Student midwives'views of caseloading: the BUMP study

In 2007 the Nursing and Midwifery Council recommended that across the UK all pre-registration, undergraduate student midwives should, as part of their education, have the opportunity to experience continuity of care through caseloading practice. This article reports on a qualitative exploration of student midwives’ views of caseloading a known group of women, which formed part of a larger action research project through Bournemouth University’s pre-registration, undergraduate midwifery programme. Analysis of the caseloading data revealed four themes: preparation to undertake a caseload; knowing your mentor; tri-partite meetings; and relevance of caseloading to their learning in becoming midwives. Caseloading was identified by the students as being a highly valuable learning experience. Attitudes of the midwife mentor and link tutor were seen as important and impacted on student confidence in preparing for, and learning from, their caseloading experience. Findings of this study highlight the importance of developing a shared understanding and commitment to agreed support mechanisms, which sustains and enriches the experience of the student through their caseloading

On the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of Lucas: Making or Breaking the Takings Claim

In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the United States Supreme Court established the premier categorical regulatory takings standard with certain limited exceptions. The Lucas rule establishes that private property owners are entitled to compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause when a government regulation “denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.” Today, Lucas remains the controlling law on categorical regulatory takings. But in application, how much does Lucas still matter? My review of more than 1,600 cases in state and federal court reveals only twenty-seven cases in twenty-five years in which courts found a categorical regulatory taking under Lucas. By percentage, that works out to a Lucas claim success rate of just 1.6 percent. This does not mean Lucas is unimportant, however. Rather, the paucity of successful Lucas claims itself tells a significant story about the importance of pleading takings claims. I contend that Lucas’ most enduring value is not its contribution to the positive law but rather its effect on how litigants shape their cases. A crucial aspect of the Lucas categorical regulatory takings analysis has been, and will continue to be, the problem of defining the denominator in the regulatory takings equation. My research suggests that Lucas’ holding incentivizes the private contractual agreements entered into by property owners to shrink the takings denominator and tilt the scales slightly in favor of the plaintiff. The ability of a property owner to reduce the denominator remains the loadstar for a Lucas case-winning strategy. This is important for not only theorists but also for practitioners to know — those who litigate and conduct transactions in Lucas’ shadow

Meet the Editors in Chief

This panel will provide an opportunity for the Editors-in- Chief of a wide variety of IS journals to briefly introduce themselves and state their journal\u27s missions, as well as any recent changes in the journal. Following the introductions, each editor will go to a separate table where he/she will have copies of recent journals and pamphlets about the journal and will be available for Q&A with attendees to the session

Drinking from a Deep Well: The Public Trust Doctrine and Western Water Law

American water law reflects the diverse geography and population patterns of this expansive country.1 In the eastern states, where water is rather abundant, the doctrine of riparian rights dominates water law.2 The arid western states, in contrast, rejected the doctrine of riparian rights in favor of the doctrine of prior appropriation due to a natural scarcity of water and increasing population growth.3 The western states provide fertile ground to consider the burdens of a rapidly growing region on already scarce water resources.4 My thesis is that the public trust doctrine is being underutilized by the states and that the optimal approach to the western states’ water scarcity dilemma is one that applies the public trust doctrine more aggressively while simultaneously diminishing the applicability of the prior appropriation doctrine with its inherently private property approach to water resource entitlement.5 There are two ways to conceptualize a more robust public trust doctrine. The first is to expand the waters that are subject to the public trust doctrine, essentially an expansion of location. The second way is to increase the doctrine’s reach to include additional purposes and uses within the protection of the doctrine. I recommend extending the public trust doctrine to encompass all bodies of water serving the public welfare, even minimally.6 I also support expanding public trust purposes, even though much of this Article’s focus concerns making the case for expanding the geographical scope of the doctrine

Procedures for Determining Children\u27s Book Choices: Comparison and Criticism

Near the end of the nineteenth century the scientific investigation into children\u27s interests first emerged. Since then many studies have been carried out to determine children\u27s reading interests. The procedures chosen for the collection of data have been almost as multitudinous as the studies. Equally important, the kind of information one obtains may depend to a large degree on the data collection procedure selected. The central purpose of this study was to compare results obtained from two methods of data collection used to evaluate children\u27s reading interests