Message from the President of the United States transmitting documents relative to the execution of the first article of the late treaty between the United States and Great Britain.

"February 7, 1817, ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate." Message addressed to the Senate and dated February 7th, 1817. Consists of the covering letter from the President and a report from the Secretary of State, dated Department of State, February 5th, 1817; which itself consists largely of diplomatic correspondence between the United States and Great Britain Relates to the restitution of captured slaves by the British during the War of 1812-1814.

Message from the President of the United States, Recommending an Immediate Declaration of War Against Great Britain (1812)

"June 1st, 1812. Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. June 3d, 1812. Bill reported, declaring war ..."

Indenture of bargain and sale (vellum) between David William Smith of Alnwick, Great Britain and William Dickson of Niagara

Indenture of bargain and sale (vellum) between David William Smith of Alnwick, Great Britain and William Dickson of Niagara for 90 acres in the Township of Niagara –instrument no. 5926. Attached to this is a notice of Power of Attorney dated Apr. 6, 1810, which states that David William Smith of Alnwick, Great Britain allows James Crooks of Niagara to be his lawful attorney. The power of attorney is slightly torn. This does not affect the text, Sept. 21, 1810.

History of the Late War between Great Britain and the United States of America

History of the Late War between Great Britain and the United States of America by David Thompson, late of the Royal Scots, Niagara U.C. , 1832. There is an inscription in the front of the book which says “[illegible] Nelles, Grimsby and it is signed by Joseph Williams [?]” The book is stained from dampness, but this does not affect the text, 1832.

The end of consensus : Britain 1945-90.

Cumple con los requisitos para la especificación OCR AS de Historia, unidad F981 sobre 'Explicación histórica', opción B. Su contenido se divide en ocho capítulos y, además de definir el concepto de consenso, explica la política británica desde el final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial hasta 1990. Este recurso incluye: actividades para ayudar a la comprensión de su contenido y desarrollar en los estudiantes habilidades con la historia y, además fuentes históricas, debates y controversias, definiciones de palabras nuevas y consejos prácticos para los exámenes.

Bridging the two cultures. Commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain

This paper was given at a meeting of the Society held on 12 January 2006 and it discusses the relationship between academic research and developer-funded archaeology in Britain today, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. It considers the relationship between archaeological theory and practice and discusses the changing roles of academics, fieldworkers and managers. It argues that important issues need to be resolved, including the dissemination of information from recent archaeological fieldwork and the use of ‘grey literature’ in informing more ambitious interpretations of the past.

The Palaeolithic Rivers of Southwest Britain

The Palaeolithic Rivers of Southwest Britain (PRoSWeB) project synthesises the archaeological evidence for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic occupation of south-west Britain (c. 500,000 - 40,000 BP), with a principal focus upon the archaeological and geological potential of the region's Middle Pleistocene fluvial environments. South-west Britain was defined as the region west of the headwaters of the Rivers Frome and Piddle and south-west of the River Avon.

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.