An Integrated Methodology for Developing Urban Metabolism through Pittsburgh’s Storm Waters

The existing water infrastructure in Pittsburgh, PA is vastly outdated, incorrectly sized for the changing population, detrimental to the city’s climate and the health of its citizens, and poorly equipped to handle predicted climate change trends. With the increasing population growth of urban cities as well as the increased unpredictability of climate change,, there is an increasing demand for water resources worldwide, which desperately calls for a complete reassessment of existing water management systems. Pittsburgh’s existing paved surfaces and roadways fail to take advantage of natural water mitigation strategies, and water reuse is limited at best. Currently, the region does not utilize large-scale rainwater or stormwater collection, and flash floods are becoming more prevalent. The primary mode of managing stormwater runoff is via the city’s Combined Storm Sewer system. This system is problematic, because it combines stormwater and wastewater whenever there is precipitation, which results in robust overflows of contaminated water into the three adjacent rivers. Given that these rivers are the city’s primary water supply source and water scarcity is becoming a global issue, this is an incredibly unsustainable and inefficient situation that must be rectified if the city is to combat climate change. In addition, the quality of Pittsburgh’s water must be addressed, paying attention to chemical contaminants (primarily lead), due to the aging, corrosive grey infrastructure currently in place. Unlike the majority of the United States, Pittsburgh continues to have an abundant supply of annual rainfall; thus, in order to become a more resilient city, rainwater must be utilized as a resource, stormwater must be managed separately from wastewater, and innovative, integrated design solutions must be suggested and implemented. The urban water problem in Pittsburgh will be highlighted as one requiring regional prioritization, green infrastructural solutions, and significant mitigation strategies. </p

Additional file 5: of Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

PSI Educational Program Matrix. This file highlights information covered in each session of the PSI Educational Program and provides a list of materials referenced in each session. (PDF 213 kb

Additional file 3: of Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

Post-program Evaluation Survey. This file provides the post-program survey that we administered to learn about stakeholders’ perceptions of the PSI Educational Program. (PDF 259 kb

Additional file 1: of Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

Formative Evaluation: Interview Guide. This file provides the interview guide we used for the telephone interviews to obtain a general understanding of potential PSI educational needs and assess whether similar a priori concepts should inform the survey. (PDF 168 kb

Additional file 2: of Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

Formative Evaluation: Pre-program Survey. This file provides the survey that we administered to obtain stakeholders’ input on their educational needs related to the PSIs. (PDF 169 kb

Additional file 4: of Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

Informational Sheet, Interpreting the AHRQ PSIs: A Basic Overview. This file provides the informational sheet which PSI Educational Program participants could use to help them interpret and understand the PSIs. (PDF 87 kb