Changes in capital allocation practices – ERM and organisational change

This paper aims to study changes in capital allocation routines following the introduction of a new risk management system, enterprise risk management (ERM). Based on an institutional framework and empirical evidence from multiple sources in a large UK insurance company, we evaluated the extent and nature of organisational change. ERM was seen as an external driver to the change in the existing routines, which in turn led to internal changes in new capital allocation routines. The change was extreme, which signifies that existing capital allocation routines were not strong enough to deal with ERM as a key driver of change

Rapporto sulle attività geofisiche, oceanografiche e di campionamento durante la crociera PANSTR12 con Nave Aretusa: Isole Eolie (Stromboli, Panarea, Salina) (2012-06-30 - 2012-07-14)

All’interno della collaborazione Coordinamento Nazionale per la Geofisica Marina (CO.NA.GEM.), che riunisce i vari Istituti e organizzazioni tecnico-scientifiche italiani, si è svolta la campagna denominata PANSTR12, realizzata con Nave Aretusa della Marina Militare Italiana (MMI). PANSTR12 ha avuto come obbiettivi principali la caratterizzazione morfologica e geofisica della porzione sommersa della Sciara del Fuoco, Isola di Stromboli e la ripetizione di rilievi multibeam e magnetometrici dell’area degli isolotti di Panarea realizzati a partire dal 2002, nell’ottica di permettere analisi e valutazioni sul percorso evolutivo dei fenomeni legati all’eruzione gassosa, anche in relazione all’assetto tettonico e geodinamico dell’arco vulcanico delle Eolie. La campagna PANSTR12 è stata realizzata attraverso una proficua collaborazione tra l’Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), gli Istituti di Scienze Marine (ISMAR) di Bologna (ISMAR-BO) e di La Spezia (ISMAR-SP), entrambi del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), e l’Istituto Idrografico della Marina (IIM).Istituto Idrografico della Marina, Marina Militare ItalianaPublished2.6. TTC - Laboratorio di gravimetria, magnetismo ed elettromagnetismo in aree attiveope

How useful are systematic reviews for informing palliative care practice? Survey of 25 Cochrane systematic reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In contemporary medical research, randomised controlled trials are seen as the gold standard for establishing treatment effects where it is ethical and practical to conduct them. In palliative care such trials are often impractical, unethical, or extremely difficult, with multiple methodological problems. We review the utility of Cochrane reviews in informing palliative care practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Published reviews in palliative care registered with the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group as of December 2007 were obtained from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 1, 2008. We reviewed the quality and quantity of primary studies available for each review, assessed the quality of the review process, and judged the strength of the evidence presented. There was no prior intention to perform any statistical analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>25 published systematic reviews were identified. Numbers of included trials ranged from none to 54. Within each review, included trials were heterogeneous with respect to patients, interventions, and outcomes, and the number of patients contributing to any single analysis was generally much lower than the total included in the review. A variety of tools were used to assess trial quality; seven reviews did not use this information to exclude low quality studies, weight analyses, or perform sensitivity analysis for effect of low quality. Authors indicated that there were frequently major problems with the primary studies, individually or in aggregate. Our judgment was that the reviewing process was generally good in these reviews, and that conclusions were limited by the number, size, quality and validity of the primary studies.</p> <p>We judged the evidence about 23 of the 25 interventions to be weak. Two reviews had stronger evidence, but with limitations due to methodological heterogeneity or definition of outcomes. No review provided strong evidence of no effect.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Cochrane reviews in palliative care are well performed, but fail to provide good evidence for clinical practice because the primary studies are few in number, small, clinically heterogeneous, and of poor quality and external validity. They are useful in highlighting the weakness of the evidence base and problems in performing trials in palliative care.</p

Pain in the cancer patient : different pain characteristics CHANGE pharmacological treatment requirements

Peer reviewe