Current practice in treatment approach for bullous pemphigoid: comparison between national surveys from the Netherlands and the UK

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 506-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Meijer ◽  
M. F. Jonkman ◽  
F. Wojnarowska ◽  
H. C. Wiliams ◽  
G. Kirtschig
2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-101
Author(s):  
Brian Moore ◽  
Joris van Wijk

Case studies in the Netherlands and the UK of asylum applicants excluded or under consideration of exclusion pursuant to Article 1Fa of the Refugee Convention reveal that some applicants falsely implicated themselves in serious crimes or behaviours in order to enhance their refugee claim. This may have serious consequences for the excluded persons themselves, as well as for national governments dealing with them. For this reason we suggest immigration authorities could consider forewarning asylum applicants i.e. before their interview, about the existence, purpose and possible consequences of exclusion on the basis of Article 1F.


Author(s):  
Anne Elizabeth Bean ◽  
Laura Myers ◽  
Catherine Smith ◽  
Tamanna Williams

Author(s):  
Nico van Eijk

The point of departure for this chapter is the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which annulled the European Data Retention Directive, in part because the use of retained data was not made subject to independent oversight. Next, it examines judgments from the national courts of the Netherlands and the UK, also focusing on the independent oversight issue, declaring invalid the data retention laws of those two countries. From the Digital Rights Ireland case and others, seven standards for oversight of intelligence services can be drawn: the oversight should be complete; it should encompass all stages of the intelligence cycle; it should be independent; it should take place prior to the imposition of a measure; it should be able to declare a measure unlawful and to provide redress; it should incorporate the adversary principle; and it should have sufficient resources.


RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e001183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie Najm ◽  
Alessia Alunno ◽  
Francisca Sivera ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Catherine Haines

ObjectivesTo gain insight into current methods and practices for the assessment of competences during rheumatology training, and to explore the underlying priorities and rationales for competence assessment.MethodsWe used a qualitative approach through online focus groups (FGs) of rheumatology trainers and trainees, separately. The study included five countries—Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. A summary of current practices of assessment of competences was developed, modified and validated by the FGs based on an independent response to a questionnaire. A prioritising method (9 Diamond technique) was then used to identify and justify key assessment priorities.ResultsOverall, 26 participants (12 trainers, 14 trainees) participated in nine online FGs (2 per country, Slovenia 1 joint), totalling 12 hours of online discussion. Strong nationally (the Netherlands, UK) or institutionally (Spain, Slovenia, Denmark) standardised approaches were described. Most groups identified providing frequent formative feedback to trainees for developmental purposes as the highest priority. Most discussions identified a need for improvement, particularly in developing streamlined approaches to portfolios that remain close to clinical practice, protecting time for quality observation and feedback, and adopting systematic approaches to incorporating teamwork and professionalism into assessment systems.ConclusionThis paper presents a clearer picture of the current practice on the assessment of competences in rheumatology in five European countries and the underlying rationale of trainers’ and trainees’ priorities. This work will inform EULAR Points-to-Consider for the assessment of competences in rheumatology training across Europe.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Keyword(s):  

Abstract This abstract relates to the following interim paper: Kenny, T., Golding, C., Craske, G., Dobinson, A., Gunter, S., Griffiths, O., Hayes, N., Mockridge, A., Robertson, S., Saundh, R. and Thorpe, J., Actuarial management of equity release mortgages: current practice and issues in the actuarial management of ERMs in the UK. This paper is available on the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) website at https://ifoa-www.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/live/s3fs-public/Sessional%20Paper_0.pdf. The final paper will be published in due course.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document