Working in an EBL group Essays

Working in an EBL group Essays Working in an EBL group Paper Working in an EBL group Paper The other important concept in the profession of nursing is the empowerment of nurses themselves. Empowerment of nurses, like that of clients holds the importance of autonomy and independence. A nurses empowerment is mainly defined by the use of Kanters (1993) theory of organizational empowerment, where in order to feel empowered the nurse must be able to have access to information, support, resources and opportunities to grow and develop with the nursing environment (Lashinger and Wong 1999). These empowering structures have a personal effect on the nurse, causing the nurse to have more feelings of independence and self of this is during my clinical placement, nurses go on study days to help in their professional development. Empowerment of nurses also brings accountability which is ability to give explanation for ones actions. Accountability is becoming more and more detrimental to the health field and is playing a bigger role in the outcome of empowerment. Education and training is important in the process of empowering the nurse. Education causes knowledge and skill, which allow the nurse to first provide healthcare and second know the reason behind what he or she is doing, which empowers the nurse as knowledge is a precursor to feeling in control (Dooher and Byrt 2003). One of the hurdles in the empowerment of nurses is the tendency to rely on the management. One of the hindrances of empowerment is caused by hierarchy within the situation, whether it is between the client and nurse or the client and management. A further challenge resides not so much in the obstacles to achieving nurse empowerment but in the likely consequences of it. That is there are risks involved for those who are sufficiently empowered to speak up and challenge vested political and economic interests as part of a broader health promotion role (Kendel 2004). A final point worthy of consideration concerns not so much the challenge of empowering nurses, but the issue of empowering patients in a care setting, facilitating the ability for them to exert greater control over their care and decision making may not always be appropriate and desirable. In spite of the arguments, there is the underlying assumption that by acting in an empowering way, health professionals will become more effective and people will become healthier (Kendel 2004). In conclusion, nurses power may arise from three components: a workplace that has the requisite structures that promote empowerment; a psychological belief in ones ability to be empowered; and acknowledgement that there is power in the relationships and caring that nurses provide. (Jack 1995) REFLECTION on EBL Reflection has been defined by Taylor (2000) as: The throwing back of thoughts and memories, in cognitive acts such as thinking, contemplation, meditation and any other form of attentive consideration, in order to make sense of them, and so make contextually appropriate changes if they are required. In order to reflect on the process of the presentation, I will adapt the Gibbss reflective cycle. Description  As a group the concept of empowerment was given to us. A chair, a scribe and time keeper was appointed. We also divided the group into three sub group because it was a large group. On the first session, list of things was achieved which includes ground rules, different definition of empowerment, means, importance of and the pro and cons of empowerment. Each sub group was then allocated a topic to research and report back with. On the second session every sub group delivered their findings to the whole group but we still lacked the major points. These lead to delayed progression of the work. Decision was reached to use PowerPoint presentation and for each sub group to type their work and send it to the scribe. On the last session, we still lacked some major information but managed to put the whole work together. On the whole there was a lot of ideas and information but we lacked organisation. We had no time for practice run. The presentation was done but on reflection, our weakness and strengths was well acknowledged. Feelings  I often felt anxious and uncertain about what the group are expected to do. I felt that everyone wanted their piece of work to be used. I thought that the time allocated to the presentation was limited. I strongly believe that the group put a lot of time and effort into the process but did not show this at sometimes. I felt unable to assert my views, so I avoided open conflict in favour of an outwardly harmonious team. Looking back I wish I had the courage to challenge some views being expressed. According to Johns and Freshwater (2005) that the process of learning is experiential and it not on a conceptual level. Evaluation  The aims of the presentation were clearly stated. We had a clear indication of the purpose in the introduction. Although we had appropriate delivery of presentation, but it could have been developed using variation in the PowerPoint presentation. We should have assessed and looked at how the information was verbally presented. It was a good group work and we worked well to develop the contents, however material represented was often not referenced and on occasions unclear. We also had limited links to practice. Nevertheless, we provided quite a background to empowerment and overall, this proved to be a positive experience that made me learn to adapt to the circumstances around me. Analysis  Working in an EBL group helped me to develop and practice the skills of communication like listening, eye contact, tone of voice and team working that are essential for caring for patients in my practice area. Johns and Freshwater (2005) emphasis that communication group learning and guidance takes place through dialogue and the first art is listening. It helped me to make joined and collective decision making. I was able to learn how to share tasks and responsibilities. I acquired the knowledge of negotiation and reflection as a group. Through it, I learnt concept of empowerment as a whole. In relation to my clinical experience, I will be able to share information, knowledge and skills which will help me to participate in patient self empowerment and decision making. My own process of learning has improved dramatically through this process. Conclusion We could have focused more in analysing and looking at the concept of empowerment. We should have ensured that the aims identified were properly addressed and explored other variation of PowerPoint presentation. The link to practice could have also been clearly demonstrated. According to Johns and Freshwater (2005) reflecting on experience after event draws insights that may inform your future practice in a positive way. Action plan  If in the same situation, I will suggest to the group that we be less descriptive and provide more analysis of the concept of empowerment. To use a more coherent approach when presenting and allow time for practice run and communicate more. In regards to me as the chair, I will be more assertive in a different way. REFERENCES 1. Dooher, J and Byrt, R. (2003) Empowerment and the Health service User. Vol 2 Quay Books London. 2. Gibbs, G. (1994) Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further education Unit. Oxford University. 3. Gibson, H.C. (1991) A concept analysis of Empowerment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 16, 354-361. 06/04/07. 4. Jack, R. (1995) Empowerment in Community Care. Chapman and Hall. London. 5. Johns, C and Freshwater, D. (2005) Transforming Nursing through Reflective Practice. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. 6. Kanter, H. (1993) The Theory of Organisational Empowerment. Galerie Hellingman. London.

Biography of Alexander II, Russias Reformist Tsar

Biography of Alexander II, Russia's Reformist Tsar Alexander II (born Alexander Nikolaevich Romanov; April 29, 1818 – March 13, 1881) was a nineteenth-century Russian emperor. Under his rule, Russia moved towards reform, most notably in the abolition of serfdom. However, his assassination cut these efforts short. Fast Facts: Alexander II Full Name:  Alexander Nikolaevich Romanov Occupation: Emperor of RussiaBorn: April 29, 1818 in Moscow, RussiaDied: March 13, 1881 in Saint Petersburg, RussiaKey Accomplishments: Alexander II earned a reputation for reform and a willingness to bring Russia into the modern world. His greatest legacy was the freeing of Russian serfs in 1861.Quote: The vote, in the hands of an ignorant man, without either property or self respect, will be used to the damage of the people at large; for the rich man, without honor or any kind of patriotism, will purchase it, and with it swamp the rights of a free people.† Early Life Alexander was born in Moscow in 1818 as the first son and heir of Tsar Nicholas I and his wife Charlotte, a Prussian princess. His parents’ marriage was, luckily (and somewhat unusually) for a purely political union, a happy one, and Alexander had six siblings who survived childhood. From birth, Alexander was given the title of Tsesarevich, which was traditionally given to the heir to the Russian throne. (The similar-sounding title tsarevich applied to any sons of a tsar, including non-Russians, and ceased being used by Romanov rulers in 1797). The upbringing and early education of Alexander was not one that seemed conducive to create a great reformer. Indeed, the opposite, if anything, was true. At the time, the court and political atmosphere was intensely conservative under his father’s authoritarian rule. Dissent from any corner, regardless of rank, was severely punishable. Even Alexander, who was the darling of his family and of all Russia, would have had to be careful. Nicholas, however, was nothing if not practical in the upbringing of his successor. He had suffered from a dull, frustrating education as a â€Å"spare† to the throne (his immediate predecessor was not his father, but rather his brother Alexander I) that had left him without any desire to take up the title. He was determined to not let his son suffer the same fate and provided him with tutors that included reformer Mikhail Speransky and romantic poet Vasily Zhukovsky, plus a military instructor, General Karl Merder. This combination led to Alexander being well-prepared and more liberal than his father. At the age of sixteen, Nicholas created a ceremony in which Alexander formally swore allegiance to the autocracy as the successor. Marriage and Early Reign While on tour in Western Europe in 1839, Alexander was in search of a royal wife. His parents preferred Princess Alexandrine of Baden and arranged for the twenty-one-year-old tsesarevich to meet her. The meeting was unimpressive, and Alexander declined to pursue the match. He and his entourage made an unplanned stop at the court of the Grand Duke of Hesse, Ludwig II, where he met and became smitten with the duke’s daughter, Marie. Despite some early objections from his mother and a long engagement because of Marie’s youth (she was only fourteen when they met), Alexander and Marie married on April 28, 1841. Although the protocols of court life did not appeal to Marie, the marriage was a happy one, and Alexander leaned on Marie for support and advice. Their first child, the Grand Duchess Alexandra, was born in August 1842, but died of meningitis at the age of six. In September 1843, the couple had their son and Alexander’s heir, Nicholas, followed in 1845 by Alexander (the future Tsar Alexander III), Vladimir in 1847, and Alexei in 1850. Even after Alexander took mistresses, their relationship remained close. Nicholas I died of pneumonia in 1855, and Alexander II succeeded to the throne at the age of 37. His early reign was dominated by the fallout from the Crimean War and cleaning up overwhelming corruption at home. Thanks to his education and personal leanings, he began pushing forward a more reformist, liberal set of policies than the iron-fisted authoritarianism of his predecessors. Reformer and Liberator Alexander’s signature reform was the liberation of the serfs, which he began working towards almost immediately after coming to the throne. In 1858, he toured the country to encourage the nobility – who were reluctant to give up their reliance on serfs – to back the reform. The Emancipation Reform of 1861 formally abolished serfdom throughout the Russian Empire, giving 22 million serfs the rights of full citizens. His reforms were not limited to this by any means. Alexander ordered the reform of the Russian military, from enforcing conscription for all social classes (not just the peasantry) to improving officer education to creating districts for more efficient administration. An elaborate and detailed bureaucracy worked to reform the judicial system and make the system simpler and more transparent. At the same time, his government created local districts that took on many duties of self-governance. Despite his zeal for reform, Alexander was no democratic ruler. The Moscow Assembly proposed a constitution, and in response, the tsar dissolved the assembly. He fervently believed that diluting the power of the autocracy with representatives of the people would destroy the populace’s quasi-religious view of the tsar as a divinely-ordained, unquestioned ruler. When separatist movements, particularly in Poland and Lithuania, threatened to erupt, he suppressed them harshly, and later in his reign, he began to crack down on liberal teachings at universities. However, he supported efforts in Finland to increase its autonomy. An assassination attempt in April 1866 may have contributed to Alexander’s shift away from his earlier liberal reforms. Assassination and Legacy Alexander was the target of several assassination attempts, including the one in 1866. In April 1879, a would-be assassin named Alexander Soloviev shot at the tsar as he walked; the shooter missed and was sentenced to death. Later that year, other revolutionaries attempted a more elaborate plot, orchestrating a railway explosion – but their information was incorrect and they missed the tsar’s train. In February 1880, the tsar’s enemies came closer than they ever had before to achieving their goal when Stephan Khalturin, from the same radical group that bombed the train, managed to detonate a device in the Winter Palace itself, killing and wounding dozens and causing damage to the palace, but the imperial family was awaiting a late arrival and was not in the dining room. On March 13, 1881, Alexander went, as was his custom, to a military roll call. He rode in a bulletproof carriage gifted to him by Napoleon III, which saved his life during the first attempt: a bomb thrown under the carriage as it passed by. Guards attempted to evacuate Alexander quickly. Another conspirator, a radical revolutionary named Ignacy Hryniewiecki, got close enough to throw a bomb directly at the fleeing emperor’s feet. The bomb horrifically wounded Alexander, as well as others in the vicinity. The dying tsar was brought to the Winter Palace, where he was given his last rites and died minutes later. Alexander left behind a legacy of slow but steady reform and began the modernization of Russia – but his death stopped what would have been one of the biggest reforms: a set of planned changes that Alexander had approved and spoke of as a step towards a true constitution – something Romanov rulers had always resisted. The announcement was set to be made around March 15, 1881. But Alexander’s successor chose instead to retaliate for the assassination with severe setbacks to civil liberties, including arrests of dissenters and anti-Semitic pogroms that would last for the rest of the Romanov era. Sources Montefiore, Simon Sebag. The Romanovs: 1613 – 1918. London, Weidenfeld Nicolson, 2017.Mosse, W.E. â€Å"Alexander II: Emperor of Russia.† Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-II-emperor-of-RussiaRadzinsky, Edvard. Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar. Simon Schuster, 2005.