Project Management Maturity in Local Government

Local Governments across NSW once again face the threat of forced amalgamations under the NSW State Governments Fit for the Future reforms package. Increased pressure from communities to deliver services, coupled with a future of reduced financial assistance from State Government has challenged the sector to improve their performance. For many Councils this is a paradigm shift from an ad hoc approach of project delivery toward organisational maturity. In order to do this Local Government practitioners must improve their Project Management practices to deliver projects that are environmentally and financially sustainable, with improved quality, lower risks and maintaining the balance of community needs and desires. This paper examines the current Project Management Maturity of the sector in the adoption of project management frameworks and practices. The research provides an initial benchmark of Councils practices and defines common strengths and weakness by comparing organisations within the sector. This research, participated in by project officers across 50 Councils, demonstrates that in most instances some form of project management is conducted but that there is little standardisation within or across organisations. The research is based on the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) and assesses maturity in areas such as Project Scoping to Cost Management - some being found more mature than others across the sector. On the whole, the sector averages little more than level 2 of 5 in the adopted maturity scale. Procurement management has been found to be the most mature with other relative strengths in Time, Cost and Risk management. Quality, Human Resourcing and Communications management have been found as a weaknesses across the sector. The root cause for such results is currently speculative and will be the subject of further research. With regular benchmarking and analysis it is hoped that improvement can be realised across the sector and a Council-specific project management body of knowledge can be formed. An opportunity exists to build maturity in the sector and improve the success rate of the many projects Local Governments deliver

Improving Surface Mass Balance Over Ice Sheets and Snow Depth on Sea Ice

Surface mass balance (SMB) over ice sheets and snow on sea ice (SOSI) are important components of the cryosphere. Large knowledge gaps remain in scientists' abilities to monitor SMB and SOSI, including insufficient measurements and difficulties with satellite retrievals. On ice sheets, snow accumulation is the sole mass gain to SMB, and meltwater runoff can be the dominant single loss factor in extremely warm years such as 2012. SOSI affects the growth and melt cycle of the Earth's polar sea ice cover. The summer of 2012 saw the largest satellite-recorded melt area over the Greenland ice sheet and the smallest satellite-recorded Arctic sea ice extent, making this meeting both timely and relevant

Use of the Ober2 system for analysis of eye movements made during reading

Introduction: The Ober2 system uses infrared reflections to record and analyze eye movements made during reading. The system\u27s ability to analyze data from normal subjects, and the reliability of the data produced by subjects who read standard paragraphs were investigated in this study. Subjects: Forty-two college students and 20 junior high students participated in the project. All were self-reported normal readers. Methods: Subjects read 5 different paragraphs during each of two sessions. Ober2 analysis was attempted for each paragraph; analysis of all 10 paragraphs was successful for 38 percent of the college subjects and 20 percent of the junior high subjects. Use of manual calibration procedures did not allow any additional data to be analyzed by the Ober2 system. Results: Data from 30% of the paragraph presentations could not be analyzed by the Ober2. When analysis was successful, grade equivalent scores based on fixations, span of recognition, regressions, fixation duration, and reading rate were provided. Using mean grade equivalents from the 16 college subjects for whom all 10 paragraphs could be analyzed, significant differences were found between results for two of the test paragraphs. Split-half reliability coefficients for grade equivalent data from the two sessions ranged from 0.84 to 0.95. Conclusions: Although the Ober2 can provide valuable information on eye movements made during reading, problems exist with respect to its ability to analyze data. The analysis failures that occurred for approximately one-third of the paragraph presentations were frustrating and time consuming. With respect to the standard paragraphs, significant grade equivalent differences were found between several of them. These results suggest that caution be used when interpreting data from the Ober2 reading analysis system

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma well controlled by LABA and inhaled corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, as well as unscheduled hospital and clinic visits.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are commonly given to adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). US and UK regulators have issued warnings for LABA in asthma, and now recommend they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved". OBJECTIVES: To compare cessation of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) versus continued use of LABA/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) for adults whose asthma is well controlled, and to determine whether stopping LABA:1. results in loss of asthma control or deterioration in quality of life;2. increases the likelihood of asthma attacks or 'exacerbations'; or3. increases or decreases the likelihood of serious adverse events of any cause. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to April 2015, and we imposed no restriction on language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least eight weeks' duration, in which adults whose asthma was well controlled by any dose of ICS+LABA combination therapy were randomly assigned to (1) step-down therapy to ICS alone versus (2) continuation of ICS and LABA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the search strategy. We used an Excel extraction tool to manage searches, document reasons for inclusion and exclusion and extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting inclusion criteria.Prespecified primary outcomes were (1) exacerbations requiring oral steroids, (2) asthma control and (3) all-cause serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised, double-blind studies between 12 and 24 weeks' long met the inclusion criteria. Five studies contributed data to the meta-analysis, assigning 2781 people with stable asthma to the comparison of interest. The definition of stable asthma and inclusion criteria varied across studies, and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria were not used. Risk of bias across studies was generally low, and most evidence was rated as moderate quality.Stopping LABA might increase the number of people having exacerbations and requiring oral corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.65; participants = 1257; studies = 4), although the confidence intervals did not exclude the possibility that stopping LABA was beneficial; over 17 weeks, 19 people per 1000 who continued their LABA had an exacerbation, compared with 32 per 1000 when LABA were stopped (13 more per 1000, 95% CI 3 fewer to 46 more).People who stopped LABA had worse scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35; participants = 645; studies = 3) and on measures of asthma-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57; participants = 359; studies = 2) than those who continued LABA, but the effects were not clinically relevant.Too few events occurred for investigators to tell whether stopping LABA has a greater effect on serious adverse events compared with continuing LABA+ICS (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.42; participants = 1342; studies = 5), and no study reported exacerbations requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalisation as a separate outcome. Stopping LABA may result in fewer adverse events of any kind compared with continuing, although the effect was not statistically significant (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; participants = 1339; studies = 5), and stopping LABA made people more likely to withdraw from participation in research studies (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.58; participants = 1352; studies = 5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that stopping LABA in adults who have stable asthma while they are taking a combination of LABA and ICS inhalers may increase the likelihood of asthma exacerbations that require treatment with oral corticosteroids, but this is not certain. Stopping LABA may slightly reduce asthma control and quality of life, but evidence was insufficient to show whether this had an effect on important outcomes such as serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, and longer trials are warranted. Trialists should include patient-important outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life and should use validated measurement tools. Definitions of exacerbations should be provided

The Making of Modern America: Quantifying Chaos

As we begin to explore the Gilded Age (1870-1900), that era in American History sandwiched between the Civil War/Reconstruction and the Progressive Era to the Great War, we want students to grasp the enormity of the changes impacting the lives of Americans who have largely been engaged in farming in many cases not so different than their ancestors had for several hundreds of years. Technological changes in the first half of the 19th century contributed to some mechanization and manufacturing, but the enormity of the Civil War and the acquisition of the entire continental territory in the 1850s, accelerated changes in the production of goods, in the development of communication and transportation, in the growth of cities, in the opportunities for immigrants, for participation in politics, and in the reach of the government. In this lesson, students will dip into the many changes over the decades from 1860 to 1900 by searching for information on a variety of topics, including: Banking or Finance, Demographics, Government, Industrialization, Immigration, Middle Class Angst, Military, Natural Resources, Politics, Racism, Robber Barons/Captains of Industry, Technological Innovations, Transportation, Urbanization, Voter Turnout, and Xenophobia.https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/gilded_age/1001/thumbnail.jp

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.ObjectivesThe aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.Search strategyTrials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008.Selection criteriaControlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions.Main resultsThe review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children.Authors' conclusionsNo significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for children with asthma well controlled on LABA and inhaled corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is the most common chronic medical condition among children and is one of the most common causes of hospitalisation and medical visits. Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, hospital stays, or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for children with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The US Food and Drug Administration has issued a 'black box' warning for LABA in asthma, and now recommends that they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved". OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect on asthma control and adverse effects of stepping down to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-only therapy versus continuing ICS plus LABA in children whose asthma is well controlled on combined ICS and LABA therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, and also searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to the present, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. The most recent search was done in April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials of at least eight weeks' duration, available as published full text, abstract only, or unpublished data. We excluded studies including participants with other chronic respiratory comorbidities (for example bronchiectasis).We looked for studies in which children (18 years or younger) whose asthma was well controlled on any dose of ICS and LABA combination therapy were randomised to: a) step-down therapy to ICS alone or b) continued use of ICS and LABA.We included any dose of LABA (formoterol, salmeterol, vilanterol) and any dose of ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, mometasone, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, fluticasone furoate, triamcinolone) delivered in a combination inhaler or in separate inhalers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all records identified in the searches. We used a data extraction tool in Microsoft Excel to manage searches and document reasons for inclusion and exclusion, and to extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting the inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral steroids, asthma control, and all-cause serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Despite conducting extensive searches of electronic databases, trial registries and manufacturers' websites we identified no trials matching the inclusion criteria.After removing duplicates, we screened 1031 abstracts, and assessed 43 full-text articles for inclusion. We identified several adult studies, which will be summarised in a separate review (Ahmad 2014). The most common reasons for exclusion after viewing full texts were 'wrong comparison' (n = 22) and 'adult population' (n = 18).Some adult studies recruited adolescents from age 15, but none reported data separately for those under 18. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence from randomised trials to inform the discontinuation of LABAs in children once asthma control is achieved with ICS plus LABA. It is disappointing that such an important issue has not been studied, and a randomised double-blind trial recruiting children who are controlled on ICS plus LABA is warranted. The study should be large enough to assess children of different ages, and to measure the important safety and efficacy outcomes suggested in this review over at least six months.The only randomised evidence for stopping LABA has been conducted in adults; it will be summarised in a separate review

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite being on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) or anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.ObjectivesWe compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in adults and children with asthma who remain symptomatic on ICS.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (up to and including March 2010). We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted authors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for other published or unpublished studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS and where a fixed dose of a long-acting beta2-agonist or leukotriene agent was added for a minimum of 28 days.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design, where necessary.Main resultsWe included 17 RCTs (7032 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6850) and one recruited children aged 6 to 17 years (182). Participants demonstrated substantial reversibility to short-acting beta-agonist at baseline. The studies were at a low risk of bias. The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was lower with the combination of LABA and ICS compared with LTRA and ICS, from 11% to 9% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; six studies, 5571 adults). The number needed to treat (NNT) with LABA compared to LTRA to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks was 38 (95% CI 22 to 244). The choice of LTRA did not significantly affect the results. The effect appeared stronger in the trials using a single device to administer ICS and LABA compared to those using two devices. In the absence of data from the paediatric trial and the clinical homogeneity of studies, we could not perform subgroup analyses. The addition to ICS of LABA compared to LTRA was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in several of the secondary outcomes, including lung function, functional status measures and quality of life. Serious adverse events were more common with LABA than LTRA, although the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82), and the NNT to harm for one additional patient to suffer a serious adverse event on LABA over 48 weeks was 78 (95% CI 33 to infinity). The risk of withdrawal for any reason in adults was significantly lower with LABA and ICS compared to LTRA and ICS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96).Authors' conclusionsIn adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids and showing significant reversibility with beta2-agonists, LABA is superior to LTRA in reducing oral steroid treated exacerbations. Differences favouring LABA in lung function, functional status and quality of life scores are generally modest. There is some evidence of increased risk of SAEs with LABA. The findings support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids. We are unable to draw conclusions about which treatment is better as add-on therapy for children.PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat are the effects of long-acting beta2-agonists compared with anti-leukotrienes when added to inhaled steroids?People who continue to experience asthma symptoms despite regularly taking inhaled corticosteroids are a challenge for management. It is not clear whether the addition of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) such as formoterol or salmeterol would provide more benefit in comparison with an oral anti-leukotriene agent (LTRA), for example zafirlukast or montelukast.Seventeen trials (16 in adults and one in children) were included in this review and were of good quality. We found that the addition of a LABA provides significantly greater protection against exacerbations requiring oral steroids when compared with a LTRA for adults. Based on the results of our analyses, approximately 38 adults (with a range of between 22 and 244) would need to be treated with a LABA rather than a LTRA for 48 weeks to prevent one experiencing an exacerbation needing a course of oral steroids. The trial on children did not contribute data on the main outcome and therefore we could not draw any conclusions for children.LABAs also led to a greater improvement in lung function, improvement in symptoms, use of rescue medication, quality of life and symptoms compared to the use of LTRAs. The magnitude of the improvements was modest. Serious adverse events were more frequent with LABA than with LTRAs although this result was imprecise. Based on our analyses, around 78 people would need to be treated for 48 weeks with a LABA rather than a LTRA for one of them to experience a serious adverse event. However, due to the lack of precision around our result, the true number could be between 33 and infinity. There are currently insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the effects of these drugs in children