DOE EPSCoR Initiative in Structural and computational Biology/Bioinformatics

The overall goal of the DOE EPSCoR Initiative in Structural and Computational Biology was to enhance the competiveness of Vermont research in these scientific areas. To develop self-sustaining infrastructure, we increased the critical mass of faculty, developed shared resources that made junior researchers more competitive for federal research grants, implemented programs to train graduate and undergraduate students who participated in these research areas and provided seed money for research projects. During the time period funded by this DOE initiative: (1) four new faculty were recruited to the University of Vermont using DOE resources, three in Computational Biology and one in Structural Biology; (2) technical support was provided for the Computational and Structural Biology facilities; (3) twenty-two graduate students were directly funded by fellowships; (4) fifteen undergraduate students were supported during the summer; and (5) twenty-eight pilot projects were supported. Taken together these dollars resulted in a plethora of published papers, many in high profile journals in the fields and directly impacted competitive extramural funding based on structural or computational biology resulting in 49 million dollars awarded in grants (Appendix I), a 600% return on investment by DOE, the State and University

Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 2007 Annual Report

This annual report provides details on the research conducted at the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory in Fiscal Year 2007 and path forward for capability upgrades in Fiscal Year 2008

State v. Alley Clerk\u27s Record Dckt. 40428

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/1849/thumbnail.jp

Issues Concerning the Adoption and Usage of Electronic Medical Records in Ministry of Health Hospitals in Saudi Arabia

Abstract Background:There is a lack of research with regard to understanding the factors that motivate hospitals to proceed with implementing Electronic Medical Record Systems (EMR). The Health Information Management and System Society (HIMSS) outlines eight levels of EMR implementation from 0(no implementation) to 7(full use and implementation of the system). Some hospitals proceed to implement EMR and achieve a high level of implementation, while others stop at a certain level of EMR implementation or may even regress to lower levels. Aims and Methods: This research aimed to develop a framework to understand the motivational and de-motivational factors for proceeding with EMR implementationto uncover which hospitals have implemented EMR, to which levels, and how hospitals perceive EMR. In order to accomplish this,a mixed method design was adopted including a survey and case studies of a sample of hospitals in Eastern Saudi Arabia. The three case study sites were: a large hospital located in the capital city, a medium hospital located in a town, and a small hospital located in an isolated rural area. Results: The study found that 3 out of 29 hospitals in the area had implemented EMR. Contrary to expectations, the largest hospital located in the central city had regressed from level four of EMR implementation to level one, whereas the smallest hospital located in anisolated rural location achieved the highest EMR level. It was found that there were common factors that affected all the case study sites, whileother factors varied among them. Shared factors motivating sites to adopt EMR included a desire to escape from the manual system, whereas shared de-motivational factors included funding and technical problems. As these factors were common across sites at different levels of implementation, it is suggested that they do not sufficiently explain the variance in implementation level. It is argued that factors which varied between sites, however, may shed more light on the main motivators for implementation. For example, although there were technical problems across the sites,the way these technical problems were treated made the difference in terms of the success of the implementation. Additionally, top management commitment, users’ involvement in the EMR development and other factors varying between sites appeared to make the difference in the implementation’s success. Conclusion:The study concluded that all these common and varied factors affectedstaff attitudes toward the system. However, the site-related factors were perceived to be the main driver for the variance in the implementations. Since all site-related factors are controllable by top management, it is recommended that EMR implementation should be managed and supervised by a committee consisting of representatives from among clinical staff and IT staff. Based on this research, it is believed that such a committee is necessary for proceeding with an EMR implementation. However, there is no empirical evidence from this research about that. Therefore, it is advised that future research should find the rules, authorities and compositions of such committees that would make the committee effective