Know How Legislation and Policies Are Relevant to Positive Risk Taking

A duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeable harm others. A definition from Wikipedia

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

Risk is an accepted part of everyday life. Everyone has the right to take risks and make decisions on their own. A balance should be found between service users participation in everyday activities and the carers duty of care. Social care and health policies are encouraging residents to increase their independence by being involved in the wider society such as leisure and work. It is impossible to eliminate risk completely, however minimising and being prepared for risk by preventative action.

So DUTY OF CARE ensures that safeguarding is a priority as it is upheld in practice. When I am engaging with an individual it is my duty to have an understanding of what is required for the well being of the individual, when I’m on duty in my workplace, I will observe and record, how the individual

Negligence is when someone is failing to do something that a reasonable person would do in a similar situation or, doing something that a reasonable person did not do in a similar situation.

This assignment is intended to provide evidence of a candidate’s knowledge and understanding of the principles for duty of care in health, social care or children and young people’s settings. By completing all tasks within the assignment, the candidate will provide evidence that meets the Learning Outcomes and assessment criteria for Unit 054, Principles for Implementing Duty of Care in Health, Social Care or Children and Young People’s Settings.

Negligence, failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing an accident or loss to another person. A colleague who is supposed to carry a patient from one ward to another was rather talking to someone on his way and crashed into some one. This

Every health professional has a duty of care to patients. Specifically, it is nurses who play an important role in quality and safe delivery of patient care. They have the major responsibility for the implementation of policies and procedures in an organisation. Thus, it is essential that all organisations support their staff from all levels of care to deliver the best service in every patient. In addition, every organization is required to offer unwavering encouragement and resources to support staff to perform their duty of care to the best of their ability. The high incidence of risk in the health care settings such as adverse events, near misses, errors, and other clinical incidents have created great concerns for healthcare organizations. Not only they have effects on patients, but also they have showed significant impact on socioeconomic status. For this reason, it is expected that all health care professionals will engage in all elements of risk management to ensure that there is delivery of quality and safe patient care. This paper will critically discuss three (3) episodes of care from the case study Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] v Jarrett [2013] Nursing and Midwifery Professional Standards Committee of New South Wales [NSWNMPSC] 3 in relation to Registered Nurse’s [RN] role as a leader in the health care team, application of clinical risk management [CRM] in health care domains, accountability in relation to clinical governance [CG], quality improvement

Negligence refers to any cause of any action or omission, where a person may assert a civil tort case and claim against another individual. Anyone that files a negligence lawsuit will need to prove four elements to negligence, in a court of law. If the plaintiff is successful in proving their case, then the judge will award damages.

Negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances.It is the most commonly asserted cause of action in the United States. It is conduct below that which society considers reasonable. When such unreasonable conduct is the proximate cause of injury to another person or his property, the actor may be liable in tort for negligence.Generally, negligence laws exist as a non-criminal regulator of conduct in society. Those individuals whose conduct falls below the required minimum standard of care may be liable for the resulting bodily injury, including death, and property damage.

Negligence is a complex term including advertent and inadvertent acts and omissions where there has been a failure to take reasonable care to prevent loss, damage or injury to others whom they could reasonably have foreseen might have been injured if that care was not taken. (Pentony at al. 2011)

A defendant will only be held liable, in negligence, ‘in circumstances where the law imposes a duty of such care.’ The occupier of a premises owes a duty of care to ‘take reasonable care for the safety’ of all entrants and is said to be any person who exercises

A duty of care is a persons’ responsibility to avoid acts that could be likely to cause harm to others. The onus is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant owes them a duty of care.

Duty of care is the legal obligation of person or organization to take reasonable care and measures to avoid any behaviours or omissions that could foreseeably harm others. Originally, foreseeability is the element appeared to be the sole determinant of duty of care and it was developed by the ‘neighbour’ principle – Donoghue v Stevenson. However, currently three-stage approach from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman is the latest test, which consist of foresight, proximity as well as fair and reasonable.

In any given case, if a reasonable man could have foreseen the consequences then a duty of care may be owed; whether it has actually arisen or not depends on the facts. The duty may be restricted or ignored completely in the following circumstances.