A Logical Framework for the Representation and Verification of Context-aware Agents

© 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York. We propose a logical framework for modelling and verifying context-aware multi-agent systems. We extend CTL∗ with belief and communication modalities, and the resulting logic 𝓛OCRS allows us to describe a set of rule-based reasoning agents with bound on time, memory and communication. The set of rules which are used to model a desired systems is derived from OWL 2 RL ontologies. We provide an axiomatization of the logic and prove it is sound and complete. We show how Maude rewriting system can be used to encode and verify interesting properties of 𝓛OCRS models using existing model checking techniques

Designing health IT to support falls prevention in hospitals: Findings from a realist review.

Inpatient falls are an international patient safety concern, accounting for 30-40% of reported safety incidents in acute hospitals. They can cause both physical (e.g. hip fractures) and non-physical harm (e.g. reduced confidence) to patients. We used an approach known as a realist review to identify theories about what interventions might work for whom in what contexts, focusing on what supports and constrains effective use of multifactorial falls risk assessment and falls prevention interventions. One of these theories suggested that staff will integrate recommended practices into their work routines if falls risk assessment tools, including health IT, are quick and easy to use and facilitate existing work routines. Synthesis of empirical studies undertaken in the process of testing and refining this theory has implications for the design of health IT, suggesting that while health IT can support falls prevention through automation, such tools should also allow for incorporation of clinical judgement

Working together: reflections on how to make public involvement in research work

YesThe importance of involving members of the public in the development, implementation and dissemination of research is increasingly recognised. There have been calls to share examples of how this can be done, and this paper responds by reporting how professional and lay researchers collaborated on a research study about falls prevention among older patients in English acute hospitals. It focuses on how they worked together in ways that valued all contributions, as envisaged in the UK standards for public involvement for better health and social care research. The paper is itself an example of working together, having been written by a team of lay and professional researchers. It draws on empirical evidence from evaluations they carried out about the extent to which the study took patient and public perspectives into account, as well as reflective statements they produced as co-authors, which, in turn, contributed to the end-of-project evaluation. Lay contributors' deep involvement in the research had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay contributors focusing the project on areas that matter most to patients and their families, improving the quality and relevance of outcomes by contributing to data analysis, and feeling they were 'honouring' their personal experience of the subject of study. Negative impacts included the potential for lay people to feel overwhelmed by the challenges involved in achieving the societal or organisational changes necessary to address research issues, which can cause them to question their rationale for public involvement. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for working together effectively in research. These cover the need to discuss the potential emotional impacts of such work with lay candidates during recruitment and induction and to support lay people with these impacts throughout projects; finding ways to address power imbalances and practical challenges; and tips on facilitating processes within lay groups, especially relational processes like the development of mutual trust.Funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme (Project Number NIHR129488)

Uma visão da produção científica internacional sobre a classificação internacional para a prática de enfermagem

A Classificação Internacional para a Prática de Enfermagem (CIPE®) é um sistema classificatório que visa padronizaruma linguagem universal para Enfermagem. Este artigo propõe identificar os estudos desenvolvidos noâmbito mundial abordando a CIPE®, categorizando-os segundo suas finalidades. Trata-se de uma revisão de literatura,em base de dados da Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde, pelo o termo “ICNP”, com abrangência até 2009. Foramencontrados 124 artigos; 65 analisados, cujo conteúdo foi agrupado em nove categorias: abordagens gerais;aplicabilidade à prática; avaliação de classificações; experiências com recursos computacionais; desenvolvimento einclusão de termos; abordagem sobre sistemas classificatórios; uso para ancorar a construção de declarações deenfermagem; traduções; e outros. Verificou-se que poucos trabalhos apresentam projetos ou avaliam resultados deaplicações práticas da CIPE®; a maioria aborda aspectos conceituais ou realiza comparações com outras classificações.Diversos trabalhos concluem sobre a adequação e relevância da CIPE®, mas apontam a necessidade de aperfeiçoamento

A community-based parent-support programme to prevent child maltreatment : Protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The prevention of child abuse and neglect is a global public health priority due to its serious, long-lasting effects on personal, social, and economic outcomes. The Children At Risk Model (ChARM) is a wraparound-inspired intervention that coordinates evidence-based parenting- and home-visiting programmes, along with community-based supports, in order to address the multiple and complex needs of families at risk of child abuse or neglect. This paper presents the protocol for a study that will be carried out to evaluate this new service model (i.e. no results available as yet). The study comprises a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and process evaluations. The study will be conducted in two child-welfare agencies within socially disadvantaged settings in Ireland. Families with children aged 3-11 years who are at risk of maltreatment (n = 50) will be randomised to either the 20-week ChARM programme (n = 25) or to standard care (n = 25) using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcomes are incidences of child maltreatment and child behaviour and wellbeing. Secondary outcomes include quality of parent-child relationships, parental stress, mental health, substance use, recorded incidences of substantiated abuse, and out-of-home placements. Assessments will take place at pre-intervention, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up periods. The study is the first evaluation of a wraparound-inspired intervention, incorporating evidence-based programmes, designed to prevent child abuse and neglect within high risk families where children are still living in the home. The findings will offer a unique contribution to the development, implementation and evaluation of effective interventions in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registe