Cause-specific mortality adjudication in the UPLIFT® COPD trial:findings and recommendations

Mortality is an important endpoint in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials, although accurately determining cause of death is difficult. In the Understanding the Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) trial, a mortality adjudication committee (MAC) provided systematic, independent and blinded assessment of cause-specific mortality of all 981 reported deaths. Here we describe this process of mortality adjudication and methodological revisions introduced to help standardise the adjudication of two areas recognised to pose particular difficulty; firstly, the classification of fatal COPD exacerbations that occur in the setting of pneumonia and secondly, the categorisation of sudden death. In addition MAC determined cause of death was compared with that reported by site investigators (SIs). MAC-assigned causes of death were: respiratory, 35%; cancer, 25%; cardiovascular, 11%; sudden cardiac death, 4.4%; sudden death, 3.4%; other, 8.8%; unknown, 12.4%. Cancer/cardiac deaths were more common in Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage II, respiratory deaths in stages III and IV. Agreement between MAC and SI regarding cause of death was complete (50.2%), incomplete (18.5%) or none (31.3%). The SI classified deaths as cardiac three-fold more frequently than MAC (incidence rate [IR]/100 patient-years 0.797 vs. 0.257), although IR ratios for cardiac deaths for tiotropium vs. control were similar between SI and MAC. Discrepancies between MAC- and SI-adjudicated causes of death are common, especially increased reporting of cardiac deaths by the SI. Future multicentre COPD trials should plan appropriate infrastructure before study initiation to ensure collection and interpretation of fatal events data.

Moving Beyond the Administrative: Supervisors' Perspectives on Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

This study contributes to the emerging knowledge base of child welfare supervision. An exploratory study examined the beliefs, practices, and experiences of 51 child welfare supervisors in Ontario, Canada. Eight focus groups were held with supervisors from a range of settings cross the province. The study identified a number of interwoven factors at the organizational, supervisory, and practice level that affect the nature of supervision offered. Implications are drawn for child welfare practice, models of supervision which integrate administrative, clinical and educational features, organizational culture, and training new supervisors.

NEC Contracting: Evaluation of the Inclusion of Dispute Review Boards in lieu of Adjudication in the Construction Industry in the United Kinddom

The construction industry is renowned for spending vast sums in the resolution of disputes, but never in the prevention. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the New Engineering Contract (NEC) to determine whether or not adjudication has become misaligned with the contract’s objective of promoting effective management. In doing so, the paper examines dispute review boards in order to ascertain if they could be a viable alternative to adjudication. A sequential mixed methodology is adopted including a detailed literature review, eight semi-structured interviews, culminating in the circulation and analysis of a questionnaire, to record the significance of the factors identified. The research concludes that the majority of individuals agree that dispute review boards would be more aligned with the NEC. The familiarity of members, the potential to curb rogue behaviour of parties and the proactive nature of the board are flagged as positive features, however the cost aspect requires further investigation. The reservations made in the study about adjudication, such as the priority given to speed over accuracy and also the adversarial nature of the process, suggest that a preventative step prior to proceeding to adjudication would coincide more with the three core themes of the NEC Contract and therefore, be a positive addition.

State retrenchment and administrative reform in Ireland: Probing comparative policy paradigms

Policy choices in response to crisis may carry consequences both for distributive outcomes and for the future policy capacity of the state itself. In this paper, we use conceptual heuristics to interpret policy practice. We examine the underlying policy paradigms shaping Irish government decisions in the aftermath of the European financial and economic crisis. We distinguish between two such paradigms- market-conforming and social equity - and apply them to three reform themes: reconfiguration of public budgets, the public service pay bargain, and the organizational profile of state competences. Our findings entail lessons for understanding the malleability of policy choice, and how state policy choices in response to crisis are framed and implemented.

The Pluralism of Human Rights Adjudication

This chapter considers judicial reasoning in ‘human rights’ cases. Are there techniques that courts share, or are different techniques adopted, to decide how human rights, in this broader sense, are protected? The chapter aims to adopt a comparative approach to the examination of this reasoning, through a detailed examination of similar human rights issues in a range of jurisdictions. The aim of the chapter is to examine the similarities and divergences in the reasoning developed by courts when addressing comparable human rights questions. The chapter shows that human rights reasoning involves distinctive and particular forms of legal reasoning, but that its form and content differ significantly
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and over time within jurisdictions. Building upon these findings, the chapter explores what these similarities and differences tell us about the nature, and the direction of travel, of human rights law which comprises notionally universal norms.

Using Comparative Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication:The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights Compared

This article examines the relationship between the methods that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) use to decide disputes that involve ‘human’ or ‘fundamental’ rights claims, and the substantive outcomes that result from the use of these particular methods. It has a limited aim: in attempting to understand the interrelationship between human rights methodology and human rights outcomes, it considers primarily the use of ‘comparative reasoning’ in ‘human’ and ‘fundamental’ rights claims by these courts. It is not primarily concerned with examining the extent to which the use of comparative reasoning is based on an appropriate methodology or whether there is a persuasive normative theory underpinning the use of comparative reasoning. The issues considered in this chapter do some of the groundwork, however, that is necessary in order to address these methodological and normative questions.

Administrative Justice in the United Kingdom

The article examines the concept of administrative justice and shows how this term does not lend itself to a singular definition, but it is generally associated with a more holistic approach to citizen redress against government in which judicial review is only one mechanism among many others. After identifying some of the primary mechanisms within the system of administrative justice (Consultation, Ombudsman, Tribunals) and showing how they interact with one another, the article outlines the main challenges that this system faces in an era of austerity. Indeed, the reduction of government spending on the mechanisms which facilitate administrative justice has the potential to hollow out the values that infuse administrative justice as a whole.

Studying administrative reforms through textual analysis: the case of Italian central government accounting

This paper contributes to the literature on public-sector reforms by proposing textual analysis as a useful research strategy to explore how reform archetypes and related ideas are deployed in the parliamentary debate and regulations advancing reforms. Public Administration (PA) (Wilson 1887; Weber 1922), New Public Management (NPM) (Hood 1991, 1995; Dunleavy and Hood 1994; Ferlie et al. 1996) and Public Governance (GOV) (Osborne 2010; Rhodes 1997) can be depicted as three different archetypes providing characteristic administrative ideas and concepts (i.e. interpretive schemes) and related tools and practices (i.e. structures and systems) which lead reforms. We use textual analysis to look into more than twenty years of Italian central government accounting reforms and investigate how the three administrative archetypes have evolved, intertwined and replaced each other. Textual analysis proves a useful tool to investigate reform processes and allows highlighting that in neo-Weberian countries, such as Italy, NPM and GOV, far from being revolutionary paradigms, may represent fashionable trends that did not leave significant traces in the practice and rhetoric of reforms. These results also suggest interesting implications for practitioners and policy makers.