The Experts below are selected from a list of 108339 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Benoit Vallet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
promoting global Research Excellence in severe sepsis progress lessons from an international sepsis registry
Infection, 2009Co-Authors: Richard Beale, Konrad Reinhart, Frank M Brunkhorst, G J Dobb, Mitchell M Levy, Greg S Martin, Claudio Martin, G Ramsey, Eliezer Silva, Benoit ValletAbstract:The PROGRESS Registry (Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) was designed to provide comparative data reflecting everyday clinical practice, thereby allowing participating institutions to explore and benchmark medical interventions in severe sepsis. PROGRESS was an international, noninterventional, prospective, observational registry collecting data that describe the management and outcomes of severe sepsis patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were enrolled who had been diagnosed with severe sepsis (suspected or proven infection and ≥ 1 acute sepsis-induced organ dysfunction) at the participating institutions, where de-identified data were entered directly into a secured website. PROGRESS was governed by an independent international medical advisory board. PROGRESS took place in 276 ICUs in 37 countries, and 12,881 patients were identified as having severe sepsis. There was considerable variation among countries in enrollment levels, provision of standard treatment and supportive therapies, and ICU and hospital outcomes. Eight countries accounted for 65.2% of the enrolled patients. Males (59.3%) and Caucasian (48.6%) patients predominated the patient cohort. Diagnosis of severe sepsis was prior to ICU admission in 45.7% of patients, at ICU admission in 29.1% of patients, and after ICU admission in the remainder. Globally, ICU and hospital mortality rates were 39.2% and 49.6%, respectively. The mean length of ICU and hospital stay was 14.6 days and 28.2 days, respectively. The PROGRESS international sepsis registry demonstrates that a large web-based sepsis registry is feasible. Wide variations in outcomes and use of sepsis therapies were observed between countries. These results also suggest that additional opportunities exist across countries to improve severe sepsis outcomes.
Richard Beale - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
promoting global Research Excellence in severe sepsis progress lessons from an international sepsis registry
Infection, 2009Co-Authors: Richard Beale, Konrad Reinhart, Frank M Brunkhorst, G J Dobb, Mitchell M Levy, Greg S Martin, Claudio Martin, G Ramsey, Eliezer Silva, Benoit ValletAbstract:The PROGRESS Registry (Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) was designed to provide comparative data reflecting everyday clinical practice, thereby allowing participating institutions to explore and benchmark medical interventions in severe sepsis. PROGRESS was an international, noninterventional, prospective, observational registry collecting data that describe the management and outcomes of severe sepsis patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were enrolled who had been diagnosed with severe sepsis (suspected or proven infection and ≥ 1 acute sepsis-induced organ dysfunction) at the participating institutions, where de-identified data were entered directly into a secured website. PROGRESS was governed by an independent international medical advisory board. PROGRESS took place in 276 ICUs in 37 countries, and 12,881 patients were identified as having severe sepsis. There was considerable variation among countries in enrollment levels, provision of standard treatment and supportive therapies, and ICU and hospital outcomes. Eight countries accounted for 65.2% of the enrolled patients. Males (59.3%) and Caucasian (48.6%) patients predominated the patient cohort. Diagnosis of severe sepsis was prior to ICU admission in 45.7% of patients, at ICU admission in 29.1% of patients, and after ICU admission in the remainder. Globally, ICU and hospital mortality rates were 39.2% and 49.6%, respectively. The mean length of ICU and hospital stay was 14.6 days and 28.2 days, respectively. The PROGRESS international sepsis registry demonstrates that a large web-based sepsis registry is feasible. Wide variations in outcomes and use of sepsis therapies were observed between countries. These results also suggest that additional opportunities exist across countries to improve severe sepsis outcomes.
Tony Murphy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Revising the Research Excellence Framework: ensuring quality in REF2021, or new challenges ahead?
Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education, 2016Co-Authors: Tony MurphyAbstract:This paper considers the likely shape of the next UK Research Excellence Framework (REF). It explores some of the recommendations from the 2016 Stern Review (those concerned with ‘outputs’) and their envisaged impact on the exercise. Drawing on lessons learnt from the previous round of the REF, and some wider commentary, the paper considers some of the problems emergent from REF2014, whether they can be mitigated, and whether new problems might emerge in REF2021. Prominently, the issues of ‘burden’ and ‘gaming’ are explored. Although there are some grounds for optimism, much more detail will be needed before we can be reasonably confident about achieving a less burdensome and a more accurate evaluation of Research quality within universities across the UK.
-
Perceptions of the UK's Research Excellence Framework 2014 A small survey of academics
The Australian Universities' review, 2015Co-Authors: Tony Murphy, Daniel SageAbstract:Earlier work inspired by a body of literature raised important questions about the workings of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and its predecessor the Research Assessment Framework (RAE), and noted the possible adverse outcomes of such processes. This paper builds on this by examining the findings of a small survey of social science academics. The survey identified concerns about the validity of the REF as a proxy for quality, and the role it has had in shaping patterns of Research behaviour. There were also frequent concerns related to morale. Yet although responses tended to be negative, there was also a significant voice signalling the importance the REF plays in ensuring accountability and transparency in Research, as well as a sense that the pressures that come with such processes are simply ‘part and parcel’ of academic life. The role of wider time-management factors, related to heavy teaching and administration burdens, was also signalled, and cited by some as overshadowing the pressures of REF.
-
Perceptions of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014: a media analysis
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2014Co-Authors: Tony Murphy, Daniel SageAbstract:This paper explores perceptions of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and its implications for individuals, institutions and wider academia through an analysis of media coverage of the REF over a 2-year period. In recent years, the importance attached to the REF has become an increasing focus of concern for academics and other commentators, particularly vis-a-vis issues such as staff morale, funding, ‘impact’, working practices and institutional inequalities. In examining media stories related to the REF, we uncover three key findings in terms of the main ways in which the REF is presented and perceived. First, media discussions of the REF are overwhelmingly negative, although this appears to have abated over time. Second, there are significant differences in the how the REF is discussed; this variation stems from characteristics such as the disciplinary background, institutional type and professional seniority of commentators. Third, although wide range of themes is discussed in relation to the REF, several tend to dominate media portrayals: these include ‘impact’, ‘funding’ and ‘marketisation’. The implications for the role and legitimacy of Research assessment processes are discussed.
Daniel Sage - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Perceptions of the UK's Research Excellence Framework 2014 A small survey of academics
The Australian Universities' review, 2015Co-Authors: Tony Murphy, Daniel SageAbstract:Earlier work inspired by a body of literature raised important questions about the workings of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and its predecessor the Research Assessment Framework (RAE), and noted the possible adverse outcomes of such processes. This paper builds on this by examining the findings of a small survey of social science academics. The survey identified concerns about the validity of the REF as a proxy for quality, and the role it has had in shaping patterns of Research behaviour. There were also frequent concerns related to morale. Yet although responses tended to be negative, there was also a significant voice signalling the importance the REF plays in ensuring accountability and transparency in Research, as well as a sense that the pressures that come with such processes are simply ‘part and parcel’ of academic life. The role of wider time-management factors, related to heavy teaching and administration burdens, was also signalled, and cited by some as overshadowing the pressures of REF.
-
Perceptions of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014: a media analysis
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2014Co-Authors: Tony Murphy, Daniel SageAbstract:This paper explores perceptions of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and its implications for individuals, institutions and wider academia through an analysis of media coverage of the REF over a 2-year period. In recent years, the importance attached to the REF has become an increasing focus of concern for academics and other commentators, particularly vis-a-vis issues such as staff morale, funding, ‘impact’, working practices and institutional inequalities. In examining media stories related to the REF, we uncover three key findings in terms of the main ways in which the REF is presented and perceived. First, media discussions of the REF are overwhelmingly negative, although this appears to have abated over time. Second, there are significant differences in the how the REF is discussed; this variation stems from characteristics such as the disciplinary background, institutional type and professional seniority of commentators. Third, although wide range of themes is discussed in relation to the REF, several tend to dominate media portrayals: these include ‘impact’, ‘funding’ and ‘marketisation’. The implications for the role and legitimacy of Research assessment processes are discussed.
Jonathan Tallant - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Can teaching philosophy in schools count towards the Research Excellence Framework (UK)
Cogent Education, 2015Co-Authors: Andrew Fisher, Jonathan TallantAbstract:AbstractEven though critical thinking is carried out in schools across the country, there is no attempt to take high-level published philosophical Research into schools. This paper reports on a pilot where this was attempted. The findings suggest that this can be done successfully and moreover that the results can be contextualised so as to count towards “impact” in the Research Excellence Framework (UK). The paper suggests that this means philosophers have not only a way of developing children’s confidence and reasoning, but also a way of meeting the requirements on Higher Education Institutions within the UK.
-
STUDENT LEARNING, CHILDHOOD & VOICES | Research ARTICLE Can teaching philosophy in schools count towards the Research Excellence Framework (UK)?
2015Co-Authors: Andrew Fisher, Jonathan TallantAbstract:Even though critical thinking is carried out in schools across the country, there is no attempt to take high-level published philosophical Research into schools. This paper reports on a pilot where this was attempted. The findings suggest that this can be done successfully and moreover that the results can be contextualised so as to count towards "impact" in the Research Excellence Framework (UK). The paper suggests that this means philosophers have not only a way of developing children's confidence and reasoning, but also a way of meeting the requirements on Higher Education Institutions within the UK. Subjects: Children & Childhood; Philosophy; Philosophy of Education
