reviewed by turnitin and AI report needed
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →reviewed by turnitin and AI report needed
– **Written Report** (PDF or Word) – **Part 1:** Mini Mitigation & Contingency Plan – **Part 2:** Communication Summary (internal + external messaging) use mod 3 risk index
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →– **Written Report** (PDF or Word)
– **Part 1:** Mini Mitigation & Contingency Plan
– **Part 2:** Communication Summary (internal + external messaging)
use mod 3 risk index
turn it in – at report written as commander
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →turn it in – at report written as commander
In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Mod 1 structured legal analysis..
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.
mod3 – **Completed County Risk Index Template** (Excel file) – **Short written analysis** (submitted as a separate document, if preferred) reviewed turnitin ai\report
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →mod3
– **Completed County Risk Index Template** (Excel file)
– **Short written analysis** (submitted as a separate document, if preferred)
reviewed turnitin ai\report
see attached **files (2)** – ## ResearchPaperThesisAbstractandOutlineAssignmentInstructions.docx – ## ResearchPaper-ThesisAbstractandOutlineGradingRubric.pdf **## ResearchPaperThesisAbstractandOutlineAssignmentInstructions.docx** PADM 704 **Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract and Outline Assignment Ins…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →see attached
**files (2)**
– ## ResearchPaperThesisAbstractandOutlineAssignmentInstructions.docx
– ## ResearchPaper-ThesisAbstractandOutlineGradingRubric.pdf
**## ResearchPaperThesisAbstractandOutlineAssignmentInstructions.docx**
PADM 704
**Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract and Outline Assignment Instructions**
**Overview**
You will identify a problem within the field of human resource management in today’s public administration to write on for your Research Paper: Final Assignment. In this assignment, you will submit a thesis, abstract, and an outline for the final paper detailing the problem and the background on the issue.
**Instructions**
· You will ensure the assignment includes a biblical worldview presentation.
· The assignment should be a minimum of 4-5 double-spaced pages in length, not including the title page and references page.
· Assignment should be submitted using proper APA formatting.
· You should incorporate a minimum of one Read item into this assignment.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
**## ResearchPaper-ThesisAbstractandOutlineGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Research
Purpose
19 to >16 pts
Advanced
The thesis is clearly
identified and retains
focus throughout the
paper. Abstract provides
sufficient background on
the topic and previews
major points. Outline is
clearly developed and
incorporates all major
points. All necessary
aspects of the
assignment described in
the instructions are
clearly identifiable.
Organization emphasizes
the central theme or
purpose. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are fully
addressed/incorporated.
16 to >15 pts
Proficient
The thesis may require some
clarification and/or greater
prominence throughout the
paper. Abstract may not
provide adequate background
on the topic and preview
major points. Outline may not
provide a clear presentation of
the topic and overview of
major topics. Most necessary
aspects of the assignment
described in the instructions
are clearly identifiable and
sufficiently addressed.
Organization may not
sufficiently emphasize the
central theme or purpose.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/incorporated.
15 to >0 pts
Developing
The thesis requires
significant clarification
and prominence
throughout the paper.
Abstract may be missing
or ambiguous. Outline
may be missing or is
ambiguous. Some
necessary aspects of
the assignment
described in the
instructions are clearly
identifiable, but others
may require clarification
or development.
Organization may
require significant
improvement. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 19
pts
Reasoned
Analysis
15 to >13 pts
Advanced
Major points are stated
clearly and are supported
by valid evidence and
logical reasoning.
Objective, reasoned
analysis is employed.
Opposing viewpoints are
sufficiently
acknowledged and
critically evaluated. The
conclusion logically
derives from the paper’s
ideas. An authoritative,
persuasive, and
statesmanlike voice is
used (first/second person
perspective avoided).
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
13 to >12 pts
Proficient
Most major points are stated
and supported by evidence
and reasoning, but some
points may require
clarification or greater
support. Opposing viewpoints
are acknowledged but may
require greater evaluation.
The conclusion does not fully
derive from the paper’s ideas.
Some improvements to
objective tone/perspective
may be required. Grading
feedback and lessons from
applicable Module are
generally addressed/
incorporated.
12 to >0 pts
Developing
Major points require
significant clarification
and scholarly support.
Opposing viewpoints are
not adequately
acknowledged and/or
addressed. Conclusion
does not derive logically
from the paper’s main
ideas. Significant
improvements to
objective
tone/perspective are
required. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 15
pts
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
Criteria Ratings Points
Scholarly
Support
15 to >13 pts
Advanced
At least 1 scholarly
source in addition to
course materials and the
Bible, reflecting diverse
viewpoints and germane
research are employed.
Source material is
properly attributed.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
13 to >12 pts
Proficient
Some improvements and or
additions to quality/quantity of
sources are needed.
Clarification of source
material may be needed.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/ incorporated.
12 to >0 pts
Developing
Significant improvement
of scholarly support
(sources, table/figure
requirements) is
needed. Source material
may not be properly
attributed. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 15
pts
Composition
and
Readability
7 to >6 pts
Advanced
Rules of grammar,
usage, and punctuation
are followed, and spelling
is correct. Sentences are
complete, clear, and
concise. Rhetorical skill
is shown. Sentences are
well constructed, with
consistently strong and
varied structure.
Sentence transitions are
present and direct the
flow of thought.
Paragraph transitions are
present and logical,
directing flow of thought
throughout the paper.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
Paper contains minimal errors
in grammar, usage,
punctuation, and spelling.
Sentences are generally
complete, clear, and concise.
Rhetorical skill is shown,
although a few points may
require clarification. Some
variation in sentence structure
or transitions may be required
to improve flow of discussion.
Some paragraph transitions
may require improvement.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/ incorporated.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
Paper contains
numerous errors in
grammar, usage,
punctuation, and
spelling. Multiple
sentences may be
incomplete or
ambiguously worded.
Sentence transitions
may be weak,
insufficiently directing
the flow of thought.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
Criteria Ratings Points
Formatting 7 to >6 pts
Advanced
Paper is laid out
effectively and uses
reader-friendly aids (e.g.,
section subheadings,
table of contents, indices,
appendices, etc.) as
appropriate. Text,
citations, and Reference
page(s) follow current
APA formatting
requirements. Paper is
written in 12-point Times
New Roman font, is
double-spaced, and has
1” margins. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are fully
addressed/incorporated.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
Paper is generally laid out
effectively and uses some
reader-friendly aids as
appropriate. Text, citations,
and Reference page(s)
contains minimal
inconsistencies with current
APA formatting requirements.
Paper may contain some
inconsistencies with required
font, spacing and margin
requirements. Grading
feedback and lessons from
applicable Module are
generally addressed/
incorporated.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
Paper may be laid out
ineffectively or may not
use sufficient
reader-friendly aids as
appropriate. Text,
citations and/or
Reference page(s) do
not follow current APA
formatting style/format
requirements. Paper
may not follow required
font, spacing and margin
requirements. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Page
Length
7 to >6 pts
Advanced
4-5 pages of content in
length (not counting the
title page or references);
double-spaced.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
1 page more or less than the
required length range (not
counting the title page or
references); double-spaced.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
More than 1 page more
or less than the required
length range (not
counting the title page or
references);
double-spaced.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Total Points: 0
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
**## ResearchPaper-ThesisAbstractandOutlineGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Research
Purpose
19 to >16 pts
Advanced
The thesis is clearly
identified and retains
focus throughout the
paper. Abstract provides
sufficient background on
the topic and previews
major points. Outline is
clearly developed and
incorporates all major
points. All necessary
aspects of the
assignment described in
the instructions are
clearly identifiable.
Organization emphasizes
the central theme or
purpose. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are fully
addressed/incorporated.
16 to >15 pts
Proficient
The thesis may require some
clarification and/or greater
prominence throughout the
paper. Abstract may not
provide adequate background
on the topic and preview
major points. Outline may not
provide a clear presentation of
the topic and overview of
major topics. Most necessary
aspects of the assignment
described in the instructions
are clearly identifiable and
sufficiently addressed.
Organization may not
sufficiently emphasize the
central theme or purpose.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/incorporated.
15 to >0 pts
Developing
The thesis requires
significant clarification
and prominence
throughout the paper.
Abstract may be missing
or ambiguous. Outline
may be missing or is
ambiguous. Some
necessary aspects of
the assignment
described in the
instructions are clearly
identifiable, but others
may require clarification
or development.
Organization may
require significant
improvement. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 19
pts
Reasoned
Analysis
15 to >13 pts
Advanced
Major points are stated
clearly and are supported
by valid evidence and
logical reasoning.
Objective, reasoned
analysis is employed.
Opposing viewpoints are
sufficiently
acknowledged and
critically evaluated. The
conclusion logically
derives from the paper’s
ideas. An authoritative,
persuasive, and
statesmanlike voice is
used (first/second person
perspective avoided).
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
13 to >12 pts
Proficient
Most major points are stated
and supported by evidence
and reasoning, but some
points may require
clarification or greater
support. Opposing viewpoints
are acknowledged but may
require greater evaluation.
The conclusion does not fully
derive from the paper’s ideas.
Some improvements to
objective tone/perspective
may be required. Grading
feedback and lessons from
applicable Module are
generally addressed/
incorporated.
12 to >0 pts
Developing
Major points require
significant clarification
and scholarly support.
Opposing viewpoints are
not adequately
acknowledged and/or
addressed. Conclusion
does not derive logically
from the paper’s main
ideas. Significant
improvements to
objective
tone/perspective are
required. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 15
pts
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
Criteria Ratings Points
Scholarly
Support
15 to >13 pts
Advanced
At least 1 scholarly
source in addition to
course materials and the
Bible, reflecting diverse
viewpoints and germane
research are employed.
Source material is
properly attributed.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
13 to >12 pts
Proficient
Some improvements and or
additions to quality/quantity of
sources are needed.
Clarification of source
material may be needed.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/ incorporated.
12 to >0 pts
Developing
Significant improvement
of scholarly support
(sources, table/figure
requirements) is
needed. Source material
may not be properly
attributed. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 15
pts
Composition
and
Readability
7 to >6 pts
Advanced
Rules of grammar,
usage, and punctuation
are followed, and spelling
is correct. Sentences are
complete, clear, and
concise. Rhetorical skill
is shown. Sentences are
well constructed, with
consistently strong and
varied structure.
Sentence transitions are
present and direct the
flow of thought.
Paragraph transitions are
present and logical,
directing flow of thought
throughout the paper.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
Paper contains minimal errors
in grammar, usage,
punctuation, and spelling.
Sentences are generally
complete, clear, and concise.
Rhetorical skill is shown,
although a few points may
require clarification. Some
variation in sentence structure
or transitions may be required
to improve flow of discussion.
Some paragraph transitions
may require improvement.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/ incorporated.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
Paper contains
numerous errors in
grammar, usage,
punctuation, and
spelling. Multiple
sentences may be
incomplete or
ambiguously worded.
Sentence transitions
may be weak,
insufficiently directing
the flow of thought.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
Criteria Ratings Points
Formatting 7 to >6 pts
Advanced
Paper is laid out
effectively and uses
reader-friendly aids (e.g.,
section subheadings,
table of contents, indices,
appendices, etc.) as
appropriate. Text,
citations, and Reference
page(s) follow current
APA formatting
requirements. Paper is
written in 12-point Times
New Roman font, is
double-spaced, and has
1” margins. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are fully
addressed/incorporated.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
Paper is generally laid out
effectively and uses some
reader-friendly aids as
appropriate. Text, citations,
and Reference page(s)
contains minimal
inconsistencies with current
APA formatting requirements.
Paper may contain some
inconsistencies with required
font, spacing and margin
requirements. Grading
feedback and lessons from
applicable Module are
generally addressed/
incorporated.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
Paper may be laid out
ineffectively or may not
use sufficient
reader-friendly aids as
appropriate. Text,
citations and/or
Reference page(s) do
not follow current APA
formatting style/format
requirements. Paper
may not follow required
font, spacing and margin
requirements. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Page
Length
7 to >6 pts
Advanced
4-5 pages of content in
length (not counting the
title page or references);
double-spaced.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
1 page more or less than the
required length range (not
counting the title page or
references); double-spaced.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
More than 1 page more
or less than the required
length range (not
counting the title page or
references);
double-spaced.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Total Points: 0
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
**## ResearchPaperThesisAbstractandOutlineAssignmentInstructions.docx**
PADM 704
**Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract and Outline Assignment Instructions**
**Overview**
You will identify a problem within the field of human resource management in today’s public administration to write on for your Research Paper: Final Assignment. In this assignment, you will submit a thesis, abstract, and an outline for the final paper detailing the problem and the background on the issue.
**Instructions**
· You will ensure the assignment includes a biblical worldview presentation.
· The assignment should be a minimum of 4-5 double-spaced pages in length, not including the title page and references page.
· Assignment should be submitted using proper APA formatting.
· You should incorporate a minimum of one Read item into this assignment.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
**## ResearchPaper-ThesisAbstractandOutlineGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Research
Purpose
19 to >16 pts
Advanced
The thesis is clearly
identified and retains
focus throughout the
paper. Abstract provides
sufficient background on
the topic and previews
major points. Outline is
clearly developed and
incorporates all major
points. All necessary
aspects of the
assignment described in
the instructions are
clearly identifiable.
Organization emphasizes
the central theme or
purpose. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are fully
addressed/incorporated.
16 to >15 pts
Proficient
The thesis may require some
clarification and/or greater
prominence throughout the
paper. Abstract may not
provide adequate background
on the topic and preview
major points. Outline may not
provide a clear presentation of
the topic and overview of
major topics. Most necessary
aspects of the assignment
described in the instructions
are clearly identifiable and
sufficiently addressed.
Organization may not
sufficiently emphasize the
central theme or purpose.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/incorporated.
15 to >0 pts
Developing
The thesis requires
significant clarification
and prominence
throughout the paper.
Abstract may be missing
or ambiguous. Outline
may be missing or is
ambiguous. Some
necessary aspects of
the assignment
described in the
instructions are clearly
identifiable, but others
may require clarification
or development.
Organization may
require significant
improvement. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 19
pts
Reasoned
Analysis
15 to >13 pts
Advanced
Major points are stated
clearly and are supported
by valid evidence and
logical reasoning.
Objective, reasoned
analysis is employed.
Opposing viewpoints are
sufficiently
acknowledged and
critically evaluated. The
conclusion logically
derives from the paper’s
ideas. An authoritative,
persuasive, and
statesmanlike voice is
used (first/second person
perspective avoided).
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
13 to >12 pts
Proficient
Most major points are stated
and supported by evidence
and reasoning, but some
points may require
clarification or greater
support. Opposing viewpoints
are acknowledged but may
require greater evaluation.
The conclusion does not fully
derive from the paper’s ideas.
Some improvements to
objective tone/perspective
may be required. Grading
feedback and lessons from
applicable Module are
generally addressed/
incorporated.
12 to >0 pts
Developing
Major points require
significant clarification
and scholarly support.
Opposing viewpoints are
not adequately
acknowledged and/or
addressed. Conclusion
does not derive logically
from the paper’s main
ideas. Significant
improvements to
objective
tone/perspective are
required. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 15
pts
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
Criteria Ratings Points
Scholarly
Support
15 to >13 pts
Advanced
At least 1 scholarly
source in addition to
course materials and the
Bible, reflecting diverse
viewpoints and germane
research are employed.
Source material is
properly attributed.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
13 to >12 pts
Proficient
Some improvements and or
additions to quality/quantity of
sources are needed.
Clarification of source
material may be needed.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/ incorporated.
12 to >0 pts
Developing
Significant improvement
of scholarly support
(sources, table/figure
requirements) is
needed. Source material
may not be properly
attributed. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 15
pts
Composition
and
Readability
7 to >6 pts
Advanced
Rules of grammar,
usage, and punctuation
are followed, and spelling
is correct. Sentences are
complete, clear, and
concise. Rhetorical skill
is shown. Sentences are
well constructed, with
consistently strong and
varied structure.
Sentence transitions are
present and direct the
flow of thought.
Paragraph transitions are
present and logical,
directing flow of thought
throughout the paper.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
Paper contains minimal errors
in grammar, usage,
punctuation, and spelling.
Sentences are generally
complete, clear, and concise.
Rhetorical skill is shown,
although a few points may
require clarification. Some
variation in sentence structure
or transitions may be required
to improve flow of discussion.
Some paragraph transitions
may require improvement.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/ incorporated.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
Paper contains
numerous errors in
grammar, usage,
punctuation, and
spelling. Multiple
sentences may be
incomplete or
ambiguously worded.
Sentence transitions
may be weak,
insufficiently directing
the flow of thought.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
Criteria Ratings Points
Formatting 7 to >6 pts
Advanced
Paper is laid out
effectively and uses
reader-friendly aids (e.g.,
section subheadings,
table of contents, indices,
appendices, etc.) as
appropriate. Text,
citations, and Reference
page(s) follow current
APA formatting
requirements. Paper is
written in 12-point Times
New Roman font, is
double-spaced, and has
1” margins. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are fully
addressed/incorporated.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
Paper is generally laid out
effectively and uses some
reader-friendly aids as
appropriate. Text, citations,
and Reference page(s)
contains minimal
inconsistencies with current
APA formatting requirements.
Paper may contain some
inconsistencies with required
font, spacing and margin
requirements. Grading
feedback and lessons from
applicable Module are
generally addressed/
incorporated.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
Paper may be laid out
ineffectively or may not
use sufficient
reader-friendly aids as
appropriate. Text,
citations and/or
Reference page(s) do
not follow current APA
formatting style/format
requirements. Paper
may not follow required
font, spacing and margin
requirements. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Page
Length
7 to >6 pts
Advanced
4-5 pages of content in
length (not counting the
title page or references);
double-spaced.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
1 page more or less than the
required length range (not
counting the title page or
references); double-spaced.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
More than 1 page more
or less than the required
length range (not
counting the title page or
references);
double-spaced.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Total Points: 0
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
**## ResearchPaperThesisAbstractandOutlineAssignmentInstructions.docx**
PADM 704
**Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract and Outline Assignment Instructions**
**Overview**
You will identify a problem within the field of human resource management in today’s public administration to write on for your Research Paper: Final Assignment. In this assignment, you will submit a thesis, abstract, and an outline for the final paper detailing the problem and the background on the issue.
**Instructions**
· You will ensure the assignment includes a biblical worldview presentation.
· The assignment should be a minimum of 4-5 double-spaced pages in length, not including the title page and references page.
· Assignment should be submitted using proper APA formatting.
· You should incorporate a minimum of one Read item into this assignment.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
**## ResearchPaper-ThesisAbstractandOutlineGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Research
Purpose
19 to >16 pts
Advanced
The thesis is clearly
identified and retains
focus throughout the
paper. Abstract provides
sufficient background on
the topic and previews
major points. Outline is
clearly developed and
incorporates all major
points. All necessary
aspects of the
assignment described in
the instructions are
clearly identifiable.
Organization emphasizes
the central theme or
purpose. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are fully
addressed/incorporated.
16 to >15 pts
Proficient
The thesis may require some
clarification and/or greater
prominence throughout the
paper. Abstract may not
provide adequate background
on the topic and preview
major points. Outline may not
provide a clear presentation of
the topic and overview of
major topics. Most necessary
aspects of the assignment
described in the instructions
are clearly identifiable and
sufficiently addressed.
Organization may not
sufficiently emphasize the
central theme or purpose.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/incorporated.
15 to >0 pts
Developing
The thesis requires
significant clarification
and prominence
throughout the paper.
Abstract may be missing
or ambiguous. Outline
may be missing or is
ambiguous. Some
necessary aspects of
the assignment
described in the
instructions are clearly
identifiable, but others
may require clarification
or development.
Organization may
require significant
improvement. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 19
pts
Reasoned
Analysis
15 to >13 pts
Advanced
Major points are stated
clearly and are supported
by valid evidence and
logical reasoning.
Objective, reasoned
analysis is employed.
Opposing viewpoints are
sufficiently
acknowledged and
critically evaluated. The
conclusion logically
derives from the paper’s
ideas. An authoritative,
persuasive, and
statesmanlike voice is
used (first/second person
perspective avoided).
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
13 to >12 pts
Proficient
Most major points are stated
and supported by evidence
and reasoning, but some
points may require
clarification or greater
support. Opposing viewpoints
are acknowledged but may
require greater evaluation.
The conclusion does not fully
derive from the paper’s ideas.
Some improvements to
objective tone/perspective
may be required. Grading
feedback and lessons from
applicable Module are
generally addressed/
incorporated.
12 to >0 pts
Developing
Major points require
significant clarification
and scholarly support.
Opposing viewpoints are
not adequately
acknowledged and/or
addressed. Conclusion
does not derive logically
from the paper’s main
ideas. Significant
improvements to
objective
tone/perspective are
required. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 15
pts
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
Criteria Ratings Points
Scholarly
Support
15 to >13 pts
Advanced
At least 1 scholarly
source in addition to
course materials and the
Bible, reflecting diverse
viewpoints and germane
research are employed.
Source material is
properly attributed.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
13 to >12 pts
Proficient
Some improvements and or
additions to quality/quantity of
sources are needed.
Clarification of source
material may be needed.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/ incorporated.
12 to >0 pts
Developing
Significant improvement
of scholarly support
(sources, table/figure
requirements) is
needed. Source material
may not be properly
attributed. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 15
pts
Composition
and
Readability
7 to >6 pts
Advanced
Rules of grammar,
usage, and punctuation
are followed, and spelling
is correct. Sentences are
complete, clear, and
concise. Rhetorical skill
is shown. Sentences are
well constructed, with
consistently strong and
varied structure.
Sentence transitions are
present and direct the
flow of thought.
Paragraph transitions are
present and logical,
directing flow of thought
throughout the paper.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are fully
addressed/incorporated.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
Paper contains minimal errors
in grammar, usage,
punctuation, and spelling.
Sentences are generally
complete, clear, and concise.
Rhetorical skill is shown,
although a few points may
require clarification. Some
variation in sentence structure
or transitions may be required
to improve flow of discussion.
Some paragraph transitions
may require improvement.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are generally
addressed/ incorporated.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
Paper contains
numerous errors in
grammar, usage,
punctuation, and
spelling. Multiple
sentences may be
incomplete or
ambiguously worded.
Sentence transitions
may be weak,
insufficiently directing
the flow of thought.
Grading feedback and
lessons from applicable
Module are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
Criteria Ratings Points
Formatting 7 to >6 pts
Advanced
Paper is laid out
effectively and uses
reader-friendly aids (e.g.,
section subheadings,
table of contents, indices,
appendices, etc.) as
appropriate. Text,
citations, and Reference
page(s) follow current
APA formatting
requirements. Paper is
written in 12-point Times
New Roman font, is
double-spaced, and has
1” margins. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are fully
addressed/incorporated.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
Paper is generally laid out
effectively and uses some
reader-friendly aids as
appropriate. Text, citations,
and Reference page(s)
contains minimal
inconsistencies with current
APA formatting requirements.
Paper may contain some
inconsistencies with required
font, spacing and margin
requirements. Grading
feedback and lessons from
applicable Module are
generally addressed/
incorporated.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
Paper may be laid out
ineffectively or may not
use sufficient
reader-friendly aids as
appropriate. Text,
citations and/or
Reference page(s) do
not follow current APA
formatting style/format
requirements. Paper
may not follow required
font, spacing and margin
requirements. Grading
feedback and lessons
from applicable Module
are insufficiently
addressed/incorporated.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Page
Length
7 to >6 pts
Advanced
4-5 pages of content in
length (not counting the
title page or references);
double-spaced.
6 to >5 pts
Proficient
1 page more or less than the
required length range (not
counting the title page or
references); double-spaced.
5 to >0 pts
Developing
More than 1 page more
or less than the required
length range (not
counting the title page or
references);
double-spaced.
0 pts
Not
Present
/ 7 pts
Total Points: 0
Research Paper: Thesis, Abstract, and Outline Grading Rubric |
PADM704_D01_202630
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (3)** – ## Week7LearningResources-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx – ## Week7Discussion.docx – ## Week7DiscussionResponse-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx **## Week7LearningResources-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx** **Law and Ethics in Healthcare** **Week 7 Learning Resources** **Required Readings*…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →**files (3)**
– ## Week7LearningResources-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx
– ## Week7Discussion.docx
– ## Week7DiscussionResponse-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx
**## Week7LearningResources-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx**
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
**Week 7 Learning Resources**
**Required Readings**
· Pozgar, G. D. (2024).
_Legal and ethical issues for health professionals_ (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 8, “Organizational Ethics and the Law” (pp. 221–259)
· Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023).
_Essentials of health policy and law_ (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 13, “What is Public Health Emergency Preparedness” (pp. 319–333)
· Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020).
[Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reportLinks to an external site.](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1001/jama.2020.12901).
_Journal of the American Medical Association_,
_324_(7), 629–630. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901
· Jester, B., Uyeki, T., & Jernigan, D. (2018).
[Readiness for responding to a severe pandemic 100 years after 1918Links to an external site.](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1093%2Faje%2Fkwy165).
_American Journal of Epidemiology_,
_187_(12), 2596–2602. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165
· Merminod, A., & Awj, N. (2020, Summer).
[_COVID-19 class action forecast_ Links to an external site.](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/). American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/
**Optional Resources**
· Ellison, A. (2020, February 19).
[16 latest healthcare industry lawsuits, settlementsLinks to an external site.](https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/16-latest-healthcare-industry-lawsuits-settlements-july1.html).
_Becker’s Hospital Review_. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/16-latest-healthcare-industry-lawsuits-settlements-july1.html
**## Week7Discussion.docx**
2
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals encountered numerous challenges that revealed deficiencies in terms of legal and ethical preparation for pandemics in healthcare organizations. Legal challenges during the pandemic concerned liability in cases of changes in the standard of care, and issues of emergency approval of the use of medications and vaccines. Furthermore, the crisis situation has increased risks of malpractice suits and controversies around informed consent due to the lack of medical resources (Delbon et al., 2022). Ethical problems involved equitable distribution of scarce resources like ventilators and ICU beds, along with the dilemma between duty of care and healthcare professional safety where PPEs were inadequate. Such ethical dilemmas raised tension between beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence in the process of making decisions.
Some organizations had significant contributions towards developing a response framework in the time of the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave guidelines on how to control infections, conduct surveillance, and implement mitigation measures, whereas the Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations for vaccines and drugs that would hasten the process of treatment for the population. At an international level, the World Health Organization spearheaded international surveillance and evidence-based recommendations in response to the pandemic (World Health Organization, 2025). These organizations recognized the need for an evidence-based approach in preparedness and translation of research into action during emergencies.
To better prepare for future pandemics, healthcare professionals should come up with strategies that are based on legal, ethical, and public health standards. First, organizations should have a strong emergency plan that includes procedures and policies related to resource distribution and liability protection in times of crisis (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023). Second, agencies need to improve intergovernmental collaboration and allocate resources for developing surveillance programs. Third, healthcare organizations need to train their employees, allocate necessary supplies, and adopt ethical decision-making frameworks in their practices (Calonge et al., 2020).
**References**
Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020). Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report.
_JAMA, 324_(7), 629–630.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901)
Delbon, P., Maghin, F., Falconi, B., & Conti, A. (2022). Resource scarcity and allocation criteria during the Covid-19 pandemic: Ethical issues.
_Journal of Public Health Research_,
_11_(2), 227990362211066. https://doi.org/10.1177/22799036221106659
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023).
_Essentials of health policy and law_ (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
World Health Organization. (2025).
_Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic_. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19
**## Week7DiscussionResponse-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx**
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
**Week 7 Discussion Response**
**Colleague 1- Ketsia Amize**
Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant weaknesses in healthcare systems and revealed that many organizations were inadequately prepared for a prolonged public health emergency. Although the pandemic itself was unprecedented in modern healthcare, many of the resulting challenges, including shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing crises, limited intensive care capacity, and disrupted supply chains, highlighted deficiencies in emergency preparedness rather than the virus itself. As a result, healthcare leaders were forced to rapidly implement reactive policies to address evolving clinical, legal, and ethical concerns. While emergency responses undoubtedly saved lives, the experience underscored the importance of proactive planning, coordinated leadership, and evidence-based preparedness strategies to strengthen healthcare organizations ahead of future public health emergencies.
Two major legal issues confronted healthcare leaders during the pandemic. First, organizations faced liability concerns related to patient care, employee safety, and crisis standards of care. Hospitals were challenged to balance legal obligations to provide safe treatment with extreme resource shortages. In turn, questions regarding negligence, delayed care, visitor restrictions, and allocation of scarce medical resources prompted numerous legal claims and policy revisions (Merminod & Awji, 2020). Second, healthcare organizations struggled with compliance as federal and state emergency regulations continued to evolve. Frequent changes involving emergency declarations, reporting requirements, telehealth expansion, vaccination mandates, and occupational safety regulations required leaders to rapidly revise organizational policies while remaining compliant with federal and state law (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023).
The pandemic also presented profound ethical dilemmas. One ethical issue involved the allocation of scarce resources, including ventilators, ICU beds, medications, and personal protective equipment. As a result, healthcare leaders were forced to develop crisis standards of care that balanced beneficence, justice, and fairness in determining which patients would receive life-saving interventions (Pozgar, 2024). Another ethical concern involved protecting healthcare workers while maintaining patient access to care. Leaders had an ethical obligation to safeguard employees from unnecessary harm while simultaneously ensuring adequate staffing for critically ill patients. This tension between nonmaleficence toward employees and beneficence toward patients became one of the defining ethical challenges of the pandemic (Pozgar, 2024).
Several governmental agencies significantly influenced regulatory interventions throughout the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued infection prevention guidance, quarantine recommendations, vaccination strategies, and surveillance protocols that healthcare organizations used to guide clinical practice. Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented emergency regulatory waivers through Section 1135, expanded telehealth reimbursement, modified reporting requirements, and adjusted quality reporting standards to increase healthcare system flexibility during the public health emergency (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023). In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversaw workplace safety standards, further influencing organizational policies designed to protect healthcare personnel.
Healthcare leaders can better prepare for future public health emergencies by implementing several proactive strategies. First, organizations should establish comprehensive emergency preparedness plans that include routine disaster simulations, surge capacity planning, cross-training of personnel, and coordinated communication systems. Evidence-based preparedness planning improves organizational resilience and facilitates rapid response during emergencies (Calonge et al., 2020). Second, healthcare organizations should strengthen supply chain management by maintaining strategic stockpiles of essential equipment, diversifying vendors, and implementing predictive inventory management systems to reduce shortages during crises. Third, leaders should invest in workforce resilience through employee wellness programs, mental health support, flexible staffing models, and succession planning to reduce burnout and preserve workforce capacity during prolonged emergencies. In support of these efforts, Jester et al. (2018) emphasized that pandemic preparedness depends not only on medical resources but also on sustained investments in workforce readiness, planning, and public health infrastructure.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that preparedness is not solely a public health responsibility but also a leadership responsibility. Accordingly, healthcare leaders who proactively integrate legal compliance, ethical decision-making, emergency preparedness, and evidence-based planning into organizational operations are better positioned to protect patients, employees, and communities during future crises. Ultimately, lessons learned from COVID-19 should encourage healthcare organizations to transition from reactive crisis management toward resilient systems capable of responding effectively to future public health emergencies.
References
Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020). Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report. Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(7), 629–630.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901)
Jester, B., Uyeki, T., & Jernigan, D. (2018). Readiness for responding to a severe pandemic 100 years after 1918. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187(12), 2596–2602.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165](https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165)
Merminod, A., & Awj, N. (2020). COVID-19 class action forecast. American Bar Association.
[https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/)
Pozgar, G. D. (2024). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023). Essentials of health policy and law (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
**Colleague 2- Elizabeth Mittenzwey**
The COVID19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities within healthcare systems, demonstrating that many existing policies and preparedness strategies were insufficient for a crisis of such magnitude. Although the virus itself created unprecedented challenges, the severity of the disruption was intensified by gaps in proactive planning, supply chain resilience, and ethical decisionmaking frameworks. Healthcare leaders were forced to rapidly adapt under conditions of extreme uncertainty, often making decisions that conflicted with established legal and ethical standards. Legally, leaders faced concerns related to crisis standards of care, particularly around liability for triage decisions when ventilators, ICU beds, and staff were scarce. Even with temporary liability protections in some states, ambiguity persisted regarding malpractice exposure (Berlinger et al., 2020). Emergency modifications to scopeofpractice laws also created legal complexity as nurses, physician assistants, and retired or outofstate clinicians were redeployed to meet surge demands, raising questions about licensure, documentation, and professional accountability (Kamerow, 2020).
Ethically, leaders confronted profound dilemmas in allocating scarce resources, relying on principles such as maximizing benefits, fairness, and prioritizing the worst off. Applying these frameworks in real time created moral distress among clinicians who were forced to make decisions that directly affected patient survival (Emanuel et al., 2020). The tension between patient autonomy and public health also became pronounced as visitation restrictions, isolation protocols, and digital contact tracing limited personal freedoms in favor of community safety. These measures challenged traditional commitments to informed consent, dignity, and compassionate care, requiring leaders to balance individual rights with broader public health imperatives (Rothstein, 2020).
Regulatory agencies played a critical role in shaping intervention options during the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided national guidance on infection control, PPE use, quarantine protocols, and community mitigation strategies, influencing organizational policies and clinical workflows. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued regulatory waivers that expanded telehealth reimbursement, allowed hospitals to establish alternative care sites, and relaxed reporting requirements, offering healthcare leaders greater flexibility in managing patient care and hospital capacity (CMS, 2020). These regulatory shifts were essential but also highlighted the need for more robust preparedness frameworks.
To better prepare for future crises, healthcare leaders should adopt several proactive strategies. Developing comprehensive crisis standards of care plans, including clear triage criteria, communication strategies, and legal protections, can ensure readiness and reduce moral distress during emergencies. Strengthening supply chain and resource management systems through diversified suppliers, stockpiling essential equipment, and predictive analytics can mitigate shortages of PPE, medications, and critical devices. Enhancing workforce preparedness through crosstraining, mentalhealth support, and surge staffing plans is vital for maintaining continuity of care. These actions align with themes emphasized in scholarly literature, which highlight the importance of ethical clarity, legal foresight, and proactive planning in crisis leadership. While the pandemic itself was unavoidable, the degree of disruption was shaped by longstanding gaps in preparedness, gaps that future leaders must address through strategic, ethical, and regulatory readiness.
References:
Berlinger, N., Wynia, M., Powell, T., Micah, H., Fabi, R., & Jenks, N. (2020). Ethical framework for health care institutions responding to novel coronavirus SARSCoV2. The Hastings Center. https://www.thehastingscenter.org
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2020). CMS issues COVID19 emergency declaration blanket waivers. https://www.cms.gov
Emanuel, E. J., Persad, G., Upshur, R., Thome, B., Parker, M., Glickman, A., Zhang, C., Boyle, C., Smith, M., & Phillips, J. P. (2020). Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of COVID19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(21), 2049–2055.
Kamerow, D. (2020). Covid19: Don’t forget the impact on clinicians. BMJ, 369, m2491. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2491
Rothstein, M. A. (2020). Ethical issues in public health responses to COVID19. American Journal of Public Health, 110(9), 1399–1401.
**## Week7DiscussionResponse-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx**
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
**Week 7 Discussion Response**
**Colleague 1- Ketsia Amize**
Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant weaknesses in healthcare systems and revealed that many organizations were inadequately prepared for a prolonged public health emergency. Although the pandemic itself was unprecedented in modern healthcare, many of the resulting challenges, including shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing crises, limited intensive care capacity, and disrupted supply chains, highlighted deficiencies in emergency preparedness rather than the virus itself. As a result, healthcare leaders were forced to rapidly implement reactive policies to address evolving clinical, legal, and ethical concerns. While emergency responses undoubtedly saved lives, the experience underscored the importance of proactive planning, coordinated leadership, and evidence-based preparedness strategies to strengthen healthcare organizations ahead of future public health emergencies.
Two major legal issues confronted healthcare leaders during the pandemic. First, organizations faced liability concerns related to patient care, employee safety, and crisis standards of care. Hospitals were challenged to balance legal obligations to provide safe treatment with extreme resource shortages. In turn, questions regarding negligence, delayed care, visitor restrictions, and allocation of scarce medical resources prompted numerous legal claims and policy revisions (Merminod & Awji, 2020). Second, healthcare organizations struggled with compliance as federal and state emergency regulations continued to evolve. Frequent changes involving emergency declarations, reporting requirements, telehealth expansion, vaccination mandates, and occupational safety regulations required leaders to rapidly revise organizational policies while remaining compliant with federal and state law (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023).
The pandemic also presented profound ethical dilemmas. One ethical issue involved the allocation of scarce resources, including ventilators, ICU beds, medications, and personal protective equipment. As a result, healthcare leaders were forced to develop crisis standards of care that balanced beneficence, justice, and fairness in determining which patients would receive life-saving interventions (Pozgar, 2024). Another ethical concern involved protecting healthcare workers while maintaining patient access to care. Leaders had an ethical obligation to safeguard employees from unnecessary harm while simultaneously ensuring adequate staffing for critically ill patients. This tension between nonmaleficence toward employees and beneficence toward patients became one of the defining ethical challenges of the pandemic (Pozgar, 2024).
Several governmental agencies significantly influenced regulatory interventions throughout the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued infection prevention guidance, quarantine recommendations, vaccination strategies, and surveillance protocols that healthcare organizations used to guide clinical practice. Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented emergency regulatory waivers through Section 1135, expanded telehealth reimbursement, modified reporting requirements, and adjusted quality reporting standards to increase healthcare system flexibility during the public health emergency (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023). In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversaw workplace safety standards, further influencing organizational policies designed to protect healthcare personnel.
Healthcare leaders can better prepare for future public health emergencies by implementing several proactive strategies. First, organizations should establish comprehensive emergency preparedness plans that include routine disaster simulations, surge capacity planning, cross-training of personnel, and coordinated communication systems. Evidence-based preparedness planning improves organizational resilience and facilitates rapid response during emergencies (Calonge et al., 2020). Second, healthcare organizations should strengthen supply chain management by maintaining strategic stockpiles of essential equipment, diversifying vendors, and implementing predictive inventory management systems to reduce shortages during crises. Third, leaders should invest in workforce resilience through employee wellness programs, mental health support, flexible staffing models, and succession planning to reduce burnout and preserve workforce capacity during prolonged emergencies. In support of these efforts, Jester et al. (2018) emphasized that pandemic preparedness depends not only on medical resources but also on sustained investments in workforce readiness, planning, and public health infrastructure.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that preparedness is not solely a public health responsibility but also a leadership responsibility. Accordingly, healthcare leaders who proactively integrate legal compliance, ethical decision-making, emergency preparedness, and evidence-based planning into organizational operations are better positioned to protect patients, employees, and communities during future crises. Ultimately, lessons learned from COVID-19 should encourage healthcare organizations to transition from reactive crisis management toward resilient systems capable of responding effectively to future public health emergencies.
References
Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020). Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report. Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(7), 629–630.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901)
Jester, B., Uyeki, T., & Jernigan, D. (2018). Readiness for responding to a severe pandemic 100 years after 1918. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187(12), 2596–2602.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165](https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165)
Merminod, A., & Awj, N. (2020). COVID-19 class action forecast. American Bar Association.
[https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/)
Pozgar, G. D. (2024). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023). Essentials of health policy and law (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
**Colleague 2- Elizabeth Mittenzwey**
The COVID19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities within healthcare systems, demonstrating that many existing policies and preparedness strategies were insufficient for a crisis of such magnitude. Although the virus itself created unprecedented challenges, the severity of the disruption was intensified by gaps in proactive planning, supply chain resilience, and ethical decisionmaking frameworks. Healthcare leaders were forced to rapidly adapt under conditions of extreme uncertainty, often making decisions that conflicted with established legal and ethical standards. Legally, leaders faced concerns related to crisis standards of care, particularly around liability for triage decisions when ventilators, ICU beds, and staff were scarce. Even with temporary liability protections in some states, ambiguity persisted regarding malpractice exposure (Berlinger et al., 2020). Emergency modifications to scopeofpractice laws also created legal complexity as nurses, physician assistants, and retired or outofstate clinicians were redeployed to meet surge demands, raising questions about licensure, documentation, and professional accountability (Kamerow, 2020).
Ethically, leaders confronted profound dilemmas in allocating scarce resources, relying on principles such as maximizing benefits, fairness, and prioritizing the worst off. Applying these frameworks in real time created moral distress among clinicians who were forced to make decisions that directly affected patient survival (Emanuel et al., 2020). The tension between patient autonomy and public health also became pronounced as visitation restrictions, isolation protocols, and digital contact tracing limited personal freedoms in favor of community safety. These measures challenged traditional commitments to informed consent, dignity, and compassionate care, requiring leaders to balance individual rights with broader public health imperatives (Rothstein, 2020).
Regulatory agencies played a critical role in shaping intervention options during the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided national guidance on infection control, PPE use, quarantine protocols, and community mitigation strategies, influencing organizational policies and clinical workflows. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued regulatory waivers that expanded telehealth reimbursement, allowed hospitals to establish alternative care sites, and relaxed reporting requirements, offering healthcare leaders greater flexibility in managing patient care and hospital capacity (CMS, 2020). These regulatory shifts were essential but also highlighted the need for more robust preparedness frameworks.
To better prepare for future crises, healthcare leaders should adopt several proactive strategies. Developing comprehensive crisis standards of care plans, including clear triage criteria, communication strategies, and legal protections, can ensure readiness and reduce moral distress during emergencies. Strengthening supply chain and resource management systems through diversified suppliers, stockpiling essential equipment, and predictive analytics can mitigate shortages of PPE, medications, and critical devices. Enhancing workforce preparedness through crosstraining, mentalhealth support, and surge staffing plans is vital for maintaining continuity of care. These actions align with themes emphasized in scholarly literature, which highlight the importance of ethical clarity, legal foresight, and proactive planning in crisis leadership. While the pandemic itself was unavoidable, the degree of disruption was shaped by longstanding gaps in preparedness, gaps that future leaders must address through strategic, ethical, and regulatory readiness.
References:
Berlinger, N., Wynia, M., Powell, T., Micah, H., Fabi, R., & Jenks, N. (2020). Ethical framework for health care institutions responding to novel coronavirus SARSCoV2. The Hastings Center. https://www.thehastingscenter.org
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2020). CMS issues COVID19 emergency declaration blanket waivers. https://www.cms.gov
Emanuel, E. J., Persad, G., Upshur, R., Thome, B., Parker, M., Glickman, A., Zhang, C., Boyle, C., Smith, M., & Phillips, J. P. (2020). Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of COVID19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(21), 2049–2055.
Kamerow, D. (2020). Covid19: Don’t forget the impact on clinicians. BMJ, 369, m2491. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2491
Rothstein, M. A. (2020). Ethical issues in public health responses to COVID19. American Journal of Public Health, 110(9), 1399–1401.
**## Week7LearningResources-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx**
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
**Week 7 Learning Resources**
**Required Readings**
· Pozgar, G. D. (2024).
_Legal and ethical issues for health professionals_ (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 8, “Organizational Ethics and the Law” (pp. 221–259)
· Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023).
_Essentials of health policy and law_ (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 13, “What is Public Health Emergency Preparedness” (pp. 319–333)
· Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020).
[Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reportLinks to an external site.](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1001/jama.2020.12901).
_Journal of the American Medical Association_,
_324_(7), 629–630. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901
· Jester, B., Uyeki, T., & Jernigan, D. (2018).
[Readiness for responding to a severe pandemic 100 years after 1918Links to an external site.](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1093%2Faje%2Fkwy165).
_American Journal of Epidemiology_,
_187_(12), 2596–2602. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165
· Merminod, A., & Awj, N. (2020, Summer).
[_COVID-19 class action forecast_ Links to an external site.](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/). American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/
**Optional Resources**
· Ellison, A. (2020, February 19).
[16 latest healthcare industry lawsuits, settlementsLinks to an external site.](https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/16-latest-healthcare-industry-lawsuits-settlements-july1.html).
_Becker’s Hospital Review_. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/16-latest-healthcare-industry-lawsuits-settlements-july1.html
**## Week7Discussion.docx**
2
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals encountered numerous challenges that revealed deficiencies in terms of legal and ethical preparation for pandemics in healthcare organizations. Legal challenges during the pandemic concerned liability in cases of changes in the standard of care, and issues of emergency approval of the use of medications and vaccines. Furthermore, the crisis situation has increased risks of malpractice suits and controversies around informed consent due to the lack of medical resources (Delbon et al., 2022). Ethical problems involved equitable distribution of scarce resources like ventilators and ICU beds, along with the dilemma between duty of care and healthcare professional safety where PPEs were inadequate. Such ethical dilemmas raised tension between beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence in the process of making decisions.
Some organizations had significant contributions towards developing a response framework in the time of the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave guidelines on how to control infections, conduct surveillance, and implement mitigation measures, whereas the Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations for vaccines and drugs that would hasten the process of treatment for the population. At an international level, the World Health Organization spearheaded international surveillance and evidence-based recommendations in response to the pandemic (World Health Organization, 2025). These organizations recognized the need for an evidence-based approach in preparedness and translation of research into action during emergencies.
To better prepare for future pandemics, healthcare professionals should come up with strategies that are based on legal, ethical, and public health standards. First, organizations should have a strong emergency plan that includes procedures and policies related to resource distribution and liability protection in times of crisis (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023). Second, agencies need to improve intergovernmental collaboration and allocate resources for developing surveillance programs. Third, healthcare organizations need to train their employees, allocate necessary supplies, and adopt ethical decision-making frameworks in their practices (Calonge et al., 2020).
**References**
Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020). Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report.
_JAMA, 324_(7), 629–630.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901)
Delbon, P., Maghin, F., Falconi, B., & Conti, A. (2022). Resource scarcity and allocation criteria during the Covid-19 pandemic: Ethical issues.
_Journal of Public Health Research_,
_11_(2), 227990362211066. https://doi.org/10.1177/22799036221106659
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023).
_Essentials of health policy and law_ (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
World Health Organization. (2025).
_Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic_. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19
**## Week7DiscussionResponse-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx**
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
**Week 7 Discussion Response**
**Colleague 1- Ketsia Amize**
Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant weaknesses in healthcare systems and revealed that many organizations were inadequately prepared for a prolonged public health emergency. Although the pandemic itself was unprecedented in modern healthcare, many of the resulting challenges, including shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing crises, limited intensive care capacity, and disrupted supply chains, highlighted deficiencies in emergency preparedness rather than the virus itself. As a result, healthcare leaders were forced to rapidly implement reactive policies to address evolving clinical, legal, and ethical concerns. While emergency responses undoubtedly saved lives, the experience underscored the importance of proactive planning, coordinated leadership, and evidence-based preparedness strategies to strengthen healthcare organizations ahead of future public health emergencies.
Two major legal issues confronted healthcare leaders during the pandemic. First, organizations faced liability concerns related to patient care, employee safety, and crisis standards of care. Hospitals were challenged to balance legal obligations to provide safe treatment with extreme resource shortages. In turn, questions regarding negligence, delayed care, visitor restrictions, and allocation of scarce medical resources prompted numerous legal claims and policy revisions (Merminod & Awji, 2020). Second, healthcare organizations struggled with compliance as federal and state emergency regulations continued to evolve. Frequent changes involving emergency declarations, reporting requirements, telehealth expansion, vaccination mandates, and occupational safety regulations required leaders to rapidly revise organizational policies while remaining compliant with federal and state law (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023).
The pandemic also presented profound ethical dilemmas. One ethical issue involved the allocation of scarce resources, including ventilators, ICU beds, medications, and personal protective equipment. As a result, healthcare leaders were forced to develop crisis standards of care that balanced beneficence, justice, and fairness in determining which patients would receive life-saving interventions (Pozgar, 2024). Another ethical concern involved protecting healthcare workers while maintaining patient access to care. Leaders had an ethical obligation to safeguard employees from unnecessary harm while simultaneously ensuring adequate staffing for critically ill patients. This tension between nonmaleficence toward employees and beneficence toward patients became one of the defining ethical challenges of the pandemic (Pozgar, 2024).
Several governmental agencies significantly influenced regulatory interventions throughout the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued infection prevention guidance, quarantine recommendations, vaccination strategies, and surveillance protocols that healthcare organizations used to guide clinical practice. Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented emergency regulatory waivers through Section 1135, expanded telehealth reimbursement, modified reporting requirements, and adjusted quality reporting standards to increase healthcare system flexibility during the public health emergency (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023). In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversaw workplace safety standards, further influencing organizational policies designed to protect healthcare personnel.
Healthcare leaders can better prepare for future public health emergencies by implementing several proactive strategies. First, organizations should establish comprehensive emergency preparedness plans that include routine disaster simulations, surge capacity planning, cross-training of personnel, and coordinated communication systems. Evidence-based preparedness planning improves organizational resilience and facilitates rapid response during emergencies (Calonge et al., 2020). Second, healthcare organizations should strengthen supply chain management by maintaining strategic stockpiles of essential equipment, diversifying vendors, and implementing predictive inventory management systems to reduce shortages during crises. Third, leaders should invest in workforce resilience through employee wellness programs, mental health support, flexible staffing models, and succession planning to reduce burnout and preserve workforce capacity during prolonged emergencies. In support of these efforts, Jester et al. (2018) emphasized that pandemic preparedness depends not only on medical resources but also on sustained investments in workforce readiness, planning, and public health infrastructure.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that preparedness is not solely a public health responsibility but also a leadership responsibility. Accordingly, healthcare leaders who proactively integrate legal compliance, ethical decision-making, emergency preparedness, and evidence-based planning into organizational operations are better positioned to protect patients, employees, and communities during future crises. Ultimately, lessons learned from COVID-19 should encourage healthcare organizations to transition from reactive crisis management toward resilient systems capable of responding effectively to future public health emergencies.
References
Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020). Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report. Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(7), 629–630.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901)
Jester, B., Uyeki, T., & Jernigan, D. (2018). Readiness for responding to a severe pandemic 100 years after 1918. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187(12), 2596–2602.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165](https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165)
Merminod, A., & Awj, N. (2020). COVID-19 class action forecast. American Bar Association.
[https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/)
Pozgar, G. D. (2024). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023). Essentials of health policy and law (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
**Colleague 2- Elizabeth Mittenzwey**
The COVID19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities within healthcare systems, demonstrating that many existing policies and preparedness strategies were insufficient for a crisis of such magnitude. Although the virus itself created unprecedented challenges, the severity of the disruption was intensified by gaps in proactive planning, supply chain resilience, and ethical decisionmaking frameworks. Healthcare leaders were forced to rapidly adapt under conditions of extreme uncertainty, often making decisions that conflicted with established legal and ethical standards. Legally, leaders faced concerns related to crisis standards of care, particularly around liability for triage decisions when ventilators, ICU beds, and staff were scarce. Even with temporary liability protections in some states, ambiguity persisted regarding malpractice exposure (Berlinger et al., 2020). Emergency modifications to scopeofpractice laws also created legal complexity as nurses, physician assistants, and retired or outofstate clinicians were redeployed to meet surge demands, raising questions about licensure, documentation, and professional accountability (Kamerow, 2020).
Ethically, leaders confronted profound dilemmas in allocating scarce resources, relying on principles such as maximizing benefits, fairness, and prioritizing the worst off. Applying these frameworks in real time created moral distress among clinicians who were forced to make decisions that directly affected patient survival (Emanuel et al., 2020). The tension between patient autonomy and public health also became pronounced as visitation restrictions, isolation protocols, and digital contact tracing limited personal freedoms in favor of community safety. These measures challenged traditional commitments to informed consent, dignity, and compassionate care, requiring leaders to balance individual rights with broader public health imperatives (Rothstein, 2020).
Regulatory agencies played a critical role in shaping intervention options during the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided national guidance on infection control, PPE use, quarantine protocols, and community mitigation strategies, influencing organizational policies and clinical workflows. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued regulatory waivers that expanded telehealth reimbursement, allowed hospitals to establish alternative care sites, and relaxed reporting requirements, offering healthcare leaders greater flexibility in managing patient care and hospital capacity (CMS, 2020). These regulatory shifts were essential but also highlighted the need for more robust preparedness frameworks.
To better prepare for future crises, healthcare leaders should adopt several proactive strategies. Developing comprehensive crisis standards of care plans, including clear triage criteria, communication strategies, and legal protections, can ensure readiness and reduce moral distress during emergencies. Strengthening supply chain and resource management systems through diversified suppliers, stockpiling essential equipment, and predictive analytics can mitigate shortages of PPE, medications, and critical devices. Enhancing workforce preparedness through crosstraining, mentalhealth support, and surge staffing plans is vital for maintaining continuity of care. These actions align with themes emphasized in scholarly literature, which highlight the importance of ethical clarity, legal foresight, and proactive planning in crisis leadership. While the pandemic itself was unavoidable, the degree of disruption was shaped by longstanding gaps in preparedness, gaps that future leaders must address through strategic, ethical, and regulatory readiness.
References:
Berlinger, N., Wynia, M., Powell, T., Micah, H., Fabi, R., & Jenks, N. (2020). Ethical framework for health care institutions responding to novel coronavirus SARSCoV2. The Hastings Center. https://www.thehastingscenter.org
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2020). CMS issues COVID19 emergency declaration blanket waivers. https://www.cms.gov
Emanuel, E. J., Persad, G., Upshur, R., Thome, B., Parker, M., Glickman, A., Zhang, C., Boyle, C., Smith, M., & Phillips, J. P. (2020). Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of COVID19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(21), 2049–2055.
Kamerow, D. (2020). Covid19: Don’t forget the impact on clinicians. BMJ, 369, m2491. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2491
Rothstein, M. A. (2020). Ethical issues in public health responses to COVID19. American Journal of Public Health, 110(9), 1399–1401.
**## Week7LearningResources-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx**
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
**Week 7 Learning Resources**
**Required Readings**
· Pozgar, G. D. (2024).
_Legal and ethical issues for health professionals_ (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 8, “Organizational Ethics and the Law” (pp. 221–259)
· Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023).
_Essentials of health policy and law_ (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 13, “What is Public Health Emergency Preparedness” (pp. 319–333)
· Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020).
[Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reportLinks to an external site.](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1001/jama.2020.12901).
_Journal of the American Medical Association_,
_324_(7), 629–630. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901
· Jester, B., Uyeki, T., & Jernigan, D. (2018).
[Readiness for responding to a severe pandemic 100 years after 1918Links to an external site.](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1093%2Faje%2Fkwy165).
_American Journal of Epidemiology_,
_187_(12), 2596–2602. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165
· Merminod, A., & Awj, N. (2020, Summer).
[_COVID-19 class action forecast_ Links to an external site.](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/). American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/
**Optional Resources**
· Ellison, A. (2020, February 19).
[16 latest healthcare industry lawsuits, settlementsLinks to an external site.](https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/16-latest-healthcare-industry-lawsuits-settlements-july1.html).
_Becker’s Hospital Review_. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/16-latest-healthcare-industry-lawsuits-settlements-july1.html
**## Week7Discussion.docx**
2
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals encountered numerous challenges that revealed deficiencies in terms of legal and ethical preparation for pandemics in healthcare organizations. Legal challenges during the pandemic concerned liability in cases of changes in the standard of care, and issues of emergency approval of the use of medications and vaccines. Furthermore, the crisis situation has increased risks of malpractice suits and controversies around informed consent due to the lack of medical resources (Delbon et al., 2022). Ethical problems involved equitable distribution of scarce resources like ventilators and ICU beds, along with the dilemma between duty of care and healthcare professional safety where PPEs were inadequate. Such ethical dilemmas raised tension between beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence in the process of making decisions.
Some organizations had significant contributions towards developing a response framework in the time of the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave guidelines on how to control infections, conduct surveillance, and implement mitigation measures, whereas the Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations for vaccines and drugs that would hasten the process of treatment for the population. At an international level, the World Health Organization spearheaded international surveillance and evidence-based recommendations in response to the pandemic (World Health Organization, 2025). These organizations recognized the need for an evidence-based approach in preparedness and translation of research into action during emergencies.
To better prepare for future pandemics, healthcare professionals should come up with strategies that are based on legal, ethical, and public health standards. First, organizations should have a strong emergency plan that includes procedures and policies related to resource distribution and liability protection in times of crisis (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023). Second, agencies need to improve intergovernmental collaboration and allocate resources for developing surveillance programs. Third, healthcare organizations need to train their employees, allocate necessary supplies, and adopt ethical decision-making frameworks in their practices (Calonge et al., 2020).
**References**
Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020). Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report.
_JAMA, 324_(7), 629–630.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901)
Delbon, P., Maghin, F., Falconi, B., & Conti, A. (2022). Resource scarcity and allocation criteria during the Covid-19 pandemic: Ethical issues.
_Journal of Public Health Research_,
_11_(2), 227990362211066. https://doi.org/10.1177/22799036221106659
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023).
_Essentials of health policy and law_ (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
World Health Organization. (2025).
_Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic_. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19
**## Week7DiscussionResponse-LawandEthicsinHealthcare.docx**
**Law and Ethics in Healthcare**
**Week 7 Discussion Response**
**Colleague 1- Ketsia Amize**
Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant weaknesses in healthcare systems and revealed that many organizations were inadequately prepared for a prolonged public health emergency. Although the pandemic itself was unprecedented in modern healthcare, many of the resulting challenges, including shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing crises, limited intensive care capacity, and disrupted supply chains, highlighted deficiencies in emergency preparedness rather than the virus itself. As a result, healthcare leaders were forced to rapidly implement reactive policies to address evolving clinical, legal, and ethical concerns. While emergency responses undoubtedly saved lives, the experience underscored the importance of proactive planning, coordinated leadership, and evidence-based preparedness strategies to strengthen healthcare organizations ahead of future public health emergencies.
Two major legal issues confronted healthcare leaders during the pandemic. First, organizations faced liability concerns related to patient care, employee safety, and crisis standards of care. Hospitals were challenged to balance legal obligations to provide safe treatment with extreme resource shortages. In turn, questions regarding negligence, delayed care, visitor restrictions, and allocation of scarce medical resources prompted numerous legal claims and policy revisions (Merminod & Awji, 2020). Second, healthcare organizations struggled with compliance as federal and state emergency regulations continued to evolve. Frequent changes involving emergency declarations, reporting requirements, telehealth expansion, vaccination mandates, and occupational safety regulations required leaders to rapidly revise organizational policies while remaining compliant with federal and state law (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023).
The pandemic also presented profound ethical dilemmas. One ethical issue involved the allocation of scarce resources, including ventilators, ICU beds, medications, and personal protective equipment. As a result, healthcare leaders were forced to develop crisis standards of care that balanced beneficence, justice, and fairness in determining which patients would receive life-saving interventions (Pozgar, 2024). Another ethical concern involved protecting healthcare workers while maintaining patient access to care. Leaders had an ethical obligation to safeguard employees from unnecessary harm while simultaneously ensuring adequate staffing for critically ill patients. This tension between nonmaleficence toward employees and beneficence toward patients became one of the defining ethical challenges of the pandemic (Pozgar, 2024).
Several governmental agencies significantly influenced regulatory interventions throughout the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued infection prevention guidance, quarantine recommendations, vaccination strategies, and surveillance protocols that healthcare organizations used to guide clinical practice. Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented emergency regulatory waivers through Section 1135, expanded telehealth reimbursement, modified reporting requirements, and adjusted quality reporting standards to increase healthcare system flexibility during the public health emergency (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023). In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversaw workplace safety standards, further influencing organizational policies designed to protect healthcare personnel.
Healthcare leaders can better prepare for future public health emergencies by implementing several proactive strategies. First, organizations should establish comprehensive emergency preparedness plans that include routine disaster simulations, surge capacity planning, cross-training of personnel, and coordinated communication systems. Evidence-based preparedness planning improves organizational resilience and facilitates rapid response during emergencies (Calonge et al., 2020). Second, healthcare organizations should strengthen supply chain management by maintaining strategic stockpiles of essential equipment, diversifying vendors, and implementing predictive inventory management systems to reduce shortages during crises. Third, leaders should invest in workforce resilience through employee wellness programs, mental health support, flexible staffing models, and succession planning to reduce burnout and preserve workforce capacity during prolonged emergencies. In support of these efforts, Jester et al. (2018) emphasized that pandemic preparedness depends not only on medical resources but also on sustained investments in workforce readiness, planning, and public health infrastructure.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that preparedness is not solely a public health responsibility but also a leadership responsibility. Accordingly, healthcare leaders who proactively integrate legal compliance, ethical decision-making, emergency preparedness, and evidence-based planning into organizational operations are better positioned to protect patients, employees, and communities during future crises. Ultimately, lessons learned from COVID-19 should encourage healthcare organizations to transition from reactive crisis management toward resilient systems capable of responding effectively to future public health emergencies.
References
Calonge, N., Brown, L., & Downey, A. (2020). Evidence-based practice for public health emergency preparedness and response: Recommendations from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report. Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(7), 629–630.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12901)
Jester, B., Uyeki, T., & Jernigan, D. (2018). Readiness for responding to a severe pandemic 100 years after 1918. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187(12), 2596–2602.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165](https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy165)
Merminod, A., & Awj, N. (2020). COVID-19 class action forecast. American Bar Association.
[https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/committee-newsletters/covid-19_class_actions_forecast/)
Pozgar, G. D. (2024). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023). Essentials of health policy and law (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
**Colleague 2- Elizabeth Mittenzwey**
The COVID19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities within healthcare systems, demonstrating that many existing policies and preparedness strategies were insufficient for a crisis of such magnitude. Although the virus itself created unprecedented challenges, the severity of the disruption was intensified by gaps in proactive planning, supply chain resilience, and ethical decisionmaking frameworks. Healthcare leaders were forced to rapidly adapt under conditions of extreme uncertainty, often making decisions that conflicted with established legal and ethical standards. Legally, leaders faced concerns related to crisis standards of care, particularly around liability for triage decisions when ventilators, ICU beds, and staff were scarce. Even with temporary liability protections in some states, ambiguity persisted regarding malpractice exposure (Berlinger et al., 2020). Emergency modifications to scopeofpractice laws also created legal complexity as nurses, physician assistants, and retired or outofstate clinicians were redeployed to meet surge demands, raising questions about licensure, documentation, and professional accountability (Kamerow, 2020).
Ethically, leaders confronted profound dilemmas in allocating scarce resources, relying on principles such as maximizing benefits, fairness, and prioritizing the worst off. Applying these frameworks in real time created moral distress among clinicians who were forced to make decisions that directly affected patient survival (Emanuel et al., 2020). The tension between patient autonomy and public health also became pronounced as visitation restrictions, isolation protocols, and digital contact tracing limited personal freedoms in favor of community safety. These measures challenged traditional commitments to informed consent, dignity, and compassionate care, requiring leaders to balance individual rights with broader public health imperatives (Rothstein, 2020).
Regulatory agencies played a critical role in shaping intervention options during the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided national guidance on infection control, PPE use, quarantine protocols, and community mitigation strategies, influencing organizational policies and clinical workflows. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued regulatory waivers that expanded telehealth reimbursement, allowed hospitals to establish alternative care sites, and relaxed reporting requirements, offering healthcare leaders greater flexibility in managing patient care and hospital capacity (CMS, 2020). These regulatory shifts were essential but also highlighted the need for more robust preparedness frameworks.
To better prepare for future crises, healthcare leaders should adopt several proactive strategies. Developing comprehensive crisis standards of care plans, including clear triage criteria, communication strategies, and legal protections, can ensure readiness and reduce moral distress during emergencies. Strengthening supply chain and resource management systems through diversified suppliers, stockpiling essential equipment, and predictive analytics can mitigate shortages of PPE, medications, and critical devices. Enhancing workforce preparedness through crosstraining, mentalhealth support, and surge staffing plans is vital for maintaining continuity of care. These actions align with themes emphasized in scholarly literature, which highlight the importance of ethical clarity, legal foresight, and proactive planning in crisis leadership. While the pandemic itself was unavoidable, the degree of disruption was shaped by longstanding gaps in preparedness, gaps that future leaders must address through strategic, ethical, and regulatory readiness.
References:
Berlinger, N., Wynia, M., Powell, T., Micah, H., Fabi, R., & Jenks, N. (2020). Ethical framework for health care institutions responding to novel coronavirus SARSCoV2. The Hastings Center. https://www.thehastingscenter.org
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2020). CMS issues COVID19 emergency declaration blanket waivers. https://www.cms.gov
Emanuel, E. J., Persad, G., Upshur, R., Thome, B., Parker, M., Glickman, A., Zhang, C., Boyle, C., Smith, M., & Phillips, J. P. (2020). Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of COVID19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(21), 2049–2055.
Kamerow, D. (2020). Covid19: Don’t forget the impact on clinicians. BMJ, 369, m2491. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2491
Rothstein, M. A. (2020). Ethical issues in public health responses to COVID19. American Journal of Public Health, 110(9), 1399–1401.
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal) **files (1)** – ## Seminarunit1.docx **## Seminarunit1.docx** CoM Public CoM Public CoM Public Question: How can organizations develop responsible AI practices that address bias, ensure transparency, manage data privacy, and m…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (1)**
– ## Seminarunit1.docx
**## Seminarunit1.docx**
CoM Public
CoM Public
CoM Public
Question: How can organizations develop responsible AI practices that address bias, ensure transparency, manage data privacy, and maintain appropriate human oversight?
Initial post response of no less than 250 words, but do not go over 400 words.
Initial Post Sources: Minimum of five scholarly sources. The textbook will always be one of the sources.
All research must be done within the past seven years.
Be sure to check your spelling, grammar, punctuation, and APA 7th edition formatting.
**## Seminarunit1.docx**
CoM Public
CoM Public
CoM Public
Question: How can organizations develop responsible AI practices that address bias, ensure transparency, manage data privacy, and maintain appropriate human oversight?
Initial post response of no less than 250 words, but do not go over 400 words.
Initial Post Sources: Minimum of five scholarly sources. The textbook will always be one of the sources.
All research must be done within the past seven years.
Be sure to check your spelling, grammar, punctuation, and APA 7th edition formatting.
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal) **files (1)** – ## LifeanddeathofKhalidBrowder.docx **## LifeanddeathofKhalidBrowder.docx** CoM Public CoM Public CoM Public General Instructions A minimum of 2,000 words (total assignment) and five scholarly sources. One sour…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (1)**
– ## LifeanddeathofKhalidBrowder.docx
**## LifeanddeathofKhalidBrowder.docx**
CoM Public
CoM Public
CoM Public
General Instructions
A minimum of 2,000 words (total assignment) and five scholarly sources. One source can be the textbook provided in the course.
The Life and Death of Khalid Browder
[https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015)
1. What changes have been made to Rikers Island since this tragedy? What changes have been made to Federal Policy on Juvenile detention since 2016?
2. What are the social and psychological ramifications of solitary confinement on an adolescent? On an adult?
3. When would solitary confinement be necessary?
4. How would you survive solitary confinement?
5. Scholarly Reference used in your response.
**## LifeanddeathofKhalidBrowder.docx**
CoM Public
CoM Public
CoM Public
General Instructions
A minimum of 2,000 words (total assignment) and five scholarly sources. One source can be the textbook provided in the course.
The Life and Death of Khalid Browder
[https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015)
1. What changes have been made to Rikers Island since this tragedy? What changes have been made to Federal Policy on Juvenile detention since 2016?
2. What are the social and psychological ramifications of solitary confinement on an adolescent? On an adult?
3. When would solitary confinement be necessary?
4. How would you survive solitary confinement?
5. Scholarly Reference used in your response.