Solved! Making the case for collaborative problem-solving

This report argues that the ability to solve problems with others is a crucial skill for our young people in the workplace of the future but the current education system does little to support it. Key findings Collaborative problem-solving (CPS) is an increasingly important skill to teach young people in order to prepare them for the future. Despite strong evidence for its impact, CPS is rarely taught in schools but if structured well it can reinforce knowledge and improve attainment. Significant barriers exist for teachers implementing this practice, from behaviour management to curriculum coverage, to task-design. For CPS to gain ground, a concerted shift is needed including teacher training, better resources and system level support. This report is part of Nesta’s ongoing commitment to equipping young people with the skills they need to succeed. It makes a series of recommendations on how organisations and policymakers can help support and embrace the implementation of CPS. Nesta is following this up with a series of small-scale pilots of aligned programmes in order to evaluate impact and explore how CPS can be implemented in a range of practical settings. Policy recommendations Stimulate production of quality collaborative problem-solving (CPS) resources and training, from primary education onwards. Fund existing, aligned programmes to scale and evaluate impact. Educate and involve the out-of-school learning sector and volunteer educators. Develop smarter collaborative problem-solving assessment methods. Help higher education organisations and MOOCs to track what works

Targeted youth support: Rapid Evidence Assessment of effective early interventions for youth at risk of future poor outcomes

This report describes the findings and methods of a systematic rapid evidence assessment (REA) of research relevant to interventions of interest to Targeted Youth Support. It was commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to inform the development of policy and practice in relation to this initiative

What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis

Background Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is promoted as harnessing the knowledge of patients, carers and staff to make changes about which they care most. However, little is known regarding the impact of co-production on patient, staff or organisational outcomes in these settings. Aims To identify and appraise reported outcomes of co-production as an intervention to improve quality of services in acute healthcare settings. Design Rapid evidence synthesis. Data sources Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, HMIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCIE, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, EThOS, OpenGrey; CoDesign; The Design Journal; Design Issues. Study selection Studies reporting patient, staff or organisational outcomes associated with using co-production in an acute healthcare setting. Findings 712 titles and abstracts were screened; 24 papers underwent full-text review, and 11 papers were included in the evidence synthesis. One study was a feasibility randomised controlled trial, three were process evaluations and seven used descriptive qualitative approaches. Reported outcomes related to (a) the value of patient and staff involvement in co-production processes; (b) the generation of ideas for changes to processes, practices and clinical environments; and (c) tangible service changes and impacts on patient experiences. Only one study included cost analysis; none reported an economic evaluation. No studies assessed the sustainability of any changes made. Conclusions Despite increasing interest in and advocacy for co-production, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation in acute healthcare settings. Future studies should evaluate clinical and service outcomes as well as the cost-effectiveness of co-production relative to other forms of quality improvement. Potentially broader impacts on the values and behaviours of participants should also be considered

Cooperation between general practitioners, occupational health physicians, and rehabilitation physicians in Germany: what are barriers to cooperation and how can these be overcome? A qualitative study

Introduction: Rehabilitation measures for patients in the working age primarily aim at maintaining employability, restoring fitness for work and timely return to work. General practitioners (GPs), occupational health physicians (OPs), and rehabilitation physicians (RPs) fulfill different functions in the rehabilitation process, which need to be interlinked effectively to achieve a successful medical and occupational rehabilitation. In Germany, this cooperation at the interfaces is regarded as often working suboptimal. On this background, this qualitative study had two main aims: the first was to record the experiences and attitudes of OPs, RPs and GPs, as well as of rehabilitation patients, to indicate barriers to and obstacles in the cooperation and communication between medical professionals at the intersection of workplace and rehabilitation institutions. The second aim of the publication was to identify, present and discuss suggestions proposed by physicians and patients on how these barriers and obstacles can be overcome and thereby how communication and cooperation between the medical protagonists may be improved. A special focus of the study was a supposed exclusion of OPs from the rehabilitation process, as reported in the literature. Methods and analysis: As previous literature reviews have shown, insufficient data on the experiences and attitudes of the stakeholders are available. Therefore, an exploratory qualitative approach was chosen. In total, 8 Focus Group Discussions with occupational physicians, rehabilitation physicians, general practitioners and rehabilitation patients (2 Focus Groups with 4–10 interviewees per category) were conducted. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: A number of barriers to and obstacles in cooperation and communication were reported by the participants, including: (1) organizational (e.g. missing contact details, low reachability, schedule restrictions), (2) interpersonal (e.g. rehabilitants level of trust in OPs, low perceived need to cooperate with OPs, low motivation to cooperate), and (3) structural barriers (e.g. data privacy regulations, regulations concerning rehabilitation reports). In regards to these barriers, options for improvement were identified and characterized by the author in the following categories: (1) regulatory interventions (e.g. formalized role and obligatory input of occupational physicians), (2) financial interventions (e.g. financial incentives for physicians based on the quality of the application), (3) technological interventions (e.g. communication by E-Mail), (4) changes in organizational procedures (e.g. provision of workplace descriptions to RPs on a routine basis), (5) educational and informational interventions (e.g. joint educational programs, measures to improve the image of OPs), and (6) the promotion of cooperation (e.g. between OPs and GPs in regards to the application process). Ethics and dissemination: The research was undertaken with the approval of the ethics committee of the medical faculty and university hospital of Tübingen. The study participants’ gave their written consent prior to participating in the interviews. As set out in the study protocol, the results were published in international, peer-reviewed medical journals. Conclusion: The data on barriers as well as on options for improvements presented in this study are in line with studies and expert opinions from Germany and other countries in Western Europe. While some of the proposed solutions could be implemented by the participants themselves by changing behavior and practice in the everyday routine, a multi-level stakeholder approach might be necessary for implementing others. The evidence for the proposed suggestion is limited and mostly based on studies not conducted in the context of the German health care setting. Future quantitative research is needed to assess the relative weight of the findings and controlled interventional studies are necessary to assess feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed suggestions

The effects of social skills training on the writing skills of middle school students with learning disabilities

The purpose of the study was to determine if training in social skills in a classroom setting would lead to greater achievement in writing. Fifty-seven children in grades six through eight (ages 11-14) from a predominantly middle-class school in a largely urban school district in South Florida participated in this study. Participation in the study was limited to students who had been evaluated, met diagnostic criteria for learning disabilities and were placed in a learning disabilities language arts class. Seven dependent variables were measured to evaluate the effects of social skills training (independent variable) on the writing skills of children with learning disabilities. The four writing variables were thematic maturity, syntactic maturity, fluency, and quality of expression. Three social skills measures were parent rating, student rating, and teacher rating of social skills behavior in the classroom. Three tests designed to measure changes in written language development and social skills acquisition and performance were used for pre-testing and post-testing. To assess the writing skills, two assessment instruments were selected: Test of Written Language-2 (TOWL-2) (Hammill & Larsen, 1988) and the Woodcock Psychoeducational Battery Achievement and Supplemental Tests (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990). To assess social skills, Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990) was selected. Areas of significant improvement in the writing measures were syntactic maturity and quality of expression in the experimental group. In the control group, syntactic maturity improved significantly more than in the experimental group. When pre and post test differences were examined for both groups, only syntactic maturity was significant. However, the gain score was greater for the control group than for the experimental group. The students\u27 home language had a significant effect on syntactic maturity but not on any other variable. Thematic maturity approached significance and should be considered when practical applications are discussed. Examination of the results of the social skills measures revealed that no significant differences were evident in any area. There were no significant effects on the parent, student or teacher rating measures either by the social skills training or the writing instruction. The home language of the students had no effect on the social skills measures

Proposed statements on quality control standards : System of quality control for a CPA firm\u27s accounting and auditing practice, and Monitoring a CPA firm\u27s accounting and auditing practice ;System of quality control for a CPA firm\u27s accounting and auditing practice;Monitoring a CPA firm\u27s accounting and auditing practice; Exposure draft (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), 1995, Aug. 18

The Auditing Standards Board (ASB) is considering the issuance of two Statements on Quality Control Standards (SQCSs) to provide a CPA firm with improved guidance for establishing a quality control system for its accounting and auditing practice. The AICPA Division for CPA Firms SEC Practice Section Peer Review Committee and Private Companies Practice Section Peer Review Committee and the AICPA Peer Review Board (collectively the AICPA practice-monitoring committees) have observed that there is a diversity in practice and existing guidance does not address a number of issues CPA firms should consider in establishing a quality control system and suggested the ASB perform a comprehensive review of the existing quality control standard. The proposed standards have been developed based on the recommendations of the Joint Task Force on Quality Control Standards, which was formed to develop general guidance for a system of quality control. In addition to ASB representation, the task force is composed of representatives of the AICPA practice-monitoring committees, the AICPA Management Consulting Services Executive Committee, the AICPA Personal Financial Planning Executive Committee and the AICPA Tax Executive Committee. Although the latter three committees have representatives on the joint task force, the system of quality control described in the exposure drafts would be required only for a firm\u27s accounting and auditing practice. The AICPA practice-monitoring committees have reviewed the exposure drafts and have advised the ASB that, although modifications will need to be made to their peer review programs, these changes are not expected to result in an expansion of peer review to services provided beyond a firm\u27s accounting and auditing practice. The proposed general standard redefines a firm\u27s accounting and auditing practice to include all audit, attest, and accounting and review services for which professional standards have been established by the ASB or the Accounting and Review Services Committee under rules 201 and 202 of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. The definition of a firm\u27s accounting and auditing practice would include engagements performed under Statements on Standards for Attestation Standards issued by the ASB. These standards had not been issued when SQCS No. I, System of Quality Control for a CPA Firm, was promulgated. While not establishing any new elements of quality control, the proposed standards would replace the nine specific elements discussed in SQCS No. 1 with five broad elements. While many aspects of the previous nine elements have been retained, the following discussion highlights significant changes: 1. Independence, Integrity, and Objectivity — This element replaces the SQCS No. 1 element of Independence. It provides added emphasis on the importance of these matters to a firm\u27s quality control system and provides a description of the concept of independence. 2. Personnel Management — This element combines the previous four elements of Hiring, Advancement, Assigning Personnel to Engagements, and Professional Development to emphasize their interrelationship, since the goal of each is to have personnel performing, supervising, and reviewing work who possess the characteristics of integrity, objectivity, competence, experience, intelligence, and motivation. This element adds a requirement for firms to establish policies and procedures to meet the continuing professional education requirements of the AICPA and regulatory agencies such as state boards of accountancy and the U.S. General Accounting Office. 3. Acceptance and Continuance of Clients and Engagements — SQCS No. 1 limited the Acceptance and Continuance of Clients element to a discussion of the need to consider the integrity of management in the acceptance and continuance of clients. This element has been broadened to include consideration of the acceptance of client engagements (as opposed to a client relationship) to ensure a firm has in place policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that the firm will undertake only those engagements that can be completed with professional competence. A requirement has also been included that policies and procedures provide for obtaining an understanding with the client regarding the nature, scope, and limitations of the services to be performed. 4. Engagement Performance — The practice-monitoring committees have found that practitioners often confused the existing Supervision element with the supervision requirements of the first standard of field work under generally accepted auditing standards. The retitled element includes the SQCS No. 1 elements of Supervision and Consultation and discusses a firm\u27s need to establish policies and procedures to cover planning, performing, supervising, reviewing, documenting, and communicating the results of each engagement in accordance with applicable professional standards. 5. Monitoring — This element encompasses and expands the prior Inspection element. Inspection has been deemed to be a retroactive evaluation of compliance with professional standards and review of the continuing appropriateness of a firm\u27s quality control 990 policies and procedures and the firm\u27s compliance with them. Monitoring involves an ongoing consideration and evaluation relating to the design and application of each of the other elements of quality control. The proposed monitoring standard describes how inspection procedures contribute to the monitoring function. It also describes other procedures or activities that can contribute to the monitoring function. These proposed Statements would supersede SQCS No. 1 and its interpretations in their entirety. Issuance of the proposed Statements would also require the Guide Quality Control Policies and Procedures for CPA Firms: Establishing Quality Control Policies and Procedures (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 2, QC sec. 90) to be updated. As a result of the issuance of these Statements and updating the Guide, firms with well-established quality control systems should not have to make significant modifications to their policies and procedures.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1614/thumbnail.jp

Evidence-based design: theoretical and practical reflections of an emerging approach in office architecture

Evidence-based design is a practice that has emerged only relatively recently, inspired by a growing popularity of evidence-based approaches in other professions such as medicine. It has received greatest attention in design for the health sector, but has received less in office architecture, although this would seem not only to be beneficial for clients, but increasingly important in a changing business environment. This paper outlines the history and origins of evidence-based practice, its influence in the health sector, as well as some of the reasons why it has been found more difficult to apply in office architecture. Based on these theoretical reflections, data and experiences from several research case studies in diverse workplace environments are presented following a three part argument: firstly we show how organisational behaviours may change as a result of an organisation moving into a new building; secondly we argue that not all effects of space on organisations are consistent. Examples of both consistent and inconsistent results are presented, giving possible reasons for differences in outcomes. Thirdly, practical implications of evidence-based design are made and difficulties for evidence-based practice, for example the problem of investment of time, are reflected on. The paper concludes that organisations may be distinguished according to both their spatial and transpatial structure (referring to a concept initially introduced by Hillier and Hanson in their study of societies). This means that evidence-based design in office architecture needs to recognise that it deals with a multiplicity of possible organisational forms, with specific clients requiring case-dependent research and evidence gathering. In this evidence-based design practice differs markedly from evidence-based medicine. Finally, we suggest a framework for systematic review inclusion criteria in the development of Evidence-Based Design as a field of practice. We argue that it is only through the development of an approach tailored to the specific nature of design practice and organisational function that research evidence can properly be brought to bear

Evidence-Based Design: Theoretical and Practical Reflections of an Emerging Approach in Office Architecture

Evidence-based design is a practice that has emerged only relatively recently, inspired by a growing popularity of evidence-based approaches in other professions such as medicine. It has received greatest attention in design for the health sector, but has received less in office architecture, although this would seem not only to be beneficial for clients, but increasingly important in a changing business environment. This paper outlines the history and origins of evidence-based practice, its influence in the health sector, as well as some of the reasons why it has been found more difficult to apply in office architecture. Based on these theoretical reflections, data and experiences from several research case studies in diverse workplace environments are presented following a three part argument: firstly we show how organisational behaviours may change as a result of an organisation moving into a new building; secondly we argue that not all effects of space on organisations are consistent. Examples of both consistent and inconsistent results are presented, giving possible reasons for differences in outcomes. Thirdly, practical implications of evidence-based design are made and difficulties for evidence-based practice, for example the problem of investment of time, are reflected on. The paper concludes that organisations may be distinguished according to both their spatial and transpatial structure (referring to a concept initially introduced by Hillier and Hanson in their study of societies). This means that evidence-based design in office architecture needs to recognise that it deals with a multiplicity of possible organisational forms, with specific clients requiring case-dependent research and evidence gathering. In this evidence-based design practice differs markedly from evidence-based medicine. Finally, we suggest a framework for systematic review inclusion criteria in the development of Evidence-Based Design as a field of practice. We argue that it is only through the development of an approach tailored to the specific nature of design practice and organisational function that research evidence can properly be brought to bear. Keywords: Architecture; Design Practice; Evidence-Based Design; Workplace; Research; Case Study.</p

AS-470-96 Resolution on 1995-96 Program Review and Improvement Committee Report of Findings and Recommendations

Accepts 1995-96 PRAIC report of program findings and recommendations