This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of coordinating public health responses across different governmental and community levels, particularly during the critical transition and recovery phases following a health crisis. Effective collaboration requires navigating diverse mandates, resource limitations, and communication channels while ensuring continuity of care and support for affected populations, including survivors of gender-based violence who may have unique and ongoing needs. Careful judgment is required to prioritize actions, allocate resources efficiently, and maintain trust with all stakeholders. The best professional approach involves proactively establishing a multi-agency working group that includes representatives from local health departments, social services, victim advocacy organizations, and community leaders. This group should be tasked with developing a joint transition and recovery plan that outlines clear roles, responsibilities, communication protocols, and resource allocation strategies. This approach is correct because it aligns with principles of integrated care and public health preparedness, emphasizing a coordinated, community-based response. Specifically, it addresses the need for seamless service delivery by ensuring that survivors of gender-based violence are not lost in the transition between emergency response and long-term recovery. This collaborative framework facilitates the sharing of information, the identification of service gaps, and the efficient deployment of resources, thereby optimizing the support available to vulnerable populations. It also fosters accountability and transparency among participating agencies. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on the local health department to disseminate information and coordinate recovery efforts without formal engagement from other key stakeholders. This failure to establish a collaborative structure risks fragmented services, missed opportunities for support, and a lack of understanding of the specific needs of survivors of gender-based violence. Ethically, this approach neglects the principle of comprehensive care and could lead to survivors falling through the cracks. Another incorrect approach would be to delegate the entire coordination responsibility to a single non-governmental organization without formal integration into the public health system’s recovery plan. While these organizations are vital, their efforts need to be strategically aligned with public health objectives and resource streams to ensure broad reach and sustainability. Without this integration, their work may be duplicated, under-resourced, or disconnected from broader public health initiatives. A further incorrect approach would be to assume that existing emergency response protocols are sufficient for the transition and recovery phases without explicit review and adaptation. Recovery requires different strategies and resources than immediate crisis intervention. Failing to adapt protocols can lead to a lack of preparedness for ongoing needs, such as mental health support, long-term housing, and legal assistance for survivors of gender-based violence. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a systematic assessment of the post-crisis environment, identification of all relevant stakeholders and their capacities, and the establishment of clear, collaborative governance structures. Prioritizing communication, resource mapping, and the specific needs of vulnerable populations, such as survivors of gender-based violence, should be central to the planning process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nuanced understanding of the purpose of the Applied North American Protection and Gender-Based Violence Health Response Licensure Examination and its specific eligibility criteria. Misinterpreting these requirements can lead to significant professional setbacks, including wasted application fees, delayed career progression, and potential ethical breaches if individuals attempt to practice without proper licensure. Careful judgment is required to ensure alignment with regulatory intent and individual qualifications. Correct Approach Analysis: The approach that represents best professional practice involves a thorough review of the official examination guidelines and eligibility requirements published by the relevant North American licensing body. This includes understanding the stated purpose of the examination, which is to assess the competency of health professionals in providing protection and response services related to gender-based violence, and to ensure they meet specific educational, experiential, and ethical standards for licensure. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the foundational purpose of the examination and ensures that an individual’s qualifications are assessed against the precise criteria established by the regulatory authority. Adhering to these official guidelines is paramount for lawful and ethical practice. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on anecdotal information or the experiences of colleagues regarding eligibility. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the authoritative source of information, which is the official examination body. Anecdotal evidence can be outdated, incomplete, or misconstrued, leading to incorrect assumptions about eligibility. This failure to consult official regulations can result in an individual being deemed ineligible, leading to wasted time and resources. Another incorrect approach is to assume that a general health professional license automatically qualifies an individual for this specialized examination. While a general license indicates a foundational level of competence, the Applied North American Protection and Gender-Based Violence Health Response Licensure Examination is designed to assess specific knowledge and skills directly related to gender-based violence response. Without verifying if the individual’s existing qualifications and experience meet the specific prerequisites outlined for this particular licensure, they risk applying without meeting the necessary standards, which is a regulatory failure. A further incorrect approach is to focus only on the perceived demand for such services without first confirming personal eligibility. While market demand is a relevant consideration for career planning, it does not supersede the regulatory requirements for licensure. An individual must first meet the established eligibility criteria before considering the professional landscape. Prioritizing market demand over regulatory compliance is a fundamental misunderstanding of the licensure process and can lead to practicing without the necessary authorization, which is both unethical and illegal. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach licensure requirements with a systematic and evidence-based methodology. This involves: 1) Identifying the specific licensure examination and the governing regulatory body. 2) Accessing and meticulously reviewing the official examination handbook, eligibility criteria, and application guidelines. 3) Honestly assessing one’s own educational background, professional experience, and any required certifications against these specific criteria. 4) Consulting directly with the licensing board or examination administrators if any ambiguities arise. 5) Submitting a complete and accurate application that clearly demonstrates fulfillment of all requirements. This structured approach ensures compliance, minimizes risk, and supports ethical professional practice.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing immediate humanitarian needs with the complex ethical and legal considerations of providing health services across borders, particularly in a context of potential gender-based violence where vulnerable populations are involved. Careful judgment is required to ensure that interventions are both effective and ethically sound, respecting local laws and international humanitarian principles. The best approach involves establishing a clear, documented referral pathway with a local, established NGO that has proven expertise in addressing gender-based violence and a strong understanding of the local legal and cultural landscape. This ensures that individuals receive specialized, culturally sensitive care and support that aligns with both humanitarian principles and local regulations. This approach prioritizes patient safety, confidentiality, and access to appropriate long-term care by leveraging existing, trusted infrastructure and expertise. It adheres to principles of collaboration and sustainability in humanitarian health response, ensuring that services are delivered by those best equipped to do so within the specific context. An incorrect approach would be to directly provide medical treatment for gender-based violence without prior coordination or established protocols with local authorities or NGOs. This bypasses essential local expertise and potentially violates local regulations regarding healthcare provision and data handling. It also risks overwhelming limited resources and may not provide the comprehensive psychosocial and legal support necessary for survivors of gender-based violence, potentially leading to secondary harm. Another incorrect approach would be to solely rely on international volunteers to deliver all services, including those requiring specialized knowledge of gender-based violence response. While well-intentioned, this can lead to fragmented care, lack of cultural competency, and potential breaches of local licensing and operational requirements. It also fails to build local capacity and can create dependency rather than sustainable solutions. A further incorrect approach would be to delay intervention until all international legal and administrative clearances are fully obtained, even if this means significant delays in providing critical care. While adherence to legal frameworks is crucial, in humanitarian crises, a pragmatic and ethical balance must be struck to provide immediate life-saving and essential care, while simultaneously working to formalize operations and ensure compliance. This approach prioritizes bureaucracy over urgent human need. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with assessing the immediate needs of the affected population, followed by identifying existing local resources and expertise. This involves understanding the legal and regulatory environment, consulting with local stakeholders, and developing collaborative protocols that ensure ethical, effective, and sustainable service delivery. Prioritizing patient safety, confidentiality, and cultural appropriateness are paramount throughout this process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires navigating the complex and often competing demands of humanitarian principles, the structured coordination mechanisms of the cluster system, and the operational realities of engaging with military forces. Balancing the imperative of neutrality, impartiality, and independence with the need for effective access and security in a volatile environment demands careful judgment and adherence to established protocols. Missteps can compromise humanitarian access, endanger beneficiaries and staff, and undermine the credibility of humanitarian action. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves proactively establishing clear communication channels and agreed-upon protocols with military actors, while rigorously upholding humanitarian principles. This approach prioritizes the humanitarian mandate by ensuring that engagement with military forces is strictly limited to operational necessities such as security, logistics, and access, and is conducted in a manner that maintains humanitarian independence and impartiality. It involves clearly defining roles, responsibilities, and boundaries, and ensuring that all humanitarian staff are trained on these protocols and the implications of civil-military interaction. This aligns with the core tenets of humanitarian action, which demand that humanitarian organizations operate independently of military objectives and avoid actions that could be perceived as taking sides in a conflict. The cluster system’s framework supports this by providing established mechanisms for coordination and advocacy, ensuring that humanitarian needs are communicated effectively and that humanitarian space is protected. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to rely solely on informal communication and ad-hoc arrangements with military forces. This fails to establish clear boundaries and can lead to misunderstandings, unintended compromises of humanitarian principles, and potential politicization of humanitarian aid. It bypasses the structured coordination mechanisms of the cluster system, which are designed to ensure a coherent and principled humanitarian response. Another incorrect approach is to refuse any engagement with military forces, even when essential for ensuring the safety and access of humanitarian operations. While maintaining independence is crucial, a complete refusal can lead to operational paralysis, prevent aid from reaching those in need, and potentially increase risks for both humanitarian workers and beneficiaries. This approach neglects the practical realities of operating in complex environments where military actors may control access or provide necessary security. A third incorrect approach is to allow military actors to dictate the terms of humanitarian operations or to integrate humanitarian activities with military objectives. This directly violates the principles of neutrality and impartiality, potentially jeopardizing the safety of humanitarian workers and beneficiaries by associating humanitarian action with military forces. It undermines the humanitarian space and can lead to a loss of trust among affected populations and other stakeholders. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a framework that emphasizes proactive engagement, clear communication, and strict adherence to humanitarian principles. This involves understanding the mandates and limitations of all actors involved, including military forces and the cluster system. Decision-making should be guided by a thorough risk assessment, with a focus on protecting humanitarian space and ensuring the safety and dignity of affected populations. Regular training and debriefing on civil-military interaction are essential to reinforce these principles and adapt strategies to evolving operational contexts.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires an applicant to navigate the complex and often nuanced policies surrounding licensure examinations, specifically concerning blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake procedures. Misunderstanding these policies can lead to significant delays in licensure, financial burdens, and emotional distress for the applicant. Careful judgment is required to interpret the official examination guidelines accurately and apply them to individual circumstances. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves thoroughly reviewing the official examination handbook and the specific retake policy document provided by the licensing body. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the applicant’s need for accurate information from the authoritative source. Adhering to the official documentation ensures compliance with the regulatory framework governing licensure, preventing potential misinterpretations or reliance on outdated or unofficial information. This aligns with the ethical obligation of professionals to act with integrity and diligence in pursuing their licensure. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on anecdotal advice from peers or study groups is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the official regulatory framework. Peer advice, while well-intentioned, may be based on outdated information, individual experiences that do not reflect the current policy, or simple misunderstandings. This can lead to incorrect assumptions about scoring or retake eligibility, potentially causing the applicant to miss crucial deadlines or requirements. Assuming that the blueprint weighting remains constant across all examination versions without verification is also a failure. Licensing bodies may update blueprints to reflect evolving professional practice standards, and failing to consult the most current version can lead to misdirected study efforts and an inaccurate assessment of preparedness. Ignoring the possibility of a limited number of retakes or specific waiting periods between attempts is a significant regulatory failure. These policies are in place to ensure a standardized and fair assessment process, and circumventing them through ignorance or deliberate disregard can jeopardize the integrity of the licensure process. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach licensure requirements with a commitment to seeking and adhering to official guidance. This involves proactively accessing and meticulously reading all provided documentation from the licensing body, including examination handbooks, policy statements, and FAQs. When faced with uncertainty, the professional decision-making process dictates consulting the licensing body directly for clarification rather than relying on informal channels. This ensures that all actions taken are in full compliance with the established regulatory framework, upholding professional integrity and facilitating a smooth and successful licensure journey.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the urgency of a candidate’s request with the need for thorough and compliant preparation for a licensure examination. Mismanaging this process can lead to candidates feeling inadequately prepared, potentially impacting their performance and, more critically, their ability to practice competently and ethically in a field that directly addresses sensitive health issues and gender-based violence. The regulatory framework for licensure examinations, while not explicitly detailed in the prompt, generally emphasizes fair access, standardized preparation, and adherence to ethical practice standards. The best approach involves a structured, resource-driven timeline that aligns with established best practices for professional licensure preparation. This approach prioritizes providing candidates with a comprehensive understanding of the examination’s scope, recommended study materials, and a realistic timeframe for mastery. It acknowledges that effective preparation is not merely about speed but about depth of understanding and integration of knowledge. This aligns with the ethical imperative to ensure that licensed professionals are well-equipped to serve vulnerable populations, as mandated by the principles underlying health and violence response licensure. An approach that focuses solely on rapid completion without adequate resource allocation or structured study plans is professionally unacceptable. This fails to meet the implicit regulatory expectation of ensuring candidate competence. It can lead to superficial learning, where candidates memorize facts without truly understanding the underlying principles or their application in real-world scenarios, particularly those involving gender-based violence. This also risks creating a false sense of readiness, potentially leading to examination failure or, worse, unprepared practice. Another unacceptable approach is to provide a generic, one-size-fits-all study guide without considering individual learning styles or the specific demands of the North American Protection and Gender-Based Violence Health Response licensure. This overlooks the complexity of the subject matter and the diverse backgrounds of candidates. Ethically, it is a disservice to candidates and the public they will serve, as it does not adequately prepare them for the nuanced challenges they will face. Finally, an approach that emphasizes rote memorization over critical thinking and application is also professionally deficient. Licensure in this field requires more than just recall; it demands the ability to analyze situations, apply ethical principles, and make sound judgments under pressure. A preparation strategy that neglects these higher-order cognitive skills fails to meet the standards of professional competence and ethical practice. Professionals should adopt a decision-making process that begins with understanding the examination’s objectives and scope. This should be followed by identifying and curating high-quality, relevant preparation resources. Next, a realistic and adaptable study timeline should be developed, incorporating regular assessments of progress and opportunities for feedback. Finally, ongoing communication with candidates, offering support and guidance, is crucial to ensure their preparedness and ethical readiness.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires navigating the initial stages of a licensure examination process, which often involves significant anxiety and a need for clear, accurate information. Misunderstanding the examination’s purpose or structure can lead to wasted preparation, decreased confidence, and potential failure, impacting the applicant’s ability to practice. Careful judgment is required to ensure all applicants receive consistent and correct guidance. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves clearly and accurately communicating the examination’s primary purpose as a gateway to licensure, emphasizing its role in ensuring public safety and professional competence. This approach aligns with the fundamental ethical and regulatory mandate of all professional licensing bodies: to protect the public by ensuring that only qualified individuals are granted the privilege to practice. Providing this foundational understanding sets the correct context for all subsequent preparation and study. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to focus solely on the examination as a measure of individual knowledge without connecting it to the broader public protection mandate. This can lead applicants to prioritize memorization over understanding the practical application of knowledge, which is crucial for effective health response and preventing gender-based violence. It fails to convey the ethical weight and societal importance of the licensure. Another incorrect approach is to present the examination as a purely administrative hurdle or a test of test-taking skills. This diminishes the significance of the content and the responsibility that comes with licensure. It can foster a superficial approach to preparation, where the focus is on passing the test rather than on developing the competencies necessary for safe and effective practice. This neglects the core regulatory purpose of ensuring qualified practitioners. A further incorrect approach is to overemphasize the difficulty or the competitive nature of the examination without providing clear guidance on its scope and purpose. While acknowledging challenges can be realistic, an unbalanced focus can induce undue stress and anxiety, hindering effective preparation. It fails to offer constructive support and can create a perception of the examination as an insurmountable obstacle rather than a necessary step in professional development. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach exam orientation by first establishing the examination’s core purpose within the regulatory framework – to safeguard the public. This involves clearly articulating how the examination assesses the knowledge and skills necessary for competent and ethical practice. Subsequently, guidance should focus on the examination’s structure, content domains, and recommended preparation strategies, always linking these back to the ultimate goal of licensure and public protection. A transparent and supportive orientation process builds confidence and ensures applicants understand the responsibilities associated with their chosen profession.

Scenario Analysis: Designing and operating a field hospital in a North American context, particularly concerning WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) and supply chain logistics, presents significant professional challenges. These challenges stem from the need to rapidly establish infrastructure that meets stringent public health standards, often in resource-limited or disaster-stricken environments. Ensuring adequate water quality, safe waste disposal, and effective hygiene practices is paramount to preventing disease outbreaks within the vulnerable patient population and among healthcare staff. Simultaneously, a robust and efficient supply chain is critical for delivering essential medical supplies, equipment, and personnel to maintain operational capacity and patient care. The intersection of these elements requires a deep understanding of public health regulations, emergency preparedness guidelines, and logistical best practices, all while navigating potential resource constraints and the urgency of the situation. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a comprehensive, integrated design that prioritizes public health and operational efficiency from the outset. This means embedding WASH infrastructure considerations directly into the field hospital’s architectural and operational planning, ensuring that water sources are protected, sanitation facilities are adequate and properly managed, and hygiene protocols are rigorously implemented. Concurrently, the supply chain strategy must be designed to support these WASH requirements, ensuring a consistent flow of necessary consumables like disinfectants, clean water, and waste disposal materials. This integrated approach aligns with North American public health mandates that emphasize preventative measures and the establishment of safe healthcare environments, even in temporary settings. It also reflects ethical obligations to provide care that minimizes harm and upholds patient dignity. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to treat WASH infrastructure as an afterthought, implementing it only after the primary medical facilities are established. This compartmentalized thinking fails to recognize the foundational role of WASH in preventing healthcare-associated infections and ensuring the overall safety and functionality of the field hospital. It risks creating a situation where inadequate sanitation or contaminated water compromises patient care and poses a significant public health risk, violating regulatory requirements for safe healthcare environments. Another incorrect approach would be to focus solely on the rapid deployment of medical equipment and personnel without a parallel, robust plan for the supply chain of essential WASH-related consumables and waste management. This oversight can lead to critical shortages of items necessary for maintaining hygiene, such as soap, clean water, and personal protective equipment for sanitation staff, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the entire operation and potentially leading to outbreaks. A further incorrect approach would be to adopt a “minimum viable” WASH solution that does not adequately account for the specific needs of a field hospital population, including potentially immunocompromised individuals. This could involve using standard portable toilets without proper containment or treatment, or failing to establish adequate handwashing stations at critical points of care and entry. Such measures would fall short of the expected standards for healthcare facilities and could lead to the rapid spread of infectious diseases, contravening public health regulations. Professional Reasoning: Professionals faced with designing and operating field hospitals must employ a systematic, risk-based decision-making process. This begins with a thorough assessment of the anticipated patient population, the local environmental conditions, and the potential health risks. Regulatory frameworks and emergency preparedness guidelines specific to North America must be consulted to establish minimum standards for WASH and supply chain operations. The design process should prioritize integration, ensuring that WASH is a core component of the facility’s layout and operational plan, and that the supply chain is designed to support these critical functions. Regular monitoring and evaluation of WASH practices and supply chain performance are essential to identify and address any emerging issues proactively, ensuring the highest standards of patient safety and public health.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing immediate humanitarian needs with long-term health and protection principles in a volatile environment. Ensuring adequate nutrition and maternal-child health for displaced populations, particularly vulnerable groups like pregnant and lactating women and children, demands a nuanced approach that respects individual rights and promotes well-being while adhering to established health and protection frameworks. The risk of exacerbating existing vulnerabilities or creating new ones through poorly designed interventions necessitates careful consideration of ethical and regulatory guidelines. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves integrating nutrition interventions with comprehensive maternal-child health services and robust protection mechanisms. This means not only providing essential nutritional support (e.g., therapeutic feeding, micronutrient supplementation) but also ensuring access to antenatal and postnatal care, safe delivery services, immunization, and family planning. Crucially, this integrated model must embed protection principles by actively identifying and responding to gender-based violence (GBV), ensuring safe spaces, providing psychosocial support, and facilitating access to legal and medical services for survivors. This holistic strategy aligns with international humanitarian standards and best practices for health and protection in emergencies, emphasizing a rights-based and survivor-centered framework. It addresses the interconnectedness of health, nutrition, and protection, recognizing that malnutrition can increase vulnerability to violence and that GBV can negatively impact health and nutritional status. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to solely focus on providing emergency food aid without considering the specific nutritional needs of pregnant and lactating women or integrating health services. This fails to address the critical micronutrient deficiencies and increased caloric requirements during pregnancy and breastfeeding, potentially leading to poor maternal and child health outcomes. It also neglects the essential health services required for safe pregnancies and deliveries, and it overlooks the protection needs of these vulnerable individuals. Another incorrect approach would be to implement nutrition programs in isolation from protection services. This could inadvertently expose vulnerable individuals, especially women and girls, to increased risks of GBV during distribution or access to services, without providing adequate support or recourse. It fails to recognize the synergistic relationship between nutrition, health, and protection, and it violates ethical obligations to ensure the safety and dignity of beneficiaries. A further incorrect approach would be to prioritize general health services without a specific focus on maternal-child health and nutrition, or without integrating protection measures. While general health is important, the unique physiological needs and vulnerabilities of pregnant and lactating women and young children require targeted interventions. The absence of specific protection mechanisms within these health services would leave individuals at risk of exploitation and violence, failing to meet the comprehensive needs of the population. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic, needs-based assessment that prioritizes the most vulnerable groups. This assessment should inform the design of integrated interventions that address nutrition, maternal-child health, and protection concurrently. Continuous monitoring and evaluation, coupled with community engagement and feedback mechanisms, are essential for adapting programs to evolving needs and ensuring their effectiveness and ethical implementation. Adherence to international guidelines and ethical principles of do no harm, respect, and dignity should guide all decision-making.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves operating in an austere environment where the physical and psychological risks to staff are significantly elevated. The duty of care extends beyond standard workplace safety to encompass the unique stressors and potential threats inherent in such missions. Balancing the mission’s objectives with the absolute necessity of ensuring staff security and well-being requires proactive, comprehensive planning and continuous adaptation. Failure to adequately address these aspects can lead to mission failure, severe harm to personnel, and legal/ethical repercussions. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves establishing a robust, multi-layered security framework that prioritizes proactive threat assessment, comprehensive risk mitigation strategies, and immediate access to mental health support. This includes pre-deployment training on security protocols and cultural awareness, establishing clear communication channels, implementing physical security measures appropriate to the environment, and ensuring readily available psychological first aid and ongoing mental health services. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the heightened risks in austere settings by embedding security and well-being into the operational fabric, aligning with the ethical imperative of the duty of care to protect individuals from foreseeable harm and the professional responsibility to maintain a safe working environment, even under duress. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach focuses solely on reactive security measures, such as deploying armed guards only after an incident occurs. This fails to meet the duty of care by neglecting proactive risk assessment and prevention, leaving staff vulnerable to foreseeable threats. Another incorrect approach prioritizes mission objectives above all else, downplaying security concerns and mental health needs. This is ethically unacceptable as it disregards the fundamental right of staff to a safe working environment and can lead to burnout, trauma, and mission compromise due to staff incapacitation. A third incorrect approach involves providing only basic first-aid training without addressing the specific psychological stressors of austere missions or establishing clear pathways for ongoing mental health support. This is insufficient as it fails to recognize the unique psychological toll of such environments and the need for specialized care beyond immediate physical injury. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a risk-management framework that begins with a thorough assessment of potential security threats and stressors in the specific austere environment. This assessment should inform the development of a comprehensive security plan that includes preventative measures, response protocols, and robust support systems for staff well-being. Regular review and adaptation of these plans based on evolving circumstances and staff feedback are crucial. The decision-making process should always weigh the mission’s goals against the paramount importance of staff safety and mental health, ensuring that no compromise is made on the duty of care.