SCAN-UK ? a network approach to environmental best practice in the aviation industry

2001 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 240-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Maughan ◽  
David Raper ◽  
Callum Thomas ◽  
David Gillingwater
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Aviation Industry ◽  
Network Approach

scholarly journals The Role of Collaboration in Innovation and Value Creation in the Aviation Industry

2021 ◽  
pp. 239496432110105
Author(s):  
Bruno Pereira ◽  
Gui Lohmann ◽  
Luke Houghton
Keyword(s):  
Value Creation ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Partner Choice ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Aviation Industry ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Management Communication ◽  
International Airlines

Collaboration plays a critical role in fostering innovation and value creation in the aviation sector. However, how factors and connections relate to the achievement of innovative outcomes in aviation require further investigation. This study investigates the key factors that create a conceptual framework by conducting a literature review and an archival analysis of news articles. The model proposed involves factors such as strategic decision-making; networking and partner choice; cultural context, values, behaviour and compatibilities; collaboration configuration; issues and risks shared; skills, capacities and experience; infrastructure and resources available; engagement activities; knowledge transfer, absorption and appropriation; collaboration management; communication flows; external environment and demand; and expectations and outcomes. Promising collaborations are also indicated in areas where the framework could be adopted to increase partnerships and outcomes. Also, we highlight best practice examples from leading organizations, such as International Airlines Group (IAG), Emirates Airline, Singapore Airlines, Boeing and JetBlue, to provide insights into existing collaborations that have led to innovation and value creation in this sector.

Maintenance Factors Affecting Increased Lutetium-177 Production

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niklas Danielsson
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Good Manufacturing Practice ◽  
Nuclear Industry ◽  
Aviation Industry ◽  
Competing Interactions ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
Maintenance Strategies ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Maintenance Factors ◽  
Reliability Centered Maintenance

Abstract With Lutetium (Lu-177) demand forecasted to increase following the conclusion of clinical trials and product registration in key jurisdictions, manufacturers are seeking to improve their production outputs. Naturally, the question falls to operation and maintenance of these production centers to ensure reliable supply to market. Maintenance in the radiopharmaceutical industry is a complex environment with many competing interactions between radiation safety and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements. Since its development by the aviation industry in 1960s, the Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) concept has seen adoption by many industries. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) developed a technical document on RCM applications in nuclear industry in May 2007 while the International Society of Pharmaceutical Engineers (ISPE) refers to the concept in their own baseline guides. Too often, blame for reliability issues falls at the feet of the designers. Careful review of existing strategies against these baseline guidelines often tells a different story. With the view of doubling Lutetium production by the end of 2020 and continued increases over the coming years, there was a push to review the existing maintenance strategies in practice at ANSTO's facilities. This document details the results of that investigation, providing information on the gaps found and the systems implemented to bring maintenance strategies back in alignment with current best practice. It also offers commentary on situations requiring compromises between those best practices defined by IAEA and ISPE.

scholarly journals Indian and Chinese aviation industry: the EASA framework option

2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyriakos I. Kourousis ◽  
Anthony Comer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Sustainable Growth ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Aviation Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Aviation Maintenance ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
India And China

Purpose This viewpoint aims to increase the awareness on the demand faced by the technical sector of the Indian and Chinese aviation industry and how this can be met by the adoption of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulatory framework. Design/methodology/approach A brief overview of the challenges that the Indian and the Chinese aviation industry is facing is provided, in terms of meeting the demand for sustainable growth. A description of the structure of the EASA framework and its main characteristics is presented, along with a focussed discussion on the framework’s applicability to the Indian and the Chinese aviation maintenance and broader continuing airworthiness sector. Findings The EASA regulatory framework can offer a safe and business-effective solution for the Indian and the Chinese aviation industry, aligning with world’s best practice. Practical implications A discussion in adopting the EASA framework in India and China can be helpful in increasing awareness and assisting decision makers realise that this is a possible option. Originality/value This viewpoint can be useful in provoking discussion, by summarising the key issues and points surrounding aviation regulation standardisation in India and China, along the lines of the EASA framework. Moreover, some possible ways to increase awareness around EASA in India and China are discussed from the point of view of influencing tomorrow’s decision makers.

Guidance on In Line Inspection First Run Success

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Gower ◽  
David Whitman
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Performance Indicator ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Aviation Industry ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Good Communication ◽  
Guidance Note ◽  
Increased Risk

First run success is a key performance measure used in the BP Global In Line Inspection (ILI) Contract [1]. This drives effectiveness and efficiency in the processes supporting ILI and it is a key commercial performance indicator for ILI Suppliers. Although run success rates are often referred to across the industry there has been little standardisation in the terminology, or the factors that lead to a successful run. Three definitions have been established for run success: Technical; Commercial and Operational. Each has a place although it is Operational run success that drives improvements between operators and suppliers. The introduction of a performance measure for first run success increases the focus on getting things right the first time. The financial cost of ILI run failure has probably been underestimated by the industry; although it is estimated that it could be as high as 30% of total contracted costs for ILI. For some projects the costs associated with a failed run can be far greater than the original project costs (e.g. additional vessel support costs for deployment or recovery during offshore operations). A failed run can also result in a delayed inspection and an associated increased risk as well as potentially compromising compliance with regulatory requirements. The consequences of run failure vary in severity and can be presented in a pyramid similar to the typical representation of safety statistics. A stuck tool requiring intervention or a pipeline failure, as a result of an incorrect inspection report, would be at the top of the pyramid. The lower tiers would capture technical failures and the effectiveness of cleaning. Understanding the consequence of failures can help drive performance improvements across the industry. As part of the BP continuous improvement process, ILI Suppliers and internal stakeholders were brought together for a facilitated workshop to understand the factors affecting first run success rates. The workshop identified a number of common themes which were consistent across all of the Suppliers addressing; both operational issues and tool performance. A Guidance Note was then developed with the ILI Suppliers to drive improvements in first run success rates. This was shared with the Pipeline Operators Forum (POF) in October 2011 and has been further developed as a POF Guidance Document. A separate guidance note has been developed to address recommended practices for collecting and verifying field data. Successful ILI requires good communication between all parties. As the industry starts to inspect more difficult and challenging lines it will be important to improve ILI run success rates. Across the industry we probably know how to do it, but doing it consistently is the challenge. The development of industry Guidance Notes represent a small step towards achieving this objective. As ILI operations improve the focus will increasingly turn to the reliability of tools. There is much that can be learnt from other industry sectors, such as the motor or aviation industry, on improving reliability of components and systems. This will require an increased use of preventative maintenance practices. There is also a need to create a common basis for reporting reliability of inspection tools and for this to be taken into account when operators make their selection of ILI tools. The Global ILI Contract has brought an increased focus to the performance of the overall inspection process which is driving improvements in first run success rates. It has facilitated the development of guidelines on best practice and is starting to set standards for reliability. The high level of cooperation between suppliers and operators to drive improvements in this area is a measure of the importance of first run success rates to all parts of our industry. Achieving ILI first run success requires both the operator and ILI supplier to work together. Whilst each has a key part to play effective communication from an early stage is essential.

The Collaborative Network Approach: a model for advancing patient-centric research for Castleman disease and other rare diseases

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Mary Zuccato ◽  
Dustin Shilling ◽  
David C. Fajgenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Castleman Disease ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Collaborative Network ◽  
Network Approach ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Novel Strategy ◽  
Patient Centric

Abstract There are ∼7000 rare diseases affecting 30 000 000 individuals in the U.S.A. 95% of these rare diseases do not have a single Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy. Relatively, limited progress has been made to develop new or repurpose existing therapies for these disorders, in part because traditional funding models are not as effective when applied to rare diseases. Due to the suboptimal research infrastructure and treatment options for Castleman disease, the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN), founded in 2012, spearheaded a novel strategy for advancing biomedical research, the ‘Collaborative Network Approach’. At its heart, the Collaborative Network Approach leverages and integrates the entire community of stakeholders — patients, physicians and researchers — to identify and prioritize high-impact research questions. It then recruits the most qualified researchers to conduct these studies. In parallel, patients are empowered to fight back by supporting research through fundraising and providing their biospecimens and clinical data. This approach democratizes research, allowing the entire community to identify the most clinically relevant and pressing questions; any idea can be translated into a study rather than limiting research to the ideas proposed by researchers in grant applications. Preliminary results from the CDCN and other organizations that have followed its Collaborative Network Approach suggest that this model is generalizable across rare diseases.

Meeting the Best Practice for Hearing Aid Verification in Children: Challenges and Future Directions

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 877-894
Author(s):  
Nur Azyani Amri ◽  
Tian Kar Quar ◽  
Foong Yen Chong
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Klang Valley ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Fitting Hearing Aids

Purpose This study examined the current pediatric amplification practice with an emphasis on hearing aid verification using probe microphone measurement (PMM), among audiologists in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Frequency of practice, access to PMM system, practiced protocols, barriers, and perception toward the benefits of PMM were identified through a survey. Method A questionnaire was distributed to and filled in by the audiologists who provided pediatric amplification service in Klang Valley, Malaysia. One hundred eight ( N = 108) audiologists, composed of 90.3% women and 9.7% men (age range: 23–48 years), participated in the survey. Results PMM was not a clinical routine practiced by a majority of the audiologists, despite its recognition as the best clinical practice that should be incorporated into protocols for fitting hearing aids in children. Variations in practice existed warranting further steps to improve the current practice for children with hearing impairment. The lack of access to PMM equipment was 1 major barrier for the audiologists to practice real-ear verification. Practitioners' characteristics such as time constraints, low confidence, and knowledge levels were also identified as barriers that impede the uptake of the evidence-based practice. Conclusions The implementation of PMM in clinical practice remains a challenge to the audiology profession. A knowledge-transfer approach that takes into consideration the barriers and involves effective collaboration or engagement between the knowledge providers and potential stakeholders is required to promote the clinical application of evidence-based best practice.

A Guide to Coding and Billing for the Audiological Management of Patients Receiving Ototoxic Medical Treatments

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 936-946
Author(s):  
Dawn Konrad-Martin ◽  
Neela Swanson ◽  
Angela Garinis
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Current Method ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Party Payer ◽  
High Frequency Audiometry ◽  
Icd 10

Purpose Improved medical care leading to increased survivorship among patients with cancer and infectious diseases has created a need for ototoxicity monitoring programs nationwide. The goal of this report is to promote effective and standardized coding and 3rd-party payer billing practices for the audiological management of symptomatic ototoxicity. Method The approach was to compile the relevant International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10-CM) codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT; American Medical Association) codes and explain their use for obtaining reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. Results Each claim submitted to a payer for reimbursement of ototoxicity monitoring must include both ICD-10-CM codes to report the patient's diagnosis and CPT codes to report the services provided by the audiologist. Results address the general 3rd-party payer guidelines for ototoxicity monitoring and ICD-10-CM and CPT coding principles and provide illustrative examples. There is no “stand-alone” CPT code for high-frequency audiometry, an important test for ototoxicity monitoring. The current method of adding a –22 modifier to a standard audiometry code and then submitting a letter rationalizing why the test was done has inconsistent outcomes and is time intensive for the clinician. Similarly, some clinicians report difficulty getting reimbursed for detailed otoacoustic emissions testing in the context of ototoxicity monitoring. Conclusions Ethical practice, not reimbursement, must guide clinical practice. However, appropriate billing and coding resulting in 3rd-party reimbursement for audiology services rendered is critical for maintaining an effective ototoxicity monitoring program. Many 3rd-party payers reimburse for these services. For any CPT code, payment patterns vary widely within and across 3rd-party payers. Standardizing coding and billing practices as well as advocacy including letters from audiology national organizations may be necessary to help resolve these issues of coding and coverage in order to support best practice recommendations for ototoxicity monitoring.

Business: The Electronic Health Record: Front Line Experience

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-22
Author(s):  
Rosemary Griffin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Information Technology ◽  
Electronic Health Record ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Record ◽  
Health Trends ◽  
Electronic Health

National legislation is in place to facilitate reform of the United States health care industry. The Health Care Information Technology and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) offers financial incentives to hospitals, physicians, and individual providers to establish an electronic health record that ultimately will link with the health information technology of other health care systems and providers. The information collected will facilitate patient safety, promote best practice, and track health trends such as smoking and childhood obesity.

Reliability of the Conversational Interaction Coding Form When Applied to Natural Conversation of Individuals With Aphasia

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 125-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Pozzolo Coote ◽  
Jane Pimentel
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Interobserver Reliability ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Clinical Tool ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Conversational Interaction ◽  
Video Recordings ◽  
Aphasia Therapy ◽  
Natural Conversation ◽  
Point To Point

Purpose: Development of valid and reliable outcome tools to document social approaches to aphasia therapy and to determine best practice is imperative. The aim of this study is to determine whether the Conversational Interaction Coding Form (CICF; Pimentel & Algeo, 2009) can be applied reliably to the natural conversation of individuals with aphasia in a group setting. Method: Eleven graduate students participated in this study. During a 90-minute training session, participants reviewed and practiced coding with the CICF. Then participants independently completed the CICF using video recordings of individuals with non-fluent and fluent aphasia participating in an aphasia group. Interobserver reliability was computed using matrices representative of the point-to-point agreement or disagreement between each participant's coding and the authors' coding for each measure. Interobserver reliability was defined as 80% or better agreement for each measure. Results: On the whole, the CICF was not applied reliably to the natural conversation of individuals with aphasia in a group setting. Conclusion: In an extensive review of the turns that had high disagreement across participants, the poor reliability was attributed to inadequate rules and definitions and inexperienced coders. Further research is needed to improve the reliability of this potentially useful clinical tool.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document