Search results

The purpose of the paper is to introduce the special issue that brings together six papers exploring aspects of person‐organization fit.

This overarching paper contextualizes the theme and introduces the selected papers.

The findings in this paper vary according to the core theme of each of the six contributions.

Combined the papers explore new avenues of enquiry in the person‐organization (P‐O) fit domain and showcase international theoretical and empirical work on the P‐O fit construct.

The aim of this study was to develop a multi‐professionally agreed list of adverse events, which may act as a prompt for clinical incident reporting in trauma and orthopaedics and to determine what healthcare professionals understand by the term adverse event. A modified Delphi process with healthcare professionals working in trauma and orthopaedics (242) in three NHS trusts was performed. The process involved initial brainstorming sessions, a two‐round Likert‐style postal questionnaire and final focus group discussion. The initial brainstorming sessions generated a list of 224 adverse events to be included in the first round of the postal questionnaire. They included 83 causes of adverse events, 36 health and safety related adverse events and 105 clinical adverse events. Following the second round questionnaire and focus group discussion, a final list of 20 adverse events was produced. There were variations between professional groups in terms of validity scoring of individual adverse events. Overall, medical staff gave a lower rating to the adverse events than the other two professional groups. There were also variations between professional groups in terms of response rates. The modified Delphi process proved to be a successful tool for generating a multi‐professionally agreed list of adverse events and for understanding what healthcare professionals understand by the term adverse event.

The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the proposal that Luciano Floridi’s philosphy of information (PI) may be an appropriate conceptual foundation for the discipline of library and information science (LIS).

A selective literature review and analysis are carried out.

It is concluded that LIS is in need of a new conceptual framework, and that PI is appropriate for this purpose.

Floridi proposed a close relationship between PI and LIS more than a decade ago. Although various authors have addressed the aspects of this relationship since then, this is the first proposal from an LIS perspective that PI be adopted as a basis for LIS.

The first phase of this study developed a multi‐professionally agreed list of adverse events for clinical incident reporting in Trauma and Orthopaedics. This follow‐up study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the adverse event list.

Two follow‐up questionnaires were sent to healthcare professionals working in Trauma and Orthopaedics in two of the participating National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (n=247 for the first questionnaire and n=240 for the second questionnaire). Trends in routine incident reporting data were also monitored over a two‐year period to determine the impact of the adverse event list on levels of adverse event reporting.

The questionnaires indicated that awareness about the adverse event list was good and improved between questionnaires. However usage of the adverse event list appeared to be poor. Multiple regression analysis with the dependent variable count of orthopaedic incidents suggested that the adverse event list had little, if any impact on levels of reporting in Trauma and Orthopaedics.

The results of this study suggest that a practical tool, such as the adverse event list has little impact on incident reporting levels.