Using reanalysis data to quantify extreme wind power generation statistics : a 33 year case study in Great Britain

With a rapidly increasing fraction of electricity generation being sourced from wind, extreme wind power generation events such as prolonged periods of low (or high) generation and ramps in generation, are a growing concern for the efficient and secure operation of national power systems. As extreme events occur infrequently, long and reliable meteorological records are required to accurately estimate their characteristics. Recent publications have begun to investigate the use of global meteorological “reanalysis” data sets for power system applications, many of which focus on long-term average statistics such as monthly-mean generation. Here we demonstrate that reanalysis data can also be used to estimate the frequency of relatively short-lived extreme events (including ramping on sub-daily time scales). Verification against 328 surface observation stations across the United Kingdom suggests that near-surface wind variability over spatiotemporal scales greater than around 300 km and 6 h can be faithfully reproduced using reanalysis, with no need for costly dynamical downscaling. A case study is presented in which a state-of-the-art, 33 year reanalysis data set (MERRA, from NASA-GMAO), is used to construct an hourly time series of nationally-aggregated wind power generation in Great Britain (GB), assuming a fixed, modern distribution of wind farms. The resultant generation estimates are highly correlated with recorded data from National Grid in the recent period, both for instantaneous hourly values and for variability over time intervals greater than around 6 h. This 33 year time series is then used to quantify the frequency with which different extreme GB-wide wind power generation events occur, as well as their seasonal and inter-annual variability. Several novel insights into the nature of extreme wind power generation events are described, including (i) that the number of prolonged low or high generation events is well approximated by a Poission-like random process, and (ii) whilst in general there is large seasonal variability, the magnitude of the most extreme ramps is similar in both summer and winter. An up-to-date version of the GB case study data as well as the underlying model are freely available for download from our website: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~energymet/data/Cannon2014/.

A radar-based rainfall climatology of Great Britain and Ireland

The Met Office 1km radar-derived precipitation-rate composite over 8 years (2006–2013) is examined to evaluate whether it provides an accurate representation of annual-average precipitation over Great Britain and Ireland over long periods of time. The annual-average precipitation from the radar composite is comparable with gauge measurements, with an average error of +23mmyr−1 over Great Britain and Ireland, +29mmyr−1 (3%) over the United Kingdom and –781mmyr−1 (46%) over the Republic of Ireland. The radar-derived precipitation composite is useful over the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland, but not accurate over the Republic of Ireland, particularly in the south.

The diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability in Italy and Great Britain: an exploratory spatial data analysis

Little research so far has been devoted to understanding the diffusion of grassroots innovation for sustainability across space. This paper explores and compares the spatial diffusion of two networks of grassroots innovations, the Transition Towns Network (TTN) and Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (Solidarity Purchasing Groups – GAS), in Great Britain and Italy. Spatio-temporal diffusion data were mined from available datasets, and patterns of diffusion were uncovered through an exploratory data analysis. The analysis shows that GAS and TTN diffusion in Italy and Great Britain is spatially structured, and that the spatial structure has changed over time. TTN has diffused differently in Great Britain and Italy, while GAS and TTN have diffused similarly in central Italy. The uneven diffusion of these grassroots networks on the one hand challenges current narratives on the momentum of grassroots innovations, but on the other highlights important issues in the geography of grassroots innovations for sustainability, such as cross-movement transfers and collaborations, institutional thickness, and interplay of different proximities in grassroots innovation diffusion.

The political economy of bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain

A brief history of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) and its control in Great Britain is presented. Numerous diverse policies to control the disease in man, cattle and wildlife have been pursued over the last 100 years and many millions of pounds have been spent. After notable success in reducing the incidence and prevalence of bTB in cattle in GB from the 1950s to the mid-1980s, the number of cattle slaughtered has increased with increased geographical spread continually since that time with a high point of bTB incidence in 2008. This increase appeared to coincide with changing policy regarding the control of the disease in badgers with a more humane approach adopted and with strengthened protection for badgers through legislation. Indeed, much controversy has been involved in the debate on the role of badgers in disease transmission to cattle and the need for their control as vectors of the disease with various commissioned research projects, trials, public consultations and media attention. The findings of two social science investigations presented as examples showed that citizens generally believed that bTB in cattle is an important issue that needs to be tackled but objected to badgers being killed, whilst cattle farmers were willing to pay around £17/animal/year for a bTB cattle vaccine. It is noted that successes regarding the control of bTB in other countries have combined both cattle and wildlife controls and had strong involvement from industry working with government.

What is the new medicines use review ‘patient survey’ attempting to capture in the context of existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires and a new conceptual framework?

The community pharmacy service medicines use review (MUR) was introduced in 2005 ‘to improve patient knowledge, concordance and use of medicines’ through a private patient–pharmacist consultation. The MUR presents a fundamental change in community pharmacy service provision. While traditionally pharmacists are dispensers of medicines and providers of medicines advice, and patients as recipients, the MUR considers pharmacists providing consultation-type activities and patients as active participants. The MUR facilitates a two-way discussion about medicines use. Traditional patient–pharmacist behaviours transform into a new set of behaviours involving the booking of appointments, consultation processes and form completion, and the physical environment of the patient–pharmacist interaction moves from the traditional setting of the dispensary and medicines counter to a private consultation room. Thus, the new service challenges traditional identities and behaviours of the patient and the pharmacist as well as the environment in which the interaction takes place. In 2008, the UK government concluded there is at present too much emphasis on the quantity of MURs rather than on their quality.[1] A number of plans to remedy the perceived imbalance included a suggestion to reward ‘health outcomes’ achieved, with calls for a more focussed and scientific approach to the evaluation of pharmacy services using outcomes research. Specifically, the UK government set out the main principal research areas for the evaluation of pharmacy services to include ‘patient and public perceptions and satisfaction’as well as ‘impact on care and outcomes’. A limited number of ‘patient satisfaction with pharmacy services’ type questionnaires are available, of varying quality, measuring dimensions relating to pharmacists’ technical competence, behavioural impressions and general satisfaction. For example, an often cited paper by Larson[2] uses two factors to measure satisfaction, namely ‘friendly explanation’ and ‘managing therapy’; the factors are highly interrelated and the questions somewhat awkwardly phrased, but more importantly, we believe the questionnaire excludes some specific domains unique to the MUR. By conducting patient interviews with recent MUR recipients, we have been working to identify relevant concepts and develop a conceptual framework to inform item development for a Patient Reported Outcome Measure questionnaire bespoke to the MUR. We note with interest the recent launch of a multidisciplinary audit template by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) in an attempt to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] This template includes an MUR ‘patient survey’. We will discuss this ‘patient survey’ in light of our work and existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires, outlining a new conceptual framework as a basis for measuring patient satisfaction with the MUR. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the NHS Surrey Research Ethics Committee on 2 June 2008. References 1. Department of Health (2008). Pharmacy in England: Building on Strengths – Delivering the Future. London: HMSO. www. official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7341/7341.pdf (accessed 29 September 2009). 2. Larson LN et al. Patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical care: update of a validated instrument. JAmPharmAssoc 2002; 42: 44–50. 3. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (2009). Pharmacy Medicines Use Review – Patient Audit. London: RPSGB. http:// qi4pd.org.uk/index.php/Medicines-Use-Review-Patient-Audit. html (accessed 29 September 2009).

A retrospective audit of medicines use review forms

The medicines use review (MUR) service was introduced in England and Wales in 2005 to improve patients’ knowledge and use of medicines through a private, patient–pharmacist consultation. The pharmacist completes a standard form as a record of the MUR consultation and the patient receives a copy. The 2008 White Paper, Pharmacy in England[1] notes some MURs are of poor or questionable quality and there are anecdotal reports that pharmacists elect to conduct ‘easy’ MURs with patients on a single prescribed medicine only.[2] In 2009, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) launched a multi-disciplinary audit template to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] Prior to this, we conducted a retrospective MUR audit in a 1-month period in 2008. Our aims were to report on findings from this audit and the validity of using MUR forms as data for audit.

Methodology for assessing the appropriateness of Continuing Professional Development for pharmacy professionals’ revalidation

From April 2010, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) will be responsible for the statutory regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in Great Britain (GB).[1] All statutorily regulated health professionals will need to periodically demonstrate their fitness-to-practise through a process of revalidation.[2] One option being considered in GB is that continuing professional development (CPD) records will form a part of the evidence submitted for revalidation, similar to the system in New Zealand.[3] At present, pharmacy professionals must make a minimum of nine CPD entries per annum from 1 March 2009 using the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) CPD framework. Our aim was to explore the applicability of new revalidation standards within the current CPD framework. We also wanted to review the content of CPD portfolios to assess strengths and qualities and identify any information gaps for the purpose of revalidation.

CPD records for revalidation: assessing fitness-to-practise using ‘revalidation standards’ and an Outcomes Framework

Background: Currently, all pharmacists and technicians registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain must complete a minimum of nine Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record (entries) each year. From September 2010 a new regulatory body, the General Pharmaceutical Council, will oversee the regulation (including revalidation) of all pharmacy registrants in Great Britain. CPD may provide part of the supporting evidence that a practitioner submits to the regulator as part of the revalidation process. Gaps in knowledge necessitated further research to examine the usefulness of CPD in a pharmacy revalidation Project aims: The overall aims of this project were to summarise pharmacy professionals’ past involvement in CPD, examine the usability of current CPD entries for the purpose of revalidation, and to examine the impact of ‘revalidation standards’ and a bespoke Outcomes Framework on the conduct and construction of CPD entries for future revalidation of pharmacy professionals. We completed a comprehensive review of the literature, devised, validated and tested the impact of a new CPD Outcomes Framework and related training material in an empirical investigation involving volunteer pharmacy professionals and also spoke with our participants to bring meaning and understanding to the process of CPD conduct and recording and to gain feedback on the study itself. Key findings: The comprehensive literature review identified perceived barriers to CPD and resulted in recommendations that could potentially rectify pharmacy professionals’ perceptions and facilitate participation in CPD. The CPD Outcomes Framework can be used to score CPD entries Compared to a control (CPD and ‘revalidation standards’ only), we found that training participants to apply the CPD Outcomes Framework resulted in entries that scored significantly higher in the context of a quantitative method of CPD assessment. Feedback from participants who had received the CPD Outcomes Framework was positive and a number of useful suggestions were made about improvements to the Framework and related training. Entries scored higher because participants had consciously applied concepts linked to the CPD Outcomes Framework whereas entries scored low where participants had been unable to apply the concepts of the Framework for a variety of reasons including limitations posed by the ‘Plan & Record’ template. Feedback about the nature of the ‘revalidation standards’ and their application to CPD was not positive and participants had not in the main sought to apply the standards to their CPD entries – but those in the intervention group were more likely to have referred to the revalidation standards for their CPD. As assessors, we too found the process of selecting and assigning ‘revalidation standards’ to individual CPD entries burdensome and somewhat unspecific. We believe that addressing the perceived barriers and drawing on the facilitators will help deal with the apparent lack of engagement with the revalidation standards and have been able to make a set of relevant recommendations. We devised a model to explain and tell the story of CPD behaviour. Based on the concepts of purpose, action and results, the model centres on explaining two types of CPD behaviour, one following the traditional CE pathway and the other a more genuine CPD pathway. Entries which scored higher when we applied the CPD Outcomes Framework were more likely to follow the CPD pathway in the model above. Significant to our finding is that while participants following both models of practice took part in this study, the CPD Outcomes Framework was able to change people’s CPD behaviour to make it more inline with the CPD pathway. The CPD Outcomes Framework in defining the CPD criteria, the training pack in teaching the basis and use of the Framework and the process of assessment in using the CPD Outcomes Framework, would have interacted to improve participants’ CPD through a collective process. Participants were keen to receive a curriculum against which certainly CE-type activities could be conducted and another important observation relates to whether CE has any role to play in pharmacy professionals’ revalidation. We would recommend that the CPD Outcomes Framework is used in the revalidation of pharmacy professionals in the future provided the requirement to submit 9 CPD entries per annum is re-examined and expressed more clearly in relation to what specifically participants are being asked to submit – i.e. the ratio of CE to CPD entries. We can foresee a benefit in setting more regular intervals which would act as deadlines for CPD submission in the future. On the whole, there is value in using CPD for the purpose of pharmacy professionals’ revalidation in the future.

General care of the older cancer patient.

With increasing age, there are greater numbers of older people who will be diagnosed with cancer. It must be remembered that such individuals have increased frailty and have a number of geriatric syndromes and conditions particularly pertinent to older age, including incontinence, poor cognition and impaired nutrition. It is often difficult to define the effects of cancer and its treatment or complications, and separate these from the effects of normal ageing and geriatric syndromes. The documentation of poor nutrition and its management must combine knowledge from both geriatric medicine and oncology. Nutrition serves to identify key healthcare professionals who are all essential in any patient at risk or suffering from malnutrition. Incontinence must be actively sought, its cause identified and efforts made to either 'cure' it or, in certain circumstances, 'manage' it. Older patients with cancer are cared for predominantly by older relations and informal care mechanisms and special consideration of their physical and practical needs are paramount. In this area, nurses, doctors, therapists and social workers should work to identify formal and informal mechanisms to support particularly the older carer.

Prizes for modernity in the provinces: The Arts Council’s 1950-1951 regional playwriting competition

As part of its contribution to the 1951 Festival of Britain, the Arts Council ran what can be seen in retrospect to be an important playwriting competition. Disregarding the London stage entirely, it invited regional theatres throughout the UK to put forward nominations for new plays within their repertoire for 1950-1951. Each of the five winning plays would receive, what was then, the substantial sum of £100. Originality and innovation featured highly amongst the selection criteria, with 40 per cent of the judges’ marks being awarded for “interest of subject matter and inventiveness of treatment”. This article will assess some of the surprising outcomes of the competition and argue that it served as an important nexus point in British theatrical historiography between two key moments in post-war Britain: the first being the inauguration of the Festival of Britain in 1951, the other being the debut of John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger in May 1956. The article will also argue that the Arts Council’s play competition was significant for two other reasons. By circumventing the London stage, it provides a useful tool by which to reassess the state of new writing in regional theatre at the beginning of the 1950s and to question how far received views of parochialism and conservatism held true. The paper will also put forward a case for the competition significantly anticipating the work of George Devine at the English Stage Company, which during its early years established a reputation for itself by heavily exploiting the repertoire of new plays originally commissioned by regional theatres. This article forms part of a five year funded Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) project, ‘Giving Voice to the Nation: The Arts Council of Great Britain and the Development of Theatre and Performance in Britain 1945-1994’. Details of the Arts Council’s archvie, which is housed at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London can be found at http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/wid/ead/acgb/acgbf.html Keywords: Arts Council of Great Britain, regional theatre, playwriting, Festival of Britain, English Stage Company (Royal Court) , Yvonne Mitchell