GALEX J201337.6+092801: The lowest gravity subdwarf B pulsator

We present the recent discovery of a new subdwarf B variable (sdBV), with an exceptionally low surface gravity. Our spectroscopy of J20136+0928 places it at Teff = 32100 +/- 500, log(g) = 5.15 +/- 0.10, and log(He/H) = -2.8 +/- 0.1. With a magnitude of B = 12.0, it is the second brightest V361 Hya star ever found. Photometry from three different observatories reveals a temporal spectrum with eleven clearly detected periods in the range 376 to 566 s, and at least five more close to our detection limit. These periods are unusually long for the V361 Hya class of short-period sdBV pulsators, but not unreasonable for p- and g-modes close to the radial fundamental, given its low surface gravity. Of the ~50 short period sdB pulsators known to date, only a single one has been found to have comparable spectroscopic parameters to J20136+0928. This is the enigmatic high-amplitude pulsator V338 Ser, and we conclude that J20136+0928 is the second example of this rare subclass of sdB pulsators located well above the canonical extreme horizontal branch in the HR diagram.Comment: 5 pages, accepted for publication in ApJ Letter

Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS)

BACKGROUND: To create a theory-informed survey that quality improvement (QI) teams can use to understand stakeholder perceptions of an intervention. METHOD: We created the survey then performed a cross-sectional survey of QI stakeholders of three QI projects. The projects sought to: (1) reduce unplanned extubations in a neonatal intensive care unit; (2) maintain normothermia during colorectal surgery and (3) reduce specimen processing errors for ambulatory gastroenterology procedures. We report frequencies of responses to survey items, results of exploratory factor analysis, and how QI team leaders used the results. RESULTS: Overall we received surveys from 319 out of 386 eligible stakeholders (83% response rate, range for the three QI projects 57%-86%). The QI teams found that the survey results confirmed existing concerns (eg, the intervention would not make work easier) and revealed unforeseen concerns such as lack of consensus about the overall purpose of the intervention and its importance. The results of our factor analysis indicate that one 7-item scale (Cronbach\u27s alpha 0.9) can efficiently measure important aspects of stakeholder perceptions, and that two additional Likert-type items could add valuable information for leaders. Two QI team leaders made changes to their project based on survey responses that indicated the intervention made stakeholders\u27 jobs harder, and that there was no consensus about the purpose of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey was feasible for QI teams to use, and identified stakeholder perspectives about QI interventions that leaders used to alter their QI interventions to potentially increase the likelihood of stakeholder acceptance of the intervention

Developing the Improving Post-event Analysis and Communication Together (IMPACT) Tool to Involve Patients and Families in Post-Event Analysis

The analysis of harmful errors is typically led by a team within the hospital and includes clinicians and staff who were involved at the time of the event. However, the patient and family are often left out of this process and are not asked to participate in the investigation. Because little guidance is available for facilitating patient input, an interprofessional team convened to develop a semi-structured tool to be used in eliciting patient feedback. Some 72 persons who had experienced adverse events were interviewed. Using a thematic analysis approach, the team learned that 51% of the interviewees preferred to participate in event analysis directly through an interview and 47% recommended that patients and families should be offered the opportunity to provide their views immediately (within 24-48 hours of the event). The resulting tool, IMPACT, incorporates a conversational flow of questions that allows patients to tell their story, focus their attention on specific causative factors, and give recommendations to improve healthcare in their institutions or to prevent further harm