Organisational Problems and Solutions in Oncology: A Content Analysis of the Narratives of Italian Cancer Unit Professionals

The aim of this qualitative research is to explore the perception of the organizational climate in Italian cancer units. The survey was the first step of a two year action-research project, involving 14 hospitals and different professions (n=475). We report the methodology and the thematic clusters that emerged in analysing the answers to three questions: (i) perceived problems with colleagues, (ii) perceived problems with patients and their relatives, and (iii) coping strategies. Narratives were analysed through computer aided qualitative data analysis software. The results identify two main significant issues in describing problems and solutions: interpersonal communication and group cohesiveness

Anxiety Scale Questionnaire: analisi fattoriale esplorativa con variazione delle alternative di risposta.

ItAvendo esaminato la letteratura sul concetto di ansia, ho proposto ad un campione di 400 soggetti (anni 20-29) lo Anxiety Scale Questionarie (ASQ). Usando come referenti Delgado e Pieto (1998), Boncori (1993), Duncan (1983), Kolstad, Kolstad e Wagner (1985-86), Kline (1996), Sidick, Barrett e Doverspike (1994) e Nunnally (1978) ho strutturato cinque alternative di risposta, anziché le tre originali. Usando come referenti Boncori (1993), Comrey e Lee (1995), Kline (1997) e Kline e Barrett (1983), con un’analisi fattoriale esplorativa (con rotazione Varimax), ho elaborato la struttura del test ottenendo due fattori (ho calcolato i coefficienti di fedeltà). I risultati ricavati sembrano confermare l’utilità del metodo delle plurime risposte in tutti i soggetti, la struttura bifattoriale risulta debole e conferma il fattore unico di ansia.EnHaving examined literature about anxiety, i proposed the Anxiety Scale Questionnarie (ASQ) to a group of 400 subjects (age 20-29). Using as references Delgado e Pieto (1998), Boncori (1993), Duncan (1983), Kolstad, Kolstad e Wagner (1985-86), Kline (1996), Sidick, Barrett e Doverspike (1994) e Nunnally (1978), structured five levels of answering preference, instead the three originals. Using as references Boncori (1993), Comrey and Lee (1995), Kline (1997), Kline and Barrett (1983), with a factorial explorative analysis (Varimax Rotation), elaborated the strutture of the test with two factors (the index of reliability was calculated). The results seem to indicate the validity of the multiple answer method in all subjects, the double factorial structure results soft and confìrmed the unique anxiety factor

Formula over Function? From Algorithms to Values in Judicial Evaluation

This paper discusses the forms and effects of the &lsquo;invasion&rsquo; of the &lsquo;temples of the law&rsquo; by new economic and managerial forms of performance evaluation. While traditional judicial evaluation focused on how to select and promote individual judges and on the legal quality of the single case, new quantitative methods and formulas are being introduced to assess efficiency, productivity and timeliness of judges and courts. Building on two case studies, from Spain and the Netherlands, the paper illustrates two contrasting approaches to judicial performance evaluation. On the one hand individual judges' productivity is evaluated through quantitative data and mathematical algorithms: in the extreme case considered here, judge's remuneration was adjusted accordingly. On the other hand quantitative and qualitative data, collected by a variety of methods and theoretical frameworks, are used as the basis of a multi-layered negotiation process designed to find a synthesis between competing economic, legal and social values aimed at improving overall organizational performance. Considering the flaws of unidimensional measurement and evaluation systems and considering the incommensurability of the results of the multiple evaluative frameworks (economic, legal, sociological) required to overcome such flaws, the authors argue there is a need for political dialogue between relevant players in order to allocate the values appropriate to judicial evaluation. Este art&iacute;culo analiza las formas y efectos de la &ldquo;invasi&oacute;n&rdquo; de los &ldquo;templos de la ley&rdquo; por nuevas formas econ&oacute;micas y de gesti&oacute;n como la evaluaci&oacute;n del rendimiento. Mientras que la evaluaci&oacute;n judicial tradicional se ha centrado en la forma de seleccionar y promocionar a jueces individuales, y en la calidad jur&iacute;dica de un caso individual, hoy en d&iacute;a se est&aacute;n introduciendo nuevos m&eacute;todos cuantitativos y f&oacute;rmulas para determinar la eficiencia, productividad y oportunidad de jueces y tribunales. A partir de dos estudios de caso de Espa&ntilde;a y los Pa&iacute;ses Bajos, el art&iacute;culo ilustra dos enfoques opuestos de la evaluaci&oacute;n del rendimiento judicial. Por un lado la productividad de jueces individuales se eval&uacute;a a trav&eacute;s de datos cuantitativos y algoritmos matem&aacute;ticos: en el caso extremo que se considera aqu&iacute;, la remuneraci&oacute;n del juez se ajust&oacute; en base a la evaluaci&oacute;n realizada. Por otro lado, se utilizan datos cuantitativos y cualitativos, recogidos mediante diversos m&eacute;todos y marcos te&oacute;ricos, como base de un proceso de negociaci&oacute;n en m&uacute;ltiples niveles, dise&ntilde;ado para encontrar una s&iacute;ntesis entre valores econ&oacute;micos, legales y sociales, destinados a mejorar el rendimiento general de la organizaci&oacute;n. Teniendo en cuenta los defectos de los sistemas de medici&oacute;n y evaluaci&oacute;n unidimensionales, y considerando la inconmensurabilidad de los resultados de los marcos de evaluaci&oacute;n m&uacute;ltiples (econ&oacute;micos, jur&iacute;dicos, sociol&oacute;gicos) que se requieren para superar esos defectos, los autores sostienen que hay una necesidad de di&aacute;logo pol&iacute;tico entre los actores implicados para asignar valores adecuados a la evaluaci&oacute;n judicial. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2533902</p

Pills, politics, and pitfalls : The food and drug administration during the Reagan years

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Trace and Rare Earth Elements chemistry of detrital garnets in the SE Alps and Outer Dinarides flysch basins: an important tool to better define the source areas of sandstones

Garnet is one of the most abundant heavy minerals present in the Cretaceous \u2013 Eocene flysch deposits of the Southeastern Alps and Outer Dinarides (Julian, Brkini and Istrian basins). About 300 detrital garnets from the Cretaceous-Eocene flysch deposits of the Southeastern Alps have been analysed by means of electron microprobe and LA-ICP-MS. In the Julian and Istrian basins, supplies are from amphibolite-facies rocks and mafic and ultramafic metamorphic rocks, while in the Brkini basin the latter are almost missing. Moreover, in the Julian and Istrian basins, supplies from skarns, very low-grade metabasites, or from ultra-high temperature metamorphosed calc-silicate granulites are present. Among these different groups, LA-ICP-MS analyses showed that trace element content can be very different in almandine-rich garnets from the different sources. In particular, the source that supplied the Julian Basin is significantly different from that of the Istrian Basin. From the Cretaceous to the Palaeocene the main supplies of Bi-type garnets derived from an area where feldspar-free garnet-bearing rocks were exposed. Successively, Bi-type garnets were supplied from an area where feldspar-garnet-bearing rocks were exposed. The presence of garnets from feldspar-free garnet-bearing rocks in the Brkini and Istrian basins can be ascribed to both recycling of material from the Julian Basin as well as direct input from the same areas that supplied the Julian Basi

How Many Cases? Assessing the Comparability of EU Judicial Datasets

Efficiency is often considered a key component of any effective justice system, and a crucial drive for economic growth. A growing body of comparative studies explores how judicial reforms leading to a greater efficiency or effectiveness are positively correlated with economic growth (e.g. Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum, Doing Business Report of the World Bank, Judicial Reforms in Europe Report of the ENCJ, The Economics of Civil Justice of the OECD). At EU level, the European Commission has launched tools like the EU Justice Scoreboard to help the Member States to improve the effectiveness of their justice systems. This instrument, in particular, has been created to help EU Member Stares upholding more effective justice and, in particular, to measure and compare the efficiency of EU justice systems. The belief is that more effective and efficient justice systems will drive stronger economic growth, since “effective justice systems are a prerequisite for an investment and business friendly environment” (EU Justice Scoreboard 2016, p. 1). Efficiency and effectiveness are just two, out of several, basic features of justice systems. An efficient (or effective) justice system could potentially suffer from a lack of an independent judiciary and/or miss fairness of procedures and quality of judicial service. This paper, though, does not want to challenge the efficiency approach on these grounds. The researchers aim to check to what extent the data on efficiency used in academic and political discourses that are provided by the Scoreboard is sound enough to make empirically grounded statements in a valid comparative format among the Member States. In a simplified (but not simplistic) way, efficiency can be defined as the ratio between inputs (resources) and outputs (decisions) of the system. While formally aiming to measure and compare efficiency of Member States’ justice systems, the EU-Justice Scoreboard does not link inputs and outputs indicators to for this purpose. Furthermore, we argue that any attempt to make cross-country comparisons is affected by the comparability of the data sets used for the purpose. Another scholar presenting his proposal at this conference, Marco Fabri, explores the question of the comparability of human resources data (judges) that in labour intensive organisation like courts can be considered as the key production factor (“Too few judges” paper). This paper explores a different area, complementing Fabri’s work. The researchers choose to explore the case-flow indicators presented by the Scoreboard which bases its analysis on the number of incoming, pending and resolved cases. The number of cases a court system manages to handle in a year is often considered emblematic for its efficiency. In Europe, the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe is the primary collector of such data, which is published in the “CEPEJ Evaluation of European Judicial Systems Report”. The same data is also used by the EU Justice Scoreboard and by many other academic and policy documents. The analysis will deal with the comparability of these data and show that such comparability cannot be taken for granted. It will assess if the definition of “case”, of the different “case types” and of their status (incoming, pending and resolved) is consistent across the different Member States. It will check if national peculiarities make the comparison between apparently identical groups of cases unreliable or inconsistent. Previous analysis suggests that the comparability of such data is critical in many areas, such as the consistency of the answers across time (at state level), and between countries within the same period. The paper will show how the data provided by the Member States to fill apparently simple categories of cases like small claim, and litigious or non-litigious cases vary, making a comparison at least problematic. This finding, together with similar problems associated with measuring the number of judges, suggest caution should be exercised in the use of such indicators for comparative purpose among justice systems in the academic and political debate