Comparison of Defence Arts by Country in Law Enforcement Education

Law Enforcement Defence and Intervention Techniques (LEDIT) are the methods of defence and intervention applied to suspects, criminals, and individuals who threaten security and public order, by the authority granted by law to the gendarmerie personnel who have the duty of security, public order, and safety. The aim of this study is to analyse the martial arts used by law enforcement officers by country. In this study, which was designed for a descriptive purpose, the data were obtained from the websites of the Police and Gendarmerie Forces, from the replies to the defence techniques information request letter written to the embassies, and from the theses and articles published in the relevant field, by using the scanning method. According to the data obtained, it has been observed that many countries use more than one defence technique. As a result, all countries in the world either created their own fighting styles for close-range combat or took them from other countries and blended them within their own styles. The study group of the research consists of the police forces of 22 countries, including Turkey, and 6 countries affiliated to the International Gendarmerie and Law Enforcement Forces with Military Status (FIEP).

Clinical commissioning group funding of oculoplastic services: is there a postcode lottery?

Background/Aims Clinical commissioning groups have been responsible for commissioning healthcare services since 2013, allocating resources according to local needs. This has given rise to concerns about a ‘postcode lottery’. This study examined the variability of clinical commissioning group-imposed funding restrictions and access policies for oculoplastic procedures in England. Methods A freedom of information request was sent to all 206 clinical commissioning groups in February 2018 seeking information about their funding policies for common oculoplastic procedures. When signposted to online policies, these were reviewed. Results Significant funding variation exists across all procedures examined. Access criteria usually depends on visual function sequelae. Some clinical commissioning groups have adopted shared policies. Although many policies are publicly available online, the authors frequently found them unclear and thus suspect that practical implementation may be challenging. Conclusions Access policies vary significantly across England. Practical interpretation is difficult, leading to a postcode lottery. This has implications for patient access, and clinician workload.

Responding to Information Requests: The Case of Inscribed Object Checks

This paper explores one way that participants use inscribed objects in their immediate environment as resources for interaction. In particular, it identifies and analyzes a type of embodied response turn found in information request sequences. The data come from a video recording of family members engaged in a joint cooking activity, where they are preparing an unfamiliar dish while following recipe instructions. In this setting, participants and inscribed objects hold varying levels of epistemic rights and access regarding the task at hand. This appears to have consequences for how the interaction unfolds. As participants ask questions about the recipe, respondents repeatedly employ a particular embodied practice of checking and reading aloud the recipe, which I call an inscribed object check. An analysis of this practice and its sequential variations shows how participants draw on verbal, embodied, and environmental resources to fill knowledge gaps made relevant by information requests when the knowledge lies within inscribed objects. The findings contribute to our understanding of the role that inscribed objects play in interaction, as well as how responses to information requests are managed in everyday settings when all participants are relatively unknowledgeable about the task at hand.

How Should I Improve the UI of My App?

UI (User Interface) is an essential factor influencing users’ perception of an app. However, it is hard for even professional designers to determine if the UI is good or not for end-users. Users’ feedback (e.g., user reviews in the Google Play) provides a way for app owners to understand how the users perceive the UI. In this article, we conduct an in-depth empirical study to analyze the UI issues of mobile apps. In particular, we analyze more than 3M UI-related reviews from 22,199 top free-to-download apps and 9,380 top non-free apps in the Google Play Store. By comparing the rating of UI-related reviews and other reviews of an app, we observe that UI-related reviews have lower ratings than other reviews. By manually analyzing a random sample of 1,447 UI-related reviews with a 95% confidence level and a 5% interval, we identify 17 UI-related issues types that belong to four categories (i.e., “Appearance,” “Interaction,” “Experience,” and “Others” ). In these issue types, we find “Generic Review” is the most occurring one. “Comparative Review” and “Advertisement” are the most negative two UI issue types. Faced with these UI issues, we explore the patterns of interaction between app owners and users. We identify eight patterns of how app owners dialogue with users about UI issues by the review-response mechanism. We find “Apology or Appreciation” and “Information Request” are the most two frequent patterns. We find updating UI timely according to feedback is essential to satisfy users. Besides, app owners could also fix UI issues without updating UI, especially for issue types belonging to “Interaction” category. Our findings show that there exists a positive impact if app owners could actively interact with users to improve UI quality and boost users’ satisfactoriness about the UIs.

P089 The cost of repeat ANA testing in north west London pathology services

Background/Aims The anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) test is commonly used to screen for autoimmune connective tissue (CTD) disease. It is a test that should be used judiciously and should only be requested if a patient presents with symptoms suggestive of a CTD and should not be used as a screening test for vague musculoskeletal symptoms. Recent studies have demonstrated that it is often repetitively requested in those patients both with a known positive and known negative ANA with little value in altering a diagnosis. With this information in mind, we sought to examine the frequency and associated cost of repeat ANA testing in hospital trusts served by North West London Pathology Services (NWL). Methods The trusts included in the study were Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital Foundation Trust and Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Data was obtained regarding how many patients had repeat ANA testing in total between these trusts between 2017-2019. The data was obtained via a freedom of information request. Results In total, there were 6,799 instances of repeated ANA testing in the same patient across three trusts over three years. This included one patient who had 16 ANA tests in a single year in 2017. The cost of an ANA test is £12.27. The total cost of repeat ANA testing in the three years across three trusts was £83,423.73 (£27,807.66 per year on average). Data is provided in tabular form and gives a breakdown of the number of repeat ANA tests per year and how many times the test was repeated in the same patient. Conclusion The requesting of unnecessary tests can add to a hospital pathology workload and is associated with significant cost. It has been previously demonstrated in the literature that repeat ANA testing is of little value and rarely alters the diagnosis of a rheumatic disease. There is a large burden of repeated ANA testing in North West London Pathology Services and this is associated with significant expense. More judicious use of ANA testing can result in significant cost saving. This is the first study to specifically examine the cost of repeat ANA testing in the NHS. Disclosure M. Colquhoun: Other; MC has received support to attend conferences from Pfizer. M. Mouyis: None.