An assessment of timber dwellings typical of the Queenslander era, and constraints associated with their relocation, component and adaptive reuse when considering 'regeneration'

This paper presents an explanation of why the reuse of building components after demolition or deconstruction is critical to the future of the construction industry. An examination of the historical cause and response to climate change sets the scene as to why governance is becoming increasingly focused on the built environment as a mechanism to controlling waste generation associated with the process of demolition, construction and operation. Through an annotated description to the evolving design and construction methodology of a range of timber dwellings (typically 'Queenslanders' during the eras of 1880-1900, 1900-1920 & 1920-1940) the paper offers an evaluation to the variety of materials, which can be used advantageously by those wishing to 'regenerate' a Queenslander. This analysis of 'regeneration' details the constraints when considering relocation and/ or reuse by adaption including deconstruction of building components against the legislative framework requirements of the Queensland Building Act 1975 and the Queensland Sustainable Planning Act 2009, with a specific examination to those of the Building Codes of Australia. The paper concludes with a discussion of these constraints, their impacts on 'regeneration' and the need for further research to seek greater understanding of the practicalities and drivers of relocation, adaptive and building components suitability for reuse after deconstruction.

A survey of the use of grading scales for contact lens complications in optometric practice

Purpose:  The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and pattern of use of grading scales for contact lens complications (‘grading scales’) in optometric practice. Methods:  An anonymous postal survey was sent to all 756 members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. Information was elicited relating to level of experience, practice type and location, and mode of usage of grading scales. Results:  Survey forms were returned by 237 optometrists, representing a 31 per cent response rate. The majority of respondents (61 per cent) reported using grading scales frequently in practice, while 65 per cent of these preferred to use the Efron Grading Scales for Contact Lens Complications. Seventy-six per cent of optometrists use a method of incremental grading rather than simply grading with whole numbers. Grading scales are more likely to be used by optometrists who have recently graduated (p < 0.001), have a postgraduate certificate in ocular therapeutics (p = 0.018), see more contact lens patients (p = 0.027) and use other forms of grading scales (p < 0.001). The most frequently graded ocular conditions were corneal staining, papillary conjunctivitis and conjunctival redness. The main reasons for not using grading scales included a preference for sketches, photographs or descriptions (87 per cent) and unavailability of scales (29 per cent). Conclusion:  Grading scales for contact lens complications are used extensively in optometric practice for a variety of purposes. This tool can now be considered as an expected norm in contact lens practice. We advocate the incorporation of such grading scales into professional guidelines and standards for good optometric clinical practice.