Regulatory Authority

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 45366 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Herta Fidler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • assessment of radiology physicians by a Regulatory Authority
    Radiology, 2008
    Co-Authors: Jocelyn Lockyer, Claudio Violato, Herta Fidler
    Abstract:

    Purpose: To determine whether it is possible to develop a feasible, valid, and reliable multisource feedback program for radiologists. Materials and Methods: Surveys with 38, 29, and 20 items were developed to assess individual radiologists by eight radiologic colleagues (peers), eight referring physicians, and eight co-workers (eg, technicians), respectively, by using five-point scales along with an “unable to assess” category. Radiologists completed a self-assessment on the basis of the peer questionnaire. Items addressed key competencies related to clinical competence, collegiality, professionalism, workplace behavior, and self-management. The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Ethics Research Board. Results: Data from 190 radiologists were available. The mean numbers of respondents per physician were 7.5 of eight (1259 of 1520, 83%), 7.15 of eight (1337 of 1520, 88%), and 7.5 of eight (1420 of 1520, 93%) for peers, referring physicians, and co-workers, respectively. The in...

  • the assessment of emergency physicians by a Regulatory Authority
    Academic Emergency Medicine, 2006
    Co-Authors: Jocelyn Lockyer, Claudio Violato, Herta Fidler
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives: To determine whether it is possible to develop a feasible, valid, and reliable multisource feed-back program (360 evaluation) for emergency physicians.Methods: Surveys with 16, 20, 30, and 31 items were developed to assess emergency physicians by25 patients, eight coworkers, eight medical colleagues, and self, respectively, using five-point scales alongwith an ‘‘unable to assess’’ category. Items addressed key competencies related to communication skills,professionalism, collegiality, and self-management.Results: Data from 187 physicians who identified themselves as emergency physicians were available. Themean number of respondents per physician was 21.6 (SD 3.87) (93%) for patients, 7.6 (SD 0.89) (96%)for coworkers, and 7.7 (SD 0.61) (95%) for medical colleagues, suggesting it was a feasible tool. Only thepatient survey had four items with ‘‘unable to assess’’ percentages R15%. The factor analysis indicatedthere were two factors on the patient questionnaire (communication/professionalism and patient educa-tion), two on the coworker survey (communication/collegiality and professionalism), and four on themedical colleague questionnaire (clinical performance, professionalism, self-management, and recordmanagement) that accounted for 80.0%, 62.5%, and 71.9% of the variance on the surveys, respectively.The factors were consistent with the intent of the instruments, providing empirical evidence of validityfor the instruments. Reliability was established for the instruments (Cronbach’s a > 0.94) and for eachphysician (generalizability coefficients were 0.68 for patients, 0.85 for coworkers, and 0.84 for medicalcolleagues).Conclusions: The psychometric examination of the data suggests that the instruments developed to assessemergency physicians were feasible and provide evidence for validity and reliability.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2006; 13:1296–1303 a 2006 by the Society for Academic EmergencyMedicineKeywords: emergency physician, multisource feedback, 360 evaluation, physician competencies,peer assessment, patient assessment

  • assessment of pediatricians by a Regulatory Authority
    Pediatrics, 2006
    Co-Authors: Claudio Violato, Jocelyn Lockyer, Herta Fidler
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE. To determine whether it is possible to develop feasible, valid, and reliable multisource feedback data for pediatricians. METHODS. Surveys with 40, 22, 38, and 37 items were developed for assessment of pediatricians by patients, co-workers, medical colleagues, and themselves, respectively, using 5-point scales with an “unable to assess” category. Items addressed key competencies related to communication skills, professionalism, collegiality, continuing professional development, and collaboration. Each pediatrician was assessed by 25 patients, 8 medical colleagues, and 8 co-workers. Feasibility was assessed with response rates for each instrument. Validity was assessed with rating profiles, the percentage of participants unable to assess the physician for each item, and exploratory factor analyses to determine which items grouped together into scales. Cronbach9s α and generalizability coefficient analyses assessed reliability. RESULTS. One hundred pediatricians participated. The mean number of respondents per physician was 23.4 (93.6%) for patients, 7.6 (94.8%) for co-workers, and 7.6 (95.5%) for medical colleagues. The mean ratings ranged from 4 to 5 for each item on each scale. Few items had high percentages of “unable to assess” responses. The factor analyses revealed a 4-factor solution for the patient survey, a 3-factor solution for the co-worker survey, and a 4-factor solution for the medical colleague survey, accounting for at least 64% of the variance. All instruments had high internal consistency. The generalizability coefficients were .85 for patients, .87 for co-workers, and .78 for medical colleagues. CONCLUSION. Surveys can be developed to provide feedback data on key competencies.

Sebastien Martin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Michael Cherry - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Hubert Delzangles - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Keyur Tripathi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • competition in telecom sector the jurisdictional tussle between competition commission of india and telecom Regulatory Authority of india
    Social Science Research Network, 2020
    Co-Authors: Keyur Tripathi
    Abstract:

    From enjoying natural monopolies to witnessing tough competition for services, the telecom sector in India has come a long way. It is now characterized by one of the fastest-growing sectors of deploying the latest technology and driving the economic growth in India. With the rapid intervention of innovation and competition redefining the sector dynamics, there are new emerging challenges that force the telecom and competition authorities to rethink their role and function and adopt a collaborative approach in deciding intersecting issues. In 2017, Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited (RJIL), a new entrant in the telecommunications market approached Competition Commission of India (CCI) against the incumbents for forming a cartel to deny market entry. Prior to that, it approached the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) against the incumbents for denying adequate points of interconnection. CCI passed an order in favour of the informant, which was challenged in the Bombay High Court and later appeared in the Supreme Court of India. The case that breathed fresh air at every level of Court in the country is a landmark decision in settling the role of CCI with respect to telecom sectoral regulators, particularly in issues that simultaneously fall within the jurisdiction of both the bodies. The objectives of both legislation, when reading together, intend to create an environment that may facilitate fair competition. In fulfilling the concerned objective, the jurisdiction of TRAI and the CCI overlap. Although the watchdogs (CCI and TRAI) share a common goal, they differ in their mandate and approach. The difference in the approach adopted by the CCI and TRAI towards a similar objective leads to cases of jurisdictional conflicts. The Researcher aims to analyze the decision of the Supreme Court of India in terms of its far-reaching effects on CCI while touching base on developments in the case at every level of proceedings through the lens of optimal regulation and competition.

Related terms

Regulatory Authority - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts