A Comparison of Laboratory and Vulnerability Evaluation Methods for the Testing Security Equipment

A facility wide security system cannot be tested without causing disruption or creating vulnerabilities within the system. To overcome this issue, individual components or equipment may be evaluated to a priori performance standard. The two common approaches to security equipment evaluations are vulnerability attacks and laboratory testing. Laboratory testing of security equipment can reduce the costs and time associated with evaluations, as well as limiting the subjectivity of the tests. Vulnerability attacks will produce more realistic evaluation results of the whole security system; nevertheless, the data obtained is dependent on the physical attributes and skill of the attackers. This study ascertained what methodology, namely laboratory testing or vulnerability testing, was the most effective. To achieve this, both testing methodologies were applied to security padlocks with expert validation. The study confirmed that if security equipment has been laboratory tested to a designed priori performance level, the degree of security vulnerability can be effectively identified. As the security padlocks demonstrated, the high level achieved in the laboratory tests correlated with a high delay factor in vulnerability testing. Such an approach to security equipment testing resulted in a reliable and valid quantitative data set that could be applied at a later stage to other similar equipment. Nevertheless, it is suggested that when considering a facility wide security system, some degree of both laboratory and vulnerability testing has to be applied as they are complimentary

Consensual security risk assessment: Overcoming bias, conflicting interests and parochialism

In a risk assessment process, insular methods of data collection and analysis may lead to an inaccurate risk assessment as stakeholders hold individual biases, conflicting interests and parochial approaches to certain risks. The article considered these issues and tested a consensual risk assessment approach that can overcome many of these issues. A staged risk assessment process was applied within an entertainment complex in the Security, and Food and Beverage Departments. Eight supervisors from the two departments participated in the study, with each participants individually interviewed on their view of predefined risks followed by the same risks discussed within a facilitated group. The study first identified a list of the twenty most important risks according to the two departmental managers. From this initial identification of risks, four supervisors from each department ranked, from highest to lowest, all twenty risks as individuals. Following this stage, the consensus activities involved four supervisors from one department who ranked all twenty risks as a group and with the aim that all participants had to agree. Finally, the consensus activity was repeated with all eight participants present. Such a staged approach allowed the various approaches and resulting outcomes from the various risk assessment methods to be compared. Such a comparison found that there was a need to gain common understanding or clear definition of risks within the group, that an individual’s assessment of a risk was driven by their own perceptions and that less important risks held a more common view, whereas higher risk had a greater diversity of views

Security risk assessment: Group approach to a consensual outcome

AS/NZS4360:2004 suggests that the risk assessment process should not be conducted or information gathered in isolation. This insular method of data collection may lead to inaccurate risk assessment, as stakeholders with vested interests may emphasise their own risks or game the risk assessment process. The study demonstrated how a consensual risk assessment approach may result in a more acceptable risk assessment outcome when compared to individual assessments. The participants were senior managers at a West Australian motel located on the West Coast Highway, Scarborough. The motel consists of four three storey blocks of units, resulting in a total of 75 units. The three main areas of the business are Reception and Management, Housekeeping and Maintenance. The participants were interviewed individually and then as a group. Two activities took place in the study, an individual identification and analysis of risks affecting the facility, followed by a consensual group analysis of the same risks. The individual risk assessment results were collated and compared to the results of the consensus group. This demonstrated that individuals over or under emphasise some risks, dependant on personal affect. The study illustrated that a consensual style of risk information collection and assessment was more acceptable to the group then assessments conducted in isolation

Further reflections on TOPKAT and Partial vs. Total Knee Replacement-response to authors

Response to: Carlson SW, Sierra RJ. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty over total knee arthroplasty: a more cost-effective strategy for treating medial compartment arthritis. Ann Transl Med 2020;8:510. Argenson JNA, Jacquet C, Ollivier M. Medial femorotibial osteoarthritis of the knee: total or partial knee replacement? Ann Transl Med 2020;8:721.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Rates of knee arthroplasty within one-year of undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in England:temporal trends, regional and age-group variation in conversion rates

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) then subsequently receiving a knee arthroplasty within one or two years, with focus on patients over the age of 60 years and regional variation. Methods Patients undergoing APM in England over 20-years (01-April-1997 to 31-March 2017) were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). The proportion of patients undergoing arthroplasty in the same knee within one or two years of APM was determined and trends were analysed over time nationally and by NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) region. Results 806,195 APM patients were eligible for analysis with at least one-year of follow up and 746,630 with two-years. The odds of arthroplasty conversion within one year increased over the study period (odds ratio [OR] 3.10 within 1-year in 2014 vs 2000; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.75–3.50). For patients undergoing APM aged 60 years or older in 2015–16, 9.9% (1689/17,043; 95% CI 9.5–10.4) underwent arthroplasty within 1-year and, in 2014–15, 16.6% (3100/18,734; 95% CI 16.0–17.1) underwent arthroplasty within 2-years. There was greater than 10-fold variation by CCG. Conclusions Over the study period, the proportion of patients undergoing arthroplasty within one-year of APM increased. In 2015–16, of patients aged 60 years or older who underwent APM, 10% subsequently underwent knee arthroplasty within one year (17% within two years in 2014–15) and there was a high level of regional variation in this outcome. The development and adoption of national treatment guidance is recommended to improve and standardise treatment selection.</p

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair [the UK Rotator Cuff Surgery (UKUFF) randomised trial]

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Barriers and enablers to the effective implementation of robotic assisted surgery

Acknowledgements We thank the participants - specialty leads, surgeons, scrub nurses, the anaesthetist, policy makers/commissioners and industry representatives - for their time, energy and invaluable insight to assist this research. We also thank Jared Torkington, Arul Immanuel, and Richard Kerr for providing a clinical review of the work prior to submission. Funding: MKC and DB were funded via an unrestricted grant (https://www.intuitive.com/en-gb) awarded by Intuitive Surgical (European Research Board). The funder had no role in the conception, design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Further considerations for placebo controls in surgical trials

© 2023. The Author(s).Peer reviewedPublisher PD