Service User and Carer Involvement in Role-Plays to Assess Readiness for Practice

Service user and carer involvement in social work education is now well established since its inception as a compulsory requirement in the social work curriculum in the United Kingdom in 2003. Since then, there have been many examples of how such involvement has been approached by education providers. Nevertheless, one of the key obstacles and challenges in this field continues to centre on the need to achieve non-tokenistic user involvement which cements the engagement of service users and carers at the heart of social work education. This paper describes one such initiative where service user and carer colleagues in a university in Northern Ireland have been actively involved in the assessment of first year social work students’ preparation for their first period of practice learning. The paper presents the background to this initiative explaining how the project unfolded; the detailed preparations that were involved and the evidence gathered from evaluations undertaken with the students, service users and carers, and academic colleagues who were all involved. We believe that the findings from this project can contribute to the advancement of existing knowledge in the field in exploring and recommending creative methodologies for user involvement in social work education.

From inconsistency handling to non-canonical requirements management: A logical perspective

As a class of defects in software requirements specification, inconsistency has been widely studied in both requirements engineering and software engineering. It has been increasingly recognized that maintaining consistency alone often results in some other types of non-canonical requirements, including incompleteness of a requirements specification, vague requirements statements, and redundant requirements statements. It is therefore desirable for inconsistency handling to take into account the related non-canonical requirements in requirements engineering. To address this issue, we propose an intuitive generalization of logical techniques for handling inconsistency to those that are suitable for managing non-canonical requirements, which deals with incompleteness and redundancy, in addition to inconsistency. We first argue that measuring non-canonical requirements plays a crucial role in handling them effectively. We then present a measure-driven logic framework for managing non-canonical requirements. The framework consists of five main parts, identifying non-canonical requirements, measuring them, generating candidate proposals for handling them, choosing commonly acceptable proposals, and revising them according to the chosen proposals. This generalization can be considered as an attempt to handle non-canonical requirements along with logic-based inconsistency handling in requirements engineering.

User behaviour, best practice and the risks of non-target exposure associated with anticoagulant rodenticide use

Usage of anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) is an integral component of modern agriculture and is essential for the control of commensal rodent populations. However, the extensive deployment of ARs has led to widespread exposure of a range of non-target predatory birds and mammals to some compounds, in particular the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SCARS). As a result, there has been considerable effort placed into devising voluntary best practice guidelines that increase the efficacy of rodent control and reduce the risk of non-target exposure. Currently, there is limited published information on actual practice amongst users or implementation of best practice. We assessed the behaviour of a typical group of users using an on-farm questionnaire survey. Most baited for rodents every year using SGARs. Most respondents were apparently aware of the risks of non-target exposure and adhered to some of the best practice recommendations but total compliance was rare. Our questionnaire revealed that users of first generation anticoagulant rodenticides rarely protected or checked bait stations, and so took little effort to prevent primary exposure of non-targets. Users almost never searched for and removed poisoned carcasses and many baited for prolonged periods or permanently. These factors are all likely to enhance the likelihood of primary and secondary exposure of non-target species. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.