Habituation and dishabituation to speech and office noise

The authors examined whether background noise can be habituated to in the laboratory by using memory for prose tasks in 3 experiments. Experiment 1 showed that background speech can be habituated to after 20 min exposure and that meaning and repetition had no effect on the degree of habituation seen. Experiment 2 showed that office noise without speech can also be habituated to. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that a 5-min period of quiet, but not a change in voice, was sufficient to partially restore the disruptive effects of the background noise previously habituated to. These results are interpreted in light of current theories regarding the effects of background noise and habituation; practical implications for office planning are discussed.

The development of a new dust uplift scheme in the Met Office Unified Model

Aeolian mineral dust aerosol is an important consideration in the Earth's radiation budget as well as a source of nutrients to oceanic and land biota. The modelling of aeolian mineral dust has been improving consistently despite the relatively sparse observations to constrain them. This study documents the development of a new dust emissions scheme in the Met Office Unified ModelTM (MetUM) based on the Dust Entrainment and Deposition (DEAD) module. Four separate case studies are used to test and constrain the model output. Initial testing was undertaken on a large dust event over North Africa in March 2006 with the model constrained using AERONET data. The second case study involved testing the capability of the model to represent dust events in the Middle East without being re-tuned from the March 2006 case in the Sahara. While the model is unable to capture some of the daytime variation in AERONET AOD there is good agreement between the model and observed dust events. In the final two case studies new observations from in situ aircraft data during the Dust Outflow and Deposition to the Ocean (DODO) campaigns in February and August 2006 were used. These recent observations provided further data on dust size distributions and vertical profiles to constrain the model. The modelled DODO cases were also compared to AERONET data to make sure the radiative properties of the dust were comparable to observations. Copyright © 2009 Royal Meteorological Society and Crown Copyright

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.

Exposing the myth of the 1:5:200 ratio relating initial cost, maintenance and staffing costs of office buildings

In an attempt to focus clients' minds on the importance of considering the construction and maintenance costs of a commercial office building (both as a factor in staff productivity and as a fraction of lifetime staff costs) there is an often-quoted ratio of costs of 1:5:200, where for every one pound spent on construction cost, five are spent on maintenance and building operating costs and 200 on staffing and business operating costs. This seems to stem from a paper published by the Royal Academy of Engineering, in which no data is given and no derivation or defence of the ratio appears. The accompanying belief that higher quality design and construction increases staff productivity, and simultaneously reduces maintenance costs, how ever laudable, appears unsupported by research, and carries all the hallmarks of an "urban myth". In tracking down data about real buildings, a more realistic ratio appears to depend on a huge variety of variables, as well as the definition of the number of "lifetime" years. The ill-defined origins of the original ratio (1:5:200) describing these variables have made replication impossible. However, by using published sources of data, we have found that for three office buildings, a more realistic ratio is 1:0.4:12. As there is nothing in the public domain about what comprised the original research that gave rise to 1:5:200, it is not possible to make a true comparison between these new calculations and the originals. Clients and construction professionals stand to be misled because the popularity and widespread use of the wrong ratio appears to be mis-informing important investment and policy decisions.