Examining Stakeholder Engagement Processes and The Shared Value Creation of Sustainability Partnership Program at Two Fairmont Hotels

Initially perceived as the individual philanthropic activities assumed by a businessperson or merely a useful marketing tool, CSR has undoubtedly become one of the primary focus areas of many business entities worldwide (Lee, Ham, & Koh, 2019). Evidently, businesses way of thinking has changed considerably since (Friedman, 1962, 1970) postulated that businesses only responsibility was to maximize their owners’ and shareholders’ wealth. Specifically, businesses have begun to recognize the importance of identifying stakeholder expectations and responding to such expectations (Font, Guix & Bonilla-Priego, 2016). Accordingly, in the tourism industry there have been growing pressures from external stakeholders to behave in a more sustainable way (Font et al., 2012). Comparatively, there has been growing interest in scholarship as well, as over 70% of all articles on the subject of CSR in tourism and hospitality have been published within the last five years (Font & Lynes, 2018). Simply, CSR has become more a matter of how than why (Smith, 2003). This basic qualitative study explores the processes by which the Sustainability Partnership Program creates value between Fairmont and the communities surrounding Chateau Lake Louise and Banff Springs. Particularly, external stakeholders (ie. government, NGOs, and suppliers) are the focus of this dissertation. This study found that Fairmont has been able to foster a shared sense of responsibility amongst employees and external stakeholders for planning and implementing impactful initiatives, leading to improved levels of efficiency in not only identifying community needs but also responding to them

Nanoscale Alloying in Electrocatalysts

In electrochemical energy conversion and storage, existing catalysts often contain a high percentage of noble metals such as Pt and Pd. In order to develop low-cost electrocatalysts, one of the effective strategies involves alloying noble metals with other transition metals. This strategy promises not only significant reduction of noble metals but also the tunability for enhanced catalytic activity and stability in comparison with conventional catalysts. In this report, some of the recent approaches to developing alloy catalysts for electrocatalytic oxygen reduction reaction in fuel cells will be highlighted. Selected examples will be also discussed to highlight insights into the structural and electrocatalytic properties of nanoalloy catalysts, which have implications for the design of low-cost, active, and durable catalysts for electrochemical energy production and conversion reactions

A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis papers and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated 3 rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1-9 with 1-3 denoting a less important outcome, 4-6 denoting an important but non-critical outcome, and 7-9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as \u3e70% of scores 7-9 and \u3c 15% of scores 1-3. RESULTS: Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in Round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of Round 2. At completion of Round 3 a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus. CONCLUSIONS: An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, Diagnostic test or criteria

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.)

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis

ObjectiveTo compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.Summary background dataThe Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.MethodsWe focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.ResultsThe pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.ConclusionsOverall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785