Why do Women Sue?

Statistics published by the National Health Service Litigation Authority relating to ten years of maternity claims provoke a sharp intake of breath. The total value of these claims over the first decade of the 21st century was £3,117,649,888 (NHS Litigation Authority 2012). The United Kingdom is not the only country to witness an astronomical increase in the level of litigation relating to maternity services. As far afield as Saudi Arabia (Henary et al 2012) and the United States (Berkowitz 2011), reports are being published of the demands on maternity budgets as a result of dissatisfaction with care received during pregnancy, labour and birth. The papers referenced above attribute adverse outcomes to negligence, misdiagnosis, surgical blunders and inefficient administration. Berkowitz(2011:7) suggests that what is needed is wholesale and whole-hearted adoption of ‘…electronic fetal monitoring [EFM] certification for all staff working on their Labor and Delivery floor, protocols for managing common clinical scenarios, simulation drills for dealing with uncommon dangerous events, and pre-procedure checklists’. The NHS Litigation Authority (2012:5) recommends that Trusts ‘…engage with the risk management process at all levels; provide suitable learning and training; ensure appropriate supervision and support; have in place up-to-date protocols and guidance with which staff are familiar; learn lessons from claims’. It is relatively easy to ensure that staff are sent on fetal heart rate (FHR) training days (although whether use of EFM produces better outcomes has, of course, never been clearly demonstrated (Alfirevic et al 2013) and that protocols for managing events during labour and birth are drawn up and even put into practice. It’s uncertain, however, whether doing so will make the problem of maternity litigation go away. There is something ‘rotten in the state of Denmark’ that is fuelling women’s dissatisfaction and which ‘the system’ has not been able to get its head round.

Towards a Better Modelling and Assessment of Construction Risk: Insights from a Literature Review

This paper reviews the literature of construction risk modelling and assessment. It also reviews the real practice of risk assessment. The review resulted in significant results, summarised as follows. There has been a major shift in risk perception from an estimation variance into a project attribute. Although the Probability–Impact risk model is prevailing, substantial efforts are being put to improving it reflecting the increasing complexity of construction projects. The literature lacks a comprehensive assessment approach capable of capturing risk impact on different project objectives. Obtaining a realistic project risk level demands an effective mechanism for aggregating individual risk assessments. The various assessment tools suffer from low take-up; professionals typically rely on their experience. It is concluded that a simple analytical tool that uses risk cost as a common scale and utilises professional experience could be a viable option to facilitate closing the gap between theory and practice of risk assessment.

A DST-based Approach for Construction Project Risk Analysis

Despite its huge potential in risk analysis, the Dempster–Shafer Theory of Evidence (DST) has not received enough attention in construction management. This paper presents a DST-based approach for structuring personal experience and professional judgment when assessing construction project risk. DST was innovatively used to tackle the problem of lacking sufficient information through enabling analysts to provide incomplete assessments. Risk cost is used as a common scale for measuring risk impact on the various project objectives, and the Evidential Reasoning algorithm is suggested as a novel alternative for aggregating individual assessments. A spreadsheet-based decision support system (DSS) was devised to facilitate the proposed approach. Four case studies were conducted to examine the approach's viability. Senior managers in four British construction companies tried the DSS and gave very promising feedback. The paper concludes that the proposed methodology may contribute to bridging the gap between theory and practice of construction risk assessment.

The Day Roads Became Rivers: A GIS-Based Assessment of Flash Floods in Worcester

In the last 4 years Worcester, UK has been hit by several intense convective rainstorms, which caused flash floods outside of existing surface drainage networks. This paper addresses two questions related to such events: Firstly to what extent can the occurrence of flash flood flow accumulation can be determined using only commonly available data and tools, assuming the rainfall events caused mainly surface runoff due to their tropical intensity and the relatively impermeable urban catchment surface? Secondly, are the flood in-cidents in Worcester aggravated by roads serving as preferential flow paths under these conditions? The as-sessment results indicated that roads do not have an influence on the flow path of flash flood rainfall in Worcester. Flow accumulation calculated with a 10m DEM, corresponds well with reported flood incidents. This basic assessment method can be used to inform the implementation of non structural flood mitigation and public awareness.