The Real Debate over the Senate’s Role in the Confirmation Process

The five Supreme Court nominations between 2005 and 2010 brought renewed attention to the Senate’s role in the confirmation process. This Note explores the debate over the Senate’s proper role in that process. First, this Note summarizes and clarifies the two traditional views of the Senate’s role, classifying them as the assertive view and the deferential view, and offers a new framework for understanding these views. This Note then traces the traditional arguments made by proponents of these views. It first examines the historical arguments, both from original understanding and historical practice; it then turns to pragmatic arguments about which view better accomplishes the purposes of the Senate’s participation in the confirmation process. Neither the historical arguments nor the pragmatic arguments resolve the issue of which approach to the confirmation process is better. By recounting these arguments, however, this Note reveals the underlying—and unspoken—difference between adherents of the assertive view and adherents of the deferential view: their conceptions of the relationship between law and politics differ widely. Adherents of the assertive view can fall on either end of a spectrum in understanding the relationship between law and politics. For some adherents of the assertive view, law is completely distinct from politics, so they believe senators should carefully ensure that judicial nominees understand this distinction and should vote only for those nominees who do and will respect it. For other adherents of the assertive view, law and politics are two sides of the same coin, so they think senators should aggressively inquire into the views of judicial nominees and should vote only for those nominees whose views comport with their own. Either way, the assertive view results in the same role for the Senate in the confirmation process. Adherents of the deferential view, by contrast, fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, believing that law is underdetermined and is shaped, but not totally controlled, by politics. Adherents of this view make certain that nominees have reasonable legal views, but they are more willing to vote to confirm nominees whose views differ from their own. This Note brings this important difference to the forefront in hopes of promoting more meaningful discussions about the Senate’s role in the confirmation process

Enabling occupational therapy students to take a fresh approach to psychosis

This practice evaluation describes the implementation of a 2-day workshop on psychosis with third-year undergraduate occupational therapy students at Brunel University. The work was undertaken by the teaching team at Brunel University, a clinical psychologist working in assertive outreach and an occupational therapist working in community mental health. The background to the project and the way in which the 2-day workshop was adapted to accommodate the university timetable are outlined. An evaluation of the workshop, its place in the occupational therapy programme and the feedback from students are presented

The Real Debate over the Senate’s Role in the Confirmation Process

The five Supreme Court nominations between 2005 and 2010 brought renewed attention to the Senate’s role in the confirmation process. This Note explores the debate over the Senate’s proper role in that process. First, this Note summarizes and clarifies the two traditional views of the Senate’s role, classifying them as the assertive view and the deferential view, and offers a new framework for understanding these views. This Note then traces the traditional arguments made by proponents of these views. It first examines the historical arguments, both from original understanding and historical practice; it then turns to pragmatic arguments about which view better accomplishes the purposes of the Senate’s participation in the confirmation process. Neither the historical arguments nor the pragmatic arguments resolve the issue of which approach to the confirmation process is better. By recounting these arguments, however, this Note reveals the underlying—and unspoken—difference between adherents of the assertive view and adherents of the deferential view: their conceptions of the relationship between law and politics differ widely. Adherents of the assertive view can fall on either end of a spectrum in understanding the relationship between law and politics. For some adherents of the assertive view, law is completely distinct from politics, so they believe senators should carefully ensure that judicial nominees understand this distinction and should vote only for those nominees who do and will respect it. For other adherents of the assertive view, law and politics are two sides of the same coin, so they think senators should aggressively inquire into the views of judicial nominees and should vote only for those nominees whose views comport with their own. Either way, the assertive view results in the same role for the Senate in the confirmation process. Adherents of the deferential view, by contrast, fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, believing that law is underdetermined and is shaped, but not totally controlled, by politics. Adherents of this view make certain that nominees have reasonable legal views, but they are more willing to vote to confirm nominees whose views differ from their own. This Note brings this important difference to the forefront in hopes of promoting more meaningful discussions about the Senate’s role in the confirmation process

Enhancing assertive community treatment with cognitive behavioral social skills training for schizophrenia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundSchizophrenia leads to profound disability in everyday functioning (e.g., difficulty finding and maintaining employment, housing, and personal relationships). Medications can effectively reduce positive symptoms (e.g., hallucinations and delusions), but they do not meaningfully improve daily life functioning. Psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs) improve functioning, but these EBPs are not available to most people with schizophrenia. The field must close the research and service delivery gap by adapting EBPs for schizophrenia to facilitate widespread implementation in community settings. Our hybrid effectiveness and implementation study represents an initiative to bridge this divide. In this study we will test whether an existing EBP (i.e., Cognitive Behavioral Social Skills Training (CBSST)) modified to work in practice settings (i.e., Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams) commonly available to persons with schizophrenia results in better consumer outcomes. We will also identify key factors relevant to developing future CBSST implementation strategies.Methods/designFor the effectiveness study component, persons with schizophrenia will be recruited from existing publicly funded ACT teams operating in community settings. Participants will be randomized to one of the 2 treatments (ACT alone or ACT + Adapted CBSST) and followed longitudinally for 18 months with assessments every 18 weeks after baseline (5 in total). The primary outcome domain is psychosocial functioning (e.g., everyday living skills and activities related to employment, education, and housing) as measured by self-report, testing, and observation. Additional outcome domains of interest include mediators of change in functioning, symptoms, and quality of services. Primary analyses will be conducted using linear mixed-effects models for continuous data. The implementation study component consists of a structured, mixed qualitative-quantitative methodology (i.e., Concept Mapping) to characterize and assess the implementation experience from multiple stakeholder perspectives in order to inform future implementation initiatives.DiscussionAdapting CBSST to fit into the ACT service delivery context found throughout the United States creates an opportunity to substantially increase the number of persons with schizophrenia who could have access to and benefit from EBPs. As part of the implementation learning process training materials and treatment workbooks have been revised to promote easier use of CBSST in the context of brief community-based ACT visits.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02254733 . Date of registration: 25 April 2014

Implementation of TeamSTEPPS

This scholarly project focused on implementing Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) in an emergency room (ER). The aim of TeamSTEPPS is to improve patient outcomes by educating healthcare professionals on communication and teamwork skills. TeamSTEPPS teaches healthcare professionals leadership skills, shared mental models, mutual trust, and closed loop communication. The purpose of the scholarly project was to improve teamwork and communication. The study method was descriptive analysis of 51 pre and posttest questionnaires, specifically looking for increased knowledge of TeamSTEPPS tools. The participants included: ER physicians, ER nurses, ER certified nursing assistants/health unit coordinators, a pharmacy technician, public safety officers, and patient revenue management organization (PRMO). Further research is needed to evaluate how to significantly increase staff knowledge on TeamSTEPPS tools in a class setting

Assertive modesty: an economics of intangibles

At the center of our Symposium stand two papers: A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs (Manifesto) and Legal Hybrids: Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms (Legal Hybrids). Both are stimulating. Both are lengthy. As a result, my primary role is that of a guide: this Comment will summarize the authors\u27 proposals, analyze certain aspects in greater detail, and outline their explicit and implicit methodologies. Part I of the Comment describes the papers\u27 positions and methodologies. Part II highlights some of the papers\u27 many contributions to the literature, and offers some other evaluative observations

Learning from Other Communities

This paper reflects a synopsis of the work in person/family-centered planning representative of its implementation across a variety of disability service systems, including prisons, schools, community-based service agencies and institutional settings. The authors who have contributed to this paper have direct experience in the field working with individuals who have disability labels of severe and persistent mental illness, mental retardation and developmental disabilities, and learning disabilities. It is their hope that this paper will serve to guide the emerging best practice in the design and delivery of person-centered service delivery systems

Four facets of a process modeling facilitator

Business process modeling as a practice and research field has received great attention in recent years. However, while related artifacts such as models, tools or grammars have substantially matured, comparatively little is known about the activities that are conducted as part of the actual act of process modeling. Especially the key role of the modeling facilitator has not been researched to date. In this paper, we propose a new theory-grounded, conceptual framework describing four facets (the driving engineer, the driving artist, the catalyzing engineer, and the catalyzing artist) that can be used by a facilitator. These facets with behavioral styles have been empirically explored via in-depth interviews and additional questionnaires with experienced process analysts. We develop a proposal for an emerging theory for describing, investigating, and explaining different behaviors associated with Business Process Modeling Facilitation. This theory is an important sensitizing vehicle for examining processes and outcomes from process modeling endeavors