Concert recording 2016-04-02

[Track 01]. Moondance / John Stevens -- [Track 02]. Turkish march / W.A. Mozart ; translated by Keith Mehlan -- [Track 03]. To a wild rose from Woodland sketches / E. MacDowell ; arranged by J. Lockhart -- [Track 04]. Fantasy movements. Adagio - Allegro vivace ; [Track 05]. Allegro ; [Track 06]. Slowly ; [Track 07]. Very fast & manic ; [Track 08]. Adagio - Allegro / Anthony Plog -- [Track 09]. Saint James infirmary / Joe Primrose ; arranged by Mike Forbes

Identifying competencies for the IT workforce: a quantitative study

ABSTRACT As a historical study of professions would revea

The Role of Learning Technique on Student Performance in CS1 courses

ABSTRACT Umberto Eco theorized a semiotic process through which people perceive, interpret, internalize (learn), and produce (articulate) information. The process involves a set of symbolic representations and transformations that model how humans acquire and process information. Hughes and Peirsi investigated Learning Approaches that students use to learn object oriented (OO) programming. Three learning approaches were described and studied to determine how effective each were for acquiring OO programming competencies. The semiotic model stimulated the idea for a conceptual framework that would incorporate these Learning Approaches. In order to integrate them into the framework, nine elemental Learning Techniques (denoted LTs) were identified. Using the framework, a strategy was developed for determining which Learning Techniques students use and which are effective for learning computer programming. This paper describes the research on these learning techniques and how they can be used to predict the performance of students in their first course in computer programming. INTRODUCTION AND RELATED STUDIE

Concert recording 2014-11-18

[Track 01]. Mars from The planets / Gustav Holst ; arranged by David Butler -- [Track 02]. Consortium / John Cheetham -- [Track 03]. Axis / Kevin McKenzie -- [Track 04]. Scherzo from A midsummer night\u27s dream / Felix Mendelssohn ; arranged by Michael Forbes -- [Track 05]. Nocturne / Rimsky-Korsakov -- [Track 06]. Ave Maria / Franz Biebl ; arranged by Mark Jenkins -- [Track 07]. Fearful symmetry / Kenyon Wilson

Cost-effectiveness of stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with IV t-PA compared with IV t-PA alone for acute ischemic stroke in the UK.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of neurothrombectomy with a stent retriever (Solitaire**Solitaire Revascularization Device is a registered trademark of Medtronic (Irvine, CA). View all notes Revascularization Device) in treating acute ischemic stroke patients from the UK healthcare provider perspective. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate health outcomes and costs of two therapies over a lifetime time horizon: stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV t-PA), and IV t-PA alone. The model incorporated an acute phase (0–90 days) and a rest of life phase (90+ days). Health states were defined by the modified Rankin Scale score. During the rest of life phase, patients remained in the same health state until a recurrent stroke or death. Clinical effectiveness and safety data were taken from the SWIFT PRIME study. Resource use and health state utilities were informed by published data. Results: Combined stent-retriever thrombectomy and IV t-PA led to improved quality-of-life and increased life expectancy compared to IV t-PA alone. The higher treatment costs associated with the use of stent-retriever thrombectomy were offset by long-term cost savings due to improved patient health status, leading to overall cost savings of £33 190 per patient and a net benefit of £79 402. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were robust to a wide range of parameter inputs. Limitations: The acute and long-term costs resource use data were taken from a study based on a patient population that was older and may have had additional comorbidities than the SWIFT PRIME population, resulting in costs that may not be representative of the cohort within this model. In addition, the estimates may not reflect stroke care today as no current evidence is available; however, the cost estimates were deemed reasonable by clinical opinion. Conclusions: Combined stent-retriever neurothrombectomy and IV t-PA is a cost-effective treatment for acute ischemic stroke compared with IV t-PA alone

Electronic self-reporting of adverse events for patients undergoing cancer treatment: the eRAPID research programme including two RCTs

Abstract Background Cancer is treated using multiple modalities (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies) and is frequently associated with adverse events that affect treatment delivery and quality of life. Regular adverse event reporting could improve care and safety through timely detection and management. Information technology provides a feasible monitoring model, but applied research is needed. This research programme developed and evaluated an electronic system, called eRAPID, for cancer patients to remotely self-report adverse events. Objectives The objectives were to address the following research questions: is it feasible to collect adverse event data from patients’ homes and in clinics during cancer treatment? Can eRAPID be implemented in different hospitals and treatment settings? Will oncology health-care professionals review eRAPID reports for decision-making? When added to usual care, will the eRAPID intervention (i.e. self-reporting with tailored advice) lead to clinical benefits (e.g. better adverse event control, improved patient safety and experiences)? Will eRAPID be cost-effective? Design Five mixed-methods work packages were conducted, incorporating co-design with patients and health-care professionals: work package 1 – development and implementation of the electronic platform across hospital centres; work package 2 – development of patient-reported adverse event items and advice (systematic and scoping reviews, patient interviews, Delphi exercise); work package 3 – mapping health-care professionals and care pathways; work package 4 – feasibility pilot studies to assess patient and clinician acceptability; and work package 5 – a single-centre randomised controlled trial of systemic treatment with a full health economic assessment. Setting The setting was three UK cancer centres (in Leeds, Manchester and Bristol). Participants The intervention was developed and evaluated with patients and clinicians. The systemic randomised controlled trial included 508 participants who were starting treatment for breast, colorectal or gynaecological cancer and 55 health-care professionals. The radiotherapy feasibility pilot recruited 167 patients undergoing treatment for pelvic cancers. The surgical feasibility pilot included 40 gastrointestinal cancer patients. Intervention eRAPID is an online system that allows patients to complete adverse event/symptom reports from home or hospital. The system provides immediate severity-graded advice based on clinical algorithms to guide self-management or hospital contact. Adverse event data are transferred to electronic patient records for review by clinical teams. Patients complete an online symptom report every week and whenever they experience symptoms. Main outcome measures In systemic treatment, the primary outcome was Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, Physical Well-Being score assessed at 6, 12 and 18 weeks (primary end point). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness assessed through the comparison of health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Patient self-efficacy was measured (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases 6-item Scale). The radiotherapy pilot studied feasibility (recruitment and attrition rates) and selection of outcome measures. The surgical pilot examined symptom report completeness, system actions, barriers to using eRAPID and technical performance. Results eRAPID was successfully developed and introduced across the treatments and centres. The systemic randomised controlled trial found no statistically significant effect of eRAPID on the primary end point at 18 weeks. There was a significant effect at 6 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 2.05; p = 0.028) and 12 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.98; p = 0.0395). No between-arm differences were found for admissions or calls/visits to acute oncology or chemotherapy delivery. Health economic analyses over 18 weeks indicated no statistically significant difference between the cost of the eRAPID information technology system and the cost of usual care (£12.28, 95% confidence interval –£1240.91 to £1167.69; p > 0.05). Mean differences were small, with eRAPID having a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Patient self-efficacy was greater in the intervention arm (0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.83; p = 0.0073). Qualitative interviews indicated that many participants found eRAPID useful for support and guidance. Patient adherence to adverse-event symptom reporting was good (median compliance 72.2%). In the radiotherapy pilot, high levels of consent (73.2%) and low attrition rates (10%) were observed. Patient quality-of-life outcomes indicated a potential intervention benefit in chemoradiotherapy arms. In the surgical pilot, 40 out of 91 approached patients (44%) consented. Symptom report completion rates were high. Across the studies, clinician intervention engagement was varied. Both patient and staff feedback on the value of eRAPID was positive. Limitations The randomised controlled trial methodology led to small numbers of patients simultaneously using the intervention, thus reducing overall clinician exposure to and engagement with eRAPID. Furthermore, staff saw patients across both arms, introducing a contamination bias and potentially reducing the intervention effect. The health economic results were limited by numbers of missing data (e.g. for use of resources and EuroQol-5 Dimensions). Conclusions This research provides evidence that online symptom monitoring with inbuilt patient advice is acceptable to patients and clinical teams. Evidence of patient benefit was found, particularly during the early phases of treatment and in relation to self-efficacy. The findings will help improve the intervention and guide future trial designs. Future work Definitive trials in radiotherapy and surgical settings are suggested. Future research during systemic treatments could study self-report online interventions to replace elements of traditional follow-up care in the curative setting. Further research during modern targeted treatments (e.g. immunotherapy and small-molecule oral therapy) and in metastatic disease is recommended. Trial registration The systemic randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN88520246. The radiotherapy trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Comment letters to the National Commission on Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting, 1987 (Treadway Commission) Vol. 1

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1661/thumbnail.jp

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research