High speed pressure learning in UK feature film units

The conference paper is available at http://neumann.hec.ca/aimac2005/PDF_Text/Ludwin_Linda.pdf. This conference paper is not available through the Chester Digital RepositoryThis conference paper discusses how UK film units (as temporary organisations) work and learn together

The One-shot Deal: Temporary Organizations, UK Feature Film Units, and Learning Organization Theory

This embedded single case study considers how temporary organizations such as UK feature film production units learn. Units, which cluster around London and are active for less than a year, manufacture pre financed films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral and The Crying Game. Six important learning organization models, three from the UK and three from the USA, were used to think about how film units learn. Primary and secondary data were considered in function of six themes. Three were learning organization themes: (i) learning is tied to action, (ii) problem solving, and (iii) commitment to learning. Further powerful themes emerged during coding: (iv) temporariness, (v) employment practices, and (vi) networking. Fieldwork consisted of in-depth interviews with freelances working on UK film units, as well as a range of other primary and secondary sources, including days of observation during the production of Loaded, and attendance at a series of British Film Institute seminars on film production issues. The study concludes that although UK feature film units are epistemic communities, they are not learning organizations. The combination of being temporary and producing cultural texts conditions most aspects of organizational life and style in UK film units. They are an extreme and idiosyncratic form of temporary organization, designed to thrive in climates of radical change and grounded in a unique historical context

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia:an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks

Background: Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. Methods: We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement. Results: A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. Conclusions: We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.</p

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia:an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks

Background: Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. Methods: We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement. Results: A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. Conclusions: We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.</p

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia : an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks

Abstract: BackgroundInconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks.MethodsWe performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as >= 75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement.ResultsA total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research.ConclusionsWe achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care