Quantifying the demand-side response capability of industrial plants to participate in power system frequency control schemes

© 2015 IEEE.Efficiency and sustainability considerations have propelled changes in power and process industries. These changes, which include the increased electrification of process industries, are causing concerns about the reliability of future electricity supplies, and therefore motivate the need for a Smart Grid on an industrial scale. This paper presents a method by which process automation engineers can assess the suitability of an oil and gas plant to participate in power system frequency control services. This paper discusses the necessary specifications for an automated system that enables effective variable operation by analysing the safe operating envelope of the plant. To do that, this paper proposes a methodology to characterise the appropriate actuators, variables and limits of set-point change. This methodology is applied to a case study representing an oil processing facility. The resulting analysis indicates demandside response capability that the facility can provide without jeopardising operations on-site

Back to thiazide-diuretics for hypertension: reflections after a decade of irrational prescribing

BACKGROUND: Whether newer antihypertensive drugs, such as calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and α blockers are more effective than thiazides and β blockers in preventing coronary disease, has been debated for years. DISCUSSION: Recently several trials addressing this issue have been finalised, and they provide a convincing answer: the newer drugs are no better than the older ones. In the largest trial to date (ALLHAT), thiazide-type diuretic was found to offer advantages over newer drugs. The medical community should now be capable of reaching consensus, and recommend thiazides as the first line therapy for the treatment of hypertension. Prescribing physicians, cardiologists, drug companies and health authorities are all partly responsible for the years of irrational prescribing that we have witnessed. SUMMARY: All stakeholders should now contribute in order to achieve what is clearly in the public's interest: implementing the use of thiazides in clinical practice

Patterns of antihypertensive prescribing, discontinuation and switching among a Hong Kong Chinese population from over one million prescriptions

Hypertension is an alarming public health problem among Chinese. The present study evaluated the prescribing patterns, discontinuation and switching profiles of antihypertensive agents and their associated factors in one Hong Kong Chinese population. Data were retrieved from computerized records for patients prescribed anti-hypertensive agents in government primary care clinics of Hong Kong from January, 2004 to June, 2007. A total of 1,069,836 antihypertensive drug visits, representing 67,028 patients, were analyzed. The most commonly prescribed drugs were Calcium Channel Blockers (CCBs) (49%), b-Blockers (BBs) (46%) and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs) (19%). Thiazide diuretic prescribing was low (13%) and on the decline (14% in 2004 to 12% in 2007). Prescribing of ACEIs was rising (16% in 2004 to 23% in 2007). Patients’ age, gender, and socio-economic status were independent predictors of class of anti-hypertensive prescribed but explained less than 3.5% of the variation observed. Drug discontinuation was highest for BBs (21%) and lowest for CCBs (12%). The high rates of discontinuation in BBs remained apparent after controlling for confounding variables. Switching was less common than discontinuation and was most likely with thiazide diuretics. To summarize, prescribing of CCBs and BBs were high and that of thiazide diuretics particularly low in this Chinese population when compared with international trends. CCBs may be a particularly favorable antihypertensive treatment in Chinese, given the high discontinuation rates of BBs and international guidelines advising against the use of BBs as first-line therapy. The low use of thiazide diuretics warrants further clinical and cost effectiveness studies among Chinese

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 5. Group processes

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fifth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: In this review we address approaches to facilitate sound processes within groups that develop recommendations for health care. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTION AND ANSWER: What should WHO do to ensure appropriate group processes? Various strategies can be adopted to ensure that the group processes in play when panels are developing recommendations are inclusive, so that all voices can be heard and all arguments given fair weight, including • the use of formal consensus development methods, such at the Nominal Group Technique or the Delphi method • the selection of a group leader who is qualified and responsible for facilitating an appropriate group process

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 3. Group composition and consultation process

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the third of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: In this review we address the composition of guideline development groups and consultation processes during guideline development. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: What should be the composition of a WHO-panel that is set up to develop recommendations? The existing empirical evidence suggests that panel composition has an impact on the content of the recommendations that are made. There is limited research evidence to guide the exact composition of a panel. Based on logical arguments and the experience of other organisations we recommend the following: • Groups that develop guidelines or recommendations should be broadly composed and include important stakeholders such as consumers, health professionals that work within the relevant area, and managers or policy makers. • Groups should include or have access to individuals with the necessary technical skills, including information retrieval, systematic reviewing, health economics, group facilitation, project management, writing and editing. • Groups should include or have access to content experts. • To work well a group needs an effective leader, capable of guiding the group in terms of the task and process, and capable of facilitating collaboration and balanced contribution from all of the group members. • Because many group members will not be familiar with the methods and processes that are used in developing recommendations, groups should be offered training and support to help ensure understanding and facilitate active participation. What groups should be consulted when a panel is being set up? We did not identify methodological research that addressed this question, but based on logical arguments and the experience of other organisations we recommend that as many relevant stakeholder groups as practical should be consulted to identify suitable candidates with an appropriate mix of perspectives, technical skills and expertise, as well as to obtain a balanced representation with respect to regions and gender. What methods should WHO use to ensure appropriate consultations? We did not find any references that addressed issues related to this question. Based on logical arguments and the experience of other organisations we believe that consultations may be desirable at several stages in the process of developing guidelines or recommendations, including: • Identifying and setting priorities for guidelines and recommendations • Commenting on the scope of the guidelines or recommendations • Commenting on the evidence that is used to inform guidelines or recommendations • Commenting on drafts of the guidelines or recommendations • Commenting on plans for disseminating and supporting the adaptation and implementation of the guidelines or recommendations. • Key stakeholder organisations should be contacted directly whenever possible. • Consultation processes should be transparent and should encourage feedback from interested parties

Implementing telephone triage in general practice: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Telephone triage represents one strategy to manage demand for face-to-face GP appointments in primary care. However, limited evidence exists of the challenges GP practices face in implementing telephone triage. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation alongside a UK-based cluster randomised trial (ESTEEM) which compared the impact of GP-led and nurse-led telephone triage with usual care on primary care workload, cost, patient experience, and safety for patients requesting a same-day GP consultation. The aim of the process study was to provide insights into the observed effects of the ESTEEM trial from the perspectives of staff and patients, and to specify the circumstances under which triage is likely to be successfully implemented. Here we report perspectives of staff. Methods: The intervention comprised implementation of either GP-led or nurse-led telephone triage for a period of 2-3 months. A qualitative evaluation was conducted using staff interviews recruited from eight general practices (4 GP triage, 4 Nurse triage) in the UK, implementing triage as part of the ESTEEM trial. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 44 staff members in GP triage and nurse triage practices (16 GPs, 8 nurses, 7 practice managers, 13 administrative staff). Results: Staff reported diverse experiences and perceptions regarding the implementation of telephone triage, its effects on workload, and on the benefits of triage. Such diversity were explained by the different ways triage was organised, the staffing models used to support triage, how the introduction of triage was communicated across practice staff, and by how staff roles were reconfigured as a result of implementing triage. Conclusion: The findings from the process evaluation offer insight into the range of ways GP practices participating in ESTEEM implemented telephone triage, and the circumstances under which telephone triage can be successfully implemented beyond the context of a clinical trial. Staff experiences and perceptions of telephone triage are shaped by the way practices communicate with staff, prepare for and sustain the changes required to implement triage effectively, as well as by existing practice culture, and staff and patient behaviour arising in response to the changes made. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662. Registered 28 May 2009

Change in antihypertensive drug prescribing after guideline implementation: a controlled before and after study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Antihypertensive drug choices and treatment levels are not in accordance with the existing guidelines. We aimed to assess the impact of a guideline implementation intervention on antihypertensive drug prescribing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this controlled before and after study, the effects of a multifaceted (education, audit and feedback, local care pathway) quality programme was evaluated. The intervention was carried out in a health centre between 2002 and 2003. From each health care unit (n = 31), a doctor-nurse pair was trained to act as peer facilitators in the intervention.</p> <p>All antihypertensive drugs prescribed by 25 facilitator general practitioners (intervention GPs) and 53 control GPs were retrieved from the nationwide Prescription Register for three-month periods in 2001 and 2003. The proportions of patients receiving specific antihypertensive drugs and multiple antihypertensive drugs were measured before and after the intervention for three subgroups of hypertension patients: hypertension only, with coronary heart disease, and with diabetes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all subgroups, the use of multiple concurrent medications increased. For intervention patients with hypertension only, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.99, 1.25; p = 0.06) and for controls 1.13 (1.05, 1.21; p = 0.002). We observed no statistically significant differences in the change in the prescribing of specific antihypertensive agents between the intervention and control groups. The use of agents acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system increased in all subgroups (hypertension only intervention patients OR 1.19 (1.06, 1.34; p = 0.004) and controls OR 1.24 (1.15, 1.34; p < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A multifaceted guideline implementation intervention does not necessarily lead to significant changes in prescribing performance. Rigorous planning of the interventions and quality projects and their evaluation are essential.</p

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 15. Disseminating and implementing guidelines

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 15(th )of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: In this review we address strategies for the implementation of recommendations in health care. METHODS: We examined overviews of systematic reviews of interventions to improve health care delivery and health care systems prepared by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. We also conducted searches using PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: What should WHO do to disseminate and facilitate the uptake of recommendations? • WHO should choose strategies to implement their guidelines from among those which have been evaluated positively in the published literature on implementation research • Because the evidence base is weak and modest to moderate effects, at best, can be anticipated, WHO should promote rigorous evaluations of implementation strategies. What should be done at headquarters, by regional offices and in countries? • Adaptation and implementation of WHO guidelines should be done locally, at the national or sub-national level. • WHO headquarters and regional offices should support the development and evaluation of implementation strategies by local authorities

Spectrum of antihypertensive therapy in South Asians at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite available guidelines on hypertension (HTN), use of antihypertensives is variable. This study was designed to ascertain frequency of patients on monotherapy and > 1 antihypertensive therapy and also to ascertain proportion of patients on diuretic therapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>It was a crossectional study conducted on 1191 adults(age > 18 yrs)hypertensive patients selected by computerized International Classification of Diseases -9-coordination and maintenance (ICD-9-CM) presenting to a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. Data on demographics, comorbids, type of antihypertensive drug, number of antihypertensive drug and mean duration of antihypertensive drug was recorded over 1.5 year period (2008-09). Blood pressure was recorded on admission. Primary outcome was use of combination therapy and secondary outcome was use of diuretic therapy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 1191 participants were included. Mean age(SD) was 62.55(12.47) years, 45.3%(540) were males. Diabetes was the most common comorbid; 46.3%(551). Approximately 85% of patients had controlled hypertension. On categorization of anti hypertensive use into 3 categories;41.2%(491) were on monotherapy,32.2%(384) were on 2 drug therapy,26.5%(316) were on ≥3 drug therapy. Among those who were on monotherapy for HTN;34%(167) were on calcium channel blockers,30.10%(148) were on beta blockers, 22.80%(112) were on Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors,12%(59) were on diuretics and 2.20%(11) were on Angiotensin receptor blockers(ARB). Use of combination antihypertensive therapy was significantly high in patients with ischemic heart disease(IHD)(p < 0.001). Use of diuretics was in 31% (369) patients. Use of diuretics was significantly less in patients with comorbids of diabetes (p 0.02), Chronic kidney disease(CKD)(p 0.003), IHD (p 0.001) respectively</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Most patients presenting to our tertiary care center were on combination therapy. Calcium channel blocker is the most common anti hypertensive drug used as monotherapy and betablockers are used as the most common antihypertensive in combination. Only a third of patients were on diuretic as an antihypertensive therapy.</p