Three Phi beta kappa addresses: A college fetich, 1883; "Shall Cromwell have a statue!" 1902; Some modern college tendencies, 1906.

"Reverting to my text--'Shall Cromwell have a statue' ... I ... ask ... 'Shall Robert E. Lee have a statue'?"--p. 54.

Von achten der letzte. Amerikanische kriegsbilder aus der südarmee des Generals Robert E. Lee,

Mode of access: Internet.

Robert Dale Owen unmasked by his own pen, showing his unqualified approbation of a most obscenely indelicate work entitled What is love, or Every woman's book...

Mode of access: Internet.

Robert Edward’s Commonplace Book: the context and function of a seventeenth-century Scottish music manuscript (GB-En MS.9450), with an edition of the musical content

This study concerns the manuscript music book of Robert Edward (c. 1614–c. 1697), minister, author and musician. The manuscript, formerly part of the library at Panmure House, is now held in the National Library of Scotland and is commonly referred to as ‘Robert Edward’s Commonplace Book’ (GB-En MS.9450). The present study is in two parts and begins with an exploration of the physical book, including the structure, compilation, hands and ownership before a second chapter explores the biography of the eponymous owner, contextualising GB-En MS.9450 locally and nationally. The third chapter concerns the function of the manuscript which, it is argued, is closely related to pedagogy. The final three chapters discuss the content of the manuscript, taking in turn the vocal music, instrumental music and the selection of Italian three-part villanelle. The implications for dating and use arising from the first part of this

Lipogenesis in the animal body, with special reference to the physiology of the goose,

Bibliographical foot-notes.

From shell to show room : a compendium of useful information covering every phase of poultry growing from the egg to maturity /

Mode of access: Internet.

The self-interpreting Bible /

Mode of access: Internet.

Development of process control methodology for tracking the quality and safety of pain, agitation and sedation management in critical care units

Objective: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. Design: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. Setting: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. Patients: Mechanically ventilated patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman [rho] = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; [kappa] = 0.66) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.58) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.29) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. Conclusions: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time