Lecture archiving on a larger scale at the University of Michigan and CERN

The ATLAS Collaboratory Project at the University of Michigan has been a leader in the area of collaborative tools since 1999. Its activities include the development of standards, software and hardware tools for lecture archiving, and making recommendations for videoconferencing and remote teaching facilities. Starting in 2006 our group became involved in classroom recordings, and in early 2008 we spawned CARMA, a University-wide recording service. This service uses a new portable recording system that we developed. Capture, archiving and dissemination of rich multimedia content from lectures, tutorials and classes are increasingly widespread activities among universities and research institutes. A growing array of related commercial and open source technologies is becoming available, with several new products introduced in the last couple years. As the result of a new close partnership between U-M and CERN IT, a market survey of these products was conducted and a summary of the results are presented here. It is informing an ambitious effort in 2009 to equip many CERN rooms with automated lecture archiving systems, on a much larger scale than before. This new technology is being integrated with CERN's existing webcast, CDS, and Indico applications.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/85420/1/jpconf10_219_082003.pd

Social-ecological system resilience for WASH

In a rapidly changing world, WASH services are often exposed to a range of unpredictable social, environmental, economic, and physical disturbances that disrupt WASH access. Social-ecological system (SES) resilience thinking can inform WASH service delivery approaches that adapt to changing conditions in order to sustain access for users rather than resist change. In this chapter, we familiarize readers with SES resilience thinking and consider its application to WASH services. We outline three key processes that practitioners can follow to get themselves and other stakeholders into an SES resilience mindset: mapping WASH systems, considering SES resilience principles, and identifying areas for interventions. We provide illustrative examples and resources to assist practitioners in thinking about how SES resilience concepts can be used to plan for WASH services that are flexible and adaptive. We also consider some limitations and pitfalls to SES resilience concepts to encourage readers to take a critical approach

An Initiative To Assess and Improve the Resources and Patient Care Processes Used Among Chest Wall Injury Society Collaborative Centers (CWIS-CC2)

Background Over the last two decades, the acute management of rib fractures has changed significantly. In 2021, the Chest Wall injury Society (CWIS) began recognizing centers who epitomize their mission as CWIS Collaborative Centers (CWIS-CC). The primary aim of this study was to determine the resources, surgical expertise, access to care, and institutional support that are present among centers. Methods A survey was performed including all CWIS-CC evaluating the resources available at their hospital for the treatment of patients with chest wall injury. Data about each Chest Wall Injury Center (CWIC) care process, availability of resources, institutional support, research support, and educational offerings were recorded. Results Data was collected from 20 trauma centers resulting in an 80% response rate. These trauma centers were made up of 5 international and 15 US based trauma centers. Eighty percent (16/20) have dedicated care team members for the evaluation and management of rib fractures. Twenty-five percent (5/20) have a dedicated rib fracture service with a separate call schedule. Staffing for chest wall injury clinics consists of a multidisciplinary team: with attending surgeons in all clinics, 80%(8/10) with APPs and 70%(7/10) with care coordinators. Forty percent(8/20) of centers have dedicated rib fracture research support and 35%(7/20) have SSRF-related grants. Forty percent (8/20) of centers have marketing support and 30%(8/20) have a web page support to bring awareness to their center. At these trauma centers, a median of 4(1-9) surgeons perform surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF). In the majority of trauma centers the trauma surgeons perform SSRF. Conclusions Considerable similarities and differences exist within these CWIS collaborative centers. These differences in resources are hypothesis generating in determining the optimal CWIC. These findings may generate several patient care and team process questions to optimize patient care, patient experience, provider satisfaction, research productivity, education, and outreach. Level of Evidence IV Economic & Value-Based Evaluation