Designing an interactive laboratory experiment to investigate buoyancy

Laboratory classes provide a visual and practical way of supplementing traditional teaching through lectures and tutorial classes. A criticism of laboratories in our School is that they are largely based on demonstration with insufficient participation by students. This provided the motivation to create a new laboratory experiment which would be interactive, encourage student enthusiasm with the subject and improve the quality of student learning.

The topic of the laboratory is buoyancy. While this is a key topic in the first-year fluids module, the laboratory has been designed in such a way that prior knowledge of the topic is unnecessary and therefore it would be accessible by secondary school pupils. The laboratory climaxes in a design challenge. However, it begins with a simple task involving students identifying some theoretical background information using given websites. They then have to apply their knowledge by developing some equations. Next, given some materials (a sheet of tinfoil, card and blu-tack), they have to design a vessel to carry the greatest mass without sinking. Thus, they are given an open-ended problem and have to provide a mathematical justification for their design. Students are expected to declare the maximum mass for their boat in advance of it being tested to create a sense of competition and fun. Overall, the laboratory involves tasks which begin at a low level and progressively get harder, incorporating understanding, applying, evaluating and designing (with reference to Bloom’s taxonomy).

The experiment has been tested in a modern laboratory with wall-mounted screens and access to the internet. Students enjoyed the hands-on aspect and thought the format helped their learning.

The use of cheap materials which are readily available means that many students can be involved at one time. Support documentation has been produced, both for the student participants and the facilitator. The latter is given advice on how to guide the students (without simply giving them the answer) and given some warning about potential problems the students might have.

The authors believe that the laboratory can be adapted for use by secondary school pupils and hope that it will be used to promote engineering in an engaging and enthusing way to a wider audience. To this end, contact has already been made with the Widening Participation Unit at the University to gain advice on possible next steps.

Multifunctional anthraquinone-based sensors: UV, O2and time

An anthraquinone dye, Remazol brilliant blue R, RBBR, is used to create an indicator which can function as: (i) a UV dosimeter, (ii) an O2 indicator and (iii) a ‘Consume within’ indicator, CWI, for fresh, refrigerated foods. The dye is encapsulated in an ink containing a polymer, glycerol and a UV-activated semiconductor photocatalyst, titanium dioxide. When cast as a film, the dye is readily reduced by the TiO2 photocatalyst nanoparticles, thereby changing the colour of the film from blue to yellow, via a transitional green colour. The RBBR indicator is appropriately formulated, and covered with a film of Sellotape, which acts as an O2 barrier, so as to act as a sunburn warning indicator for people with skin type II. In the absence of the layer of Sellotape the RBBR indicator is used as an, albeit slow, sensor for measuring ambient levels of O2. Finally, by keeping the Sellotape layer, a UV-activated, yellow-coloured, RBBR indicator film is found to take ca. 42 h at 5 °C in ambient air to attain a green colour, and, on this basis, it is demonstrated as a possible CWI for refrigerated fresh foods.

Respiratory virus-associated severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) and viral clustering in Malawian children in a setting with a high prevalence of HIV, malaria and malnutrition

BACKGROUND:  We used four years of paediatric severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) sentinel surveillance in Blantyre, Malawi to identify factors associated with clinical severity and co-viral clustering.

METHODS:  From January 2011 to December 2014, 2363 children aged 3 months to 14 years presenting to hospital with SARI were enrolled. Nasopharyngeal aspirates were tested for influenza and other respiratory viruses. We assessed risk factors for clinical severity and conducted clustering analysis to identify viral clusters in children with co-viral detection.

RESULTS:  Hospital-attended influenza-positive SARI incidence was 2.0 cases per 10,000 children annually; it was highest children aged under 1 year (6.3 cases per 10,000), and HIV-infected children aged 5 to 9 years (6.0 cases per 10,000). 605 (26.8%) SARI cases had warning signs, which were positively associated with HIV infection (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.4, 3.9), RSV infection (aRR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3, 3.0) and rainy season (aRR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.6, 3.8). We identified six co-viral clusters; one cluster was associated with SARI with warning signs.

CONCLUSIONS:  Influenza vaccination may benefit young children and HIV infected children in this setting. Viral clustering may be associated with SARI severity; its assessment should be included in routine SARI surveillance.

Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives

Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives C Morgan, L Adams, J Murray, R Dunlop, IK Walsh. Ian K Walsh, Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6DP Background and Purpose: Structured communication tools are used to improve team communication quality.1,2 The Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) tool is widely adopted within patient safety.3 SBAR effectiveness is reportedly equivocal, suggesting use is not sustained beyond initial training.4-6 Understanding perspectives of those using SBAR may further improve clinical communication. We investigated senior medical undergraduate perspectives on SBAR, particularly when communicating with senior colleagues. Methodology: Mixed methods data collection was used. A previously piloted questionnaire with 12 five point Lickert scale questions and 3 open questions was given to all final year medical students. A subgroup also participated in 10 focus groups, deploying strictly structured audio-recorded questions. Selection was by convenience sampling, data gathered by open text questions and comments transcribed verbatim. In-vivo coding (iterative, towards data saturation) preceded thematic analysis. Results: 233 of 255 students (91%) completed the survey. 1. There were clearly contradictory viewpoints on SBAR usage. A recurrent theme was a desire for formal feedback and a relative lack of practice/experience with SBAR. 2. Students reported SBAR as having variable interpretation between individuals; limiting use as a shared mental model. 3. Brief training sessions are insufficient to embed the tool. 4. Most students reported SBAR helping effective communication, especially by providing structure in stressful situations. 5. Only 18.5% of students felt an alternative resource might be needed. Sub analysis of the themes highlighted: A. Lack of clarity regarding what information to include and information placement within the acronym, B. Senior colleague negative response to SBAR C. Lack of conciseness with the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Despite a wide range of contradictory interpretation of SBAR utility, most students wish to retain the resource. More practice opportunities/feedback may enhance user confidence and understanding. References: (1) Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2004 Oct;13(Suppl 1):85-90. (2) d'Agincourt-Canning LG, Kissoon N, Singal M, Pitfield AF. Culture, communication and safety: lessons from the airline industry. Indian J Pediatr 2011 Jun;78(6):703-708. (3) Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009 Oct;13(5):384-390. (4) Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S, Cassity C, Spetman M, Xiao Y, et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012 Jun;38(6):261-268. (5) Ludikhuize J, de Jonge E, Goossens A. Measuring adherence among nurses one year after training in applying the Modified Early Warning Score and Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation instruments. Resuscitation 2011 Nov;82(11):1428-1433. (6) Cunningham NJ, Weiland TJ, van Dijk J, Paddle P, Shilkofski N, Cunningham NY. Telephone referrals by junior doctors: a randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of SBAR in a simulated setting. Postgrad Med J 2012 Nov;88(1045):619-626.