such as the Work Environment, that may shape the relationship between advanced EHR adoption and quality of care. Objective The objective of this study was to examine the independent and joint effects of comprehensive EHR adoption and the hospital Work Environment on nurse reports of EHR usability and nurse-reported quality of care and safety. Methods This study was a secondary analysis of nurse and hospital survey data. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between EHR adoption level, Work Environment, and a set of EHR usability and quality/safety outcomes. The sample included 12,377 nurses Working in 353 hospitals. Results In fully adjusted models, comprehensive EHR adoption was associated with lower odds of nurses reporting poor usability outcomes, such as dissatisfaction with the system (odds ratio [OR]: 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61–0.92). The Work Environment was associated with all usability outcomes with nurses in better Environments being less likely to report negatively. Comprehensive EHRs (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.71–0.96) and better Work Environments (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.42–0.52) were associated with lower odds of nurses reporting fair/poor quality of care, while poor patient safety grade was associated with the Work Environment (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.46–0.54), but not EHR adoption level. Conclusion Our findings suggest that adoption of a comprehensive EHR is associated with more positive usability ratings and higher quality of care. We also found that—independent of EHR adoption level—the hospital Work Environment plays a significant role in how nurses evaluate EHR usability and whether EHRs have their intended effects on improving quality and safety of care.

  • the critical care Work Environment and nurse reported health care associated infections
    American Journal of Critical Care, 2013
    Co-Authors: Deena Kelly, Ann Kutneylee, Eileen T Lake, Linda H. Aiken
    Abstract:

    Health care–associated infections (HAIs) are one of the most common complications of care.1 HAIs are of particular concern in critically ill patients; according to estimates, almost half a million incidents of HAI occur each year in intensive care units (ICUs) alone.2 Increased susceptibility to HAIs in ICU patients is attributable in part to precarious clinical conditions,3 depressed immune function,4 and the need for invasive monitoring to ensure appropriate provision of care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made specific recommendations to aid in the prevention of central catheter–associated bloodstream infections (catheter-associated BSIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), and ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAPs).5 The recommendations focus on specific actions to be implemented by staff members, including hand hygiene, aseptic insertion of catheters, and placing patients in a semirecumbent position during intubation.5 As the largest group of ICU clinicians who provide direct patient care, critical care nurses are well positioned to implement the recommendations and monitor patients for HAIs. Development of HAIs in acute care areas has been linked to organizational factors, such as nurse staffing.6,7 In addition to staffing, a quality Work Environment—another organizational component of hospital nursing care—presumably provides critical care nurses the time and resources necessary to provide HAI preventive care. Evidence on the relationship between nurse organization, particularly the Work Environment, and HAIs in critical care units is limited. The Work Environment is defined as the organizational characteristics of the Workplace that facilitate or constrain professional nursing practice.8 Researchers have suggested that providing nurses with better resources and more time for patient care within a flat organizational management structure might improve the patient-nurse interaction and quality of care. Indeed, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses9 has endorsed the importance of a healthy Work Environment and the potential link between the Environment and patient safety. In 2 descriptive studies,10,11 members of the association were surveyed on their perceptions of the Workplace and the quality and safety of patient care. Approximately 86% of respondents reported that their unit provided excellent or good-quality care, but one quarter of these nurses indicated that the quality of care in their units during the past year had become worse.10 Almost half a million health care–associated infections occur each year in intensive care units. Inconsistencies noted in critical care nurses’ reports of quality and safety are also reflected in the ICU literature. Better communication between ICU nurses and physicians has been linked to fewer nurse-reported medication errors and greater job satisfaction.12,13 Greater variation in effective communication among providers in ICUs was associated with greater rates of VAP.14 Additionally, scores on the composite Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI), a commonly used measure of nurses’ Work Environment, was not predictive of nurse-assessed VAP and catheter-associated sepsis.12 However, a more positive organizational climate, a concept similar to the Work Environment, was significantly associated with higher odds of catheter-associated BSIs and lower odds of UTIs.15 The mixed evidence, limited in part by small sample sizes, restricted generalizability,12,15 and inconsistent reports of nurses10 indicate that more investigation is needed to understand how the critical care Work Environment may affect the frequency of HAIs. The purpose of our study was to describe critical care Work Environments and to determine whether or not the Environments were associated with nurse-reported HAIs in a sample of critical care nurses in more than 300 hospitals in 4 states. We hypothesized that nurses in better Work Environments would be less likely to report frequent HAIs than would nurses in less favorable Environments. We posited that a better critical care Work Environment would offer nurses more time, resources, and support, thereby increasing the number, duration, and quality of nurse-patient interactions. These potentially more frequent, longer, and better quality interactions might enable nurses to use adequate aseptic technique, enhance monitoring of intravenous insertion sites, identify clinical changes early, and prevent the development of a HAI.

Jennifer Gray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Teresa Shellenbarger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Joanne Disch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • creating a healthy Work Environment in the midst of organizational change and transition
    Journal of Nursing Administration, 1997
    Co-Authors: Mary Jo Kreitzer, Donna Wright, Carol L Hamlin, Sue Towey, Margo Marko, Joanne Disch
    Abstract:

    In the midst of organizational change and transition, the need for a healthy Work Environment is greater than ever. Leaders may be in a position of leading staff on a journey they would rather not be on. Although there may not be a choice of destination, there are many decisions to be made along the way that will impact the health and quality of the journey. Creation of a healthy Work Environment does not occur overnight. It requires acknowledgment of the reality of the present Environment, clear behavioral expectations and standards, systems, and structures to ensure the organizational changes are enduring and a means to assess continually the health of the Work Environment. Leaders have an opportunity and a responsibility to structure organizations in such a way that dignity, integrity, honesty, and compassion are preserved.

  • creating a healthy Work Environment in the midst of organizational change and transition
    Journal of Nursing Administration, 1997
    Co-Authors: Mary Jo Kreitzer, Donna Wright, Carol L Hamlin, Sue Towey, Margo Marko, Joanne Disch
    Abstract:

    In the midst of organizational change and transition, the need for a healthy Work Environment is greater than ever. Leaders may be in a position of leading staff on a journey they would rather not be on. Although there may not be a choice of destination, there are many decisions to be made along the way that will impact the health and quality of the journey. Creation of a healthy Work Environment does not occur overnight. It requires acknowledgment of the reality of the present Environment, clear behavioral expectations and standards, systems, and structures to ensure the organizational changes are enduring and a means to assess continually the health of the Work Environment. Leaders have an opportunity and a responsibility to structure organizations in such a way that dignity, integrity, honesty, and compassion are preserved. Language: en

Work Environment - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts