High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of the incubator’s resources

University Science Park incubators (USIs) have emerged as a means by which Government, academia and business can develop high technology business firms (spin out HTBFs) from initial conception through to becoming established small firms, which are ready to move beyond the Science Park confines. Although there is considerable literature on how USIs can be improved and developed there is a paucity of studies, which explore how lifecycle development within HTBFs in USIs can affect how they use the unique resources and opportunities of the USI. Moreover, there is a focus on single point in time studies, which do not adequately investigate the longitudinal dynamics of HTBF lifecycle development within USIs. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the longitudinal use of the unique resources of the USI by HTBFs at different lifecycle stages. The research methodology involved 18 HTBFs within two separate USIs. A series of longitudinal interviews and focus groups were conducted with HTBFs and USI staff over a 36-month period. NUD*IST software was used in developing the coding and analysis of transcripts. The results show that a HTBF's propensity to make effective use of the USI's resources and support increases as the lifecycle stage of the company increases and the small-firm searches for independence and autonomy. Therefore, further research is required to investigate the following two outstanding questions; firstly, which usage pattern is associated with the HTBF's ultimate success or failure in the marketplace? And secondly, are there any services missing from the observed array that the USI could provide to enhance the HTBF's degree of ultimate success? © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Application of STOPP and START criteria: interrater reliability among pharmacists

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate prescribing is a well-documented problem in older people. The new screening tools, STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Peoples' Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment) have been formulated to identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential errors of omissions (PEOs) in older patients. Consistent, reliable application of STOPP and START is essential for the screening tools to be used effectively by pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To determine the interrater reliability among a group of clinical pharmacists in applying the STOPP and START criteria to elderly patients' records. METHODS: Ten pharmacists (5 hospital pharmacists, 5 community pharmacists) were given 20 patient profiles containing details including the patients' age and sex, current medications, current diagnoses, relevant medical histories, biochemical data, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Each pharmacist applied the STOPP and START criteria to each patient record. The PIMs and PEOs identified by each pharmacist were compared with those of 2 academic pharmacists who were highly familiar with the application of STOPP and START. An interrater reliability analysis using the k statistic (chance corrected measure of agreement) was performed to determine consistency between pharmacists. RESULTS: The median ? coefficients for hospital pharmacists and community pharmacists compared with the academic pharmacists for STOPP were 0.89 and 0.88, respectively, while those for START were 0.91 and 0.90, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interrater reliability of STOPP and START tools between pharmacists working in different sectors is good. Pharmacists working in both hospitals and in the community can use STOPP and START reliably during their everyday practice to identify PIMs and PEOs in older patients.

The UK Renal Registry Advanced CKD Study: frequency of incorrect reporting of date of start of RRT

Background: A preliminary review of the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) pre-RRT study data revealed results suggesting that, for some patients, the date of start of renal replacement therapy (RRT), as reported to the UKRR, was incorrect and often significantly later than the true date of start. A more detailed study then aimed to validate a set of criteria to identify patients with an incorrect start date. Methods: Pre-RRT laboratory data were electronically extracted from 8,810 incident RRT patients from 9 UK renal centres. Any patient with a low urea (<15 mmol/L) at the start of RRT or with a substantial improvement in kidney function (either a fall in urea >10 mmol/L or rise in eGFR >2 ml/min/1.73 m) within the two months prior to RRT were considered to potentially have an incorrect date of start. In 4
selected centres, the electronic patient records of all patients flagged were reviewed to validate these criteria.
Results: Of 8,810 patients, 1,616 (18.3%) were flagged by the identification criteria as having a potentially incorrect date of start of RRT, although a single centre accounted for 41% of the total flagged cohort. Of these flagged patients, 61.7% had been assigned an incorrect date of start of haemodialysis (HD), 5.7% had evidence of acute RRT being given before the reported date of start of HD
and 9.2% had evidence of starting peritoneal dialysis exchanges prior to the reported date of start. Of
those flagged, 10.7% had a correct date of start of RRT.
Conclusions: Accurate reporting of RRT episodes is vital for the analysis of time dependent studies such as survival or time to transplantation. A proportion of patients starting RRT were assigned an incorrect start date. In order to improve the accuracy of this reporting the UK Renal Registry
must work with renal centres and clinical staff on improving data input for the start of RRT.

A comparison of the application of STOPP/START to patients' drug lists with and without clinical information

Background A European screening tool (STOPP/START) has been formulated to identify the prescribing of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). Pharmacists working in community pharmacies could use STOPP/START as a guide to conducting medication use reviews; however, community pharmacists do not routinely have access to patients' clinical records. Objective To compare the PIM and PPO detection rates from application of the STOPP/START criteria to patients' medication details alone with the detection rates from application of STOPP/START to information on patients' medications combined with clinical information. Setting Community Pharmacy. Method Three pharmacists applied STOPP/START to 250 patient medication lists, containing information regarding dose, frequency and duration of treatment. The PIMs and PPOs identified by each pharmacist were compared with those identified by consensus agreement of two other pharmacists, who applied STOPP/START criteria using patients' full clinical records. Main outcome measure The main outcome measures were: (1) PIM and PPO detection rates among pharmacists with access to patients' clinical information compared to PIM and PPO detection rates among pharmacists using patients' medication information only, and (2) the levels of agreement (calculated using Cohen's kappa statistic (k)) for the three most commonly identified PIMs and PPOs. Results Pharmacists with access to patients' clinical records identified significantly fewer PIMs than pharmacists without (p = 0.002). The three most commonly identified PIMs were benzodiazepines, proton pump inhibitors and duplicate drug classes, with kappa (k) statistic agreement ranges of 0.87-0.97, 0.60-0.68 and 0.39-0.85 respectively. PPOs were identified more often (p 

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

PURPOSE: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required.

METHODS: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology.

RESULTS: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines.

CONCLUSION: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.