Search results

Although medical leadership and management (MLM) is increasingly being recognised as important to improving healthcare outcomes, little is understood about current training of medical students in MLM skills and behaviours in the UK. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This qualitative study used validated structured interviews with expert faculty members from medical schools across the UK to ascertain MLM framework integration, teaching methods employed, evaluation methods and barriers to improvement.

Data were collected from 25 of the 33 UK medical schools (76 per cent response rate), with 23/25 reporting that MLM content is included in their curriculum. More medical schools assessed MLM competencies on admission than at any other time of the curriculum. Only 12 schools had evaluated MLM teaching at the time of data collection. The majority of medical schools reported barriers, including overfilled curricula and reluctance of staff to teach. Whilst 88 per cent of schools planned to increase MLM content over the next two years, there was a lack of consensus on proposed teaching content and methods.

There is widespread inclusion of MLM in UK medical schools’ curricula, despite the existence of barriers. This study identified substantial heterogeneity in MLM teaching and assessment methods which does not meet students’ desired modes of delivery. Examples of national undergraduate MLM teaching exist worldwide, and lessons can be taken from these.

This is the first national evaluation of MLM in undergraduate medical school curricula in the UK, highlighting continuing challenges with executing MLM content despite numerous frameworks and international examples of successful execution.

“Jessica’s dilemma: honesty or loyalty” is the true story of a Staff Accountant, Jessica, who discovered embezzlement by the controller, Michael. Jessica worked at a US subsidiary of a multinational organization. One of the company’s vendors contacted Jessica regarding unpaid invoices. Following up on the inquiry, Jessica found suspicious manual journal entries in the general ledger. When she questioned her boss, Michael, about her findings, he first denied the situation, then blamed another employee, and ultimately tried to intimidate Jessica so that she would not press the issue. Jessica’s investigation led to the discovery that Michael had been embezzling money from the company. To complicate matters, Jessica and her husband had a close relationship with Michael and his wife outside the office. Jessica had to make a choice between being loyal to a family friend and being honest and loyal toward her employer.

The authors obtained the information for this case from the staff accountant and her husband via a series of interviews. The information was verified via publicly available news articles on the presented case. Additionally, legal documents, which were publicly available, were also used for information. The name of the company and the names of the individuals in the case were changed to protect the identities and privacy of the involved parties.

An instructor can use this case in business ethics, introductory management, human resource law or accounting courses targeting undergraduate or introductory MBA students. This case is best used in the beginning of the suggested courses, as the instructor introduces ethical dilemmas, ethical frameworks, and stakeholder theory. The case is designed so that students do not need a background in business or business ethics to be able to successfully complete the case analysis. Additionally, the case provides a platform to discuss the differences in an ethical vs an unethical manager and how to respond to such a situation.

Many employees are afraid to report ethical wrongdoing to upper management, or to engage in ethical dissent. When upper management is receptive to reports of wrongdoing, ethical dissent within the organization to upper-level management has more organizational benefits than when the issue is shared with coworkers or external agencies. This is because upper management has the power to make a difference in the situation and may be able to keep the situation within the organization to eliminate possible reputation problems for the organization. The presented case can be utilized to discuss the importance of feeling safe in an organization as it pertains to reporting wrongdoing within the organization and how organizational culture and leadership can enhance or diminish that feeling.

Although precise numbers are unknown, it is generally acknowledged that between 5‐10% of the offending population are people with learning disabilities. While there are few provisions that explicitly target defendants with learning disabilities there is a general recognition in law that defendants must be able to understand and participate effectively in the criminal proceedings of which they are a part. The implications of the principle of effective participation are that criminal prosecution may be deemed inappropriate for certain defendants with learning disabilities, in which case they may be diverted away from criminal justice and into health care. There is scope for a variety of measures to be put into place to support defendants with learning disabilities to maximise their chances of participating effectively. However, in terms of statutory provision, there is a lack of parity between vulnerable witnesses and vulnerable defendants. Further, the absence of effective screening procedures to identify defendants' learning disabilities means that their support needs often go unrecognised and unmet.

To analyze the impact of recent legislation that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expressly empower the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement in federal district court proceedings and to codify applicable statutes of limitations.

This article provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and summarizes how the scope of the remedy has evolved since Kokesh v. SEC (2017). Then, the article analyzes the changes to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contained in Section 6501 the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which statutorily empowered the SEC to seek and obtain disgorgement in federal court actions. Finally, the authors discuss the impact of the legislation on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu v. SEC (2020).

The availability and appropriateness of SEC disgorgement have been the subject of vigorous debate. Just as courts began to iron out the contours of SEC disgorgement in the wake of Kokesh and Liu, Congress intervened by granting to the SEC explicit statutory authority to seek a remedy traditionally obtained at equity. In passing this legislation, Congress answered some questions that remained after Liu but also raised many new ones. These new questions will likely take years to resolve through subsequent litigation and potentially additional legislation.

Original, practical analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

To analyze the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC, where the Court confronted the issue of whether the SEC can obtain disgorgement in federal district court proceedings.

This paper provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and a summary of the background and opinion in Liu v. SEC. This article then focuses on the practical implications of Liu on SEC disgorgement by considering questions left open by the decision.

The Court in Liu held that the SEC is authorized to seek disgorgement as “equitable relief” as long as it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” But the Court left many unanswered questions, such as whether disgorged funds must always be returned to investors for disgorgement to be a permissible equitable remedy, whether the SEC can obtain joint-and-several disgorgement liability from unrelated co-defendants, what “legitimate expenses” should be deducted in disgorgement calculations, and to what extent the SEC can seek disgorgement in cases when victims are difficult to identify.

Original, practical guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

Drawing on multi-method research conducted in 2013-2014, the purpose of this paper is to consider the extent and nature of disadvantage experienced by individuals with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities (PID) who come into contact with the criminal justice system in Zambia. The research was conducted as part of a wider project aiming to bring about improvements in how people with PID are dealt with by the criminal justice services.

The research activities included interviews with 29 individuals with PID who had experienced the criminal justice system as suspects, defendants or prisoners (“self-advocates”). A focus group and interviews were also conducted with the family members of people with PID who had criminal justice experience.

People with PID in contact with the criminal justice services in Zambia are disadvantaged and discriminated against routinely and systematically. Like all detainees, they experience harsh and at times brutal conditions of detention. However, because of their disabilities, such experiences can be more keenly felt: their disabilities may be exacerbated by detention or by limited or non-existent health care; and they are likely to be less resourceful than other detainees and, therefore, less able to cope with the privations of detention.

In drawing on the self-advocate interviews, this paper presents direct, vivid accounts of what it means to be a suspect, defendant or prisoner with disabilities in Zambia. These are extremely marginalised and multiply disadvantaged individuals whose voices are rarely heard.