Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older residents in Irish nursing homes

STOPP/START was formulated to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) in older people. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of PIP and PPO in older Irish patients in residential care using STOPP/START.

'Sliabh in Irish place-names' in Nomina 32 (2009)

This article deals with one of the most common elements in names of Irish hills and mountains. The grammar, phonology, etymology, semantic range and chronology of the element are examined. Sliabh is particularly complex in terms of its semantic range, which includes the following senses: 1) a mountain or hill (standing alone or forming part of a range); 2) a range of hills or mountains; 3) an moor or area of upland. The word is present in the earliest attested stages of the Irish language, and there is some evidence for all three meanings in Old Irish, though senses 1 and 2 are best attested. It is suggested that the view advanced by MacBain and Thurneysen that sliabh is etymologically related to Eng. slope and that this reflects its original meaning is open to some doubt in view of the lack of evidence for this sense in early Irish and the lack of clear cognates in other branches of Celtic and Indo-European languages.

Accounts of debates in the House of Commons, March– April 1731, supplementary to the diary of the first earl of Egmont

John Perceval (1685–1748), 1st Viscount Perceval and (from 1733) 1st Earl of Egmont, was an assiduous recorder of his own life and times. His diaries, published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission from manuscripts in the British Library, are the best source for parliamentary debates at Westminster in the 1730s. For the years 1730-1733, when Perceval sat in the Commons (as an Irish peer) they are remarkably full. His practice seems to have been to prepare two versions (presumably on the basis of notes taken in the House), the first attributing speeches to individuals, and the second, entered up in the diary, which listed speakers and summarized all arguments on each side. His letterbooks for 1731 contain accounts of five debates that embody his first editing process, with speeches attributed to individuals. They were sent to an Irish correspondent, Marmaduke Coghill, and largely omitted from the diary because Perceval had already transcribed them elsewhere. They are new to historians and cast light on two main issues: the unsuccessful attempts by Perceval and the ‘Irish lobby’ to persuade the British parliament to settle the Irish woollen trade, a question bedevilling Anglo-Irish relations in this period; and an attempt by the opposition to stir up anger against perceived Spanish aggression against Gibraltar. One of the most interesting features is the insight afforded into the Commons performances of Sir Robert Walpole: his management of debates, his own style of speaking, and his sharp exchanges with opponents like William Pulteney.