Search results

This paper describes a quality improvement project to improve oversight of quality at national board level using statistical process control (SPC) methods, complimented by a qualitative experience of patients and frontline staff. It demonstrates the application of the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach and shares the lessons learnt.

Using co-design and applying the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach, the project team supported the directors of the Irish health system to identify and test a qualitative and quantitative picture of the quality of care across the health system. A “Quality Profile” consisting of quantitative indicators, analysed using SPC methods was used to provide an overview of the “critical few” indicators across health and social care. Patient and front-line staff experiences added depth and context to the data. These methods were tested and evolved over the course of six meetings, leading to quality of care being prioritised and interrogated at board level.

This project resulted in the integration of quality as a substantive and prioritised agenda item. Using best practice SPC methods with associated training produced better understanding of performance of the system. In addition, bringing patient and staff experiences of quality to the forefront “people-ised” the data.

The application of the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach facilitated the development of a co-designed quality agenda item. This is a novel process that shifted the focus from “providing” information to co-designing fit-for-purpose information at board level.

This paper discusses the American debate over price controls and economic stabilization after World War II, when the transition from a war economy to a peace economy was characterized by bottlenecks in the productive system and shortages of food and other basic consumer goods, directly affecting the living standard of the population, the public opinion, and political discourse. Specifically, we will focus on the economist Franco Modigliani and his proposal for a “Plan to meet the problem of rising meat and other food prices without bureaucratic controls.” The plan prepared by Modigliani in October 1947 was based on a system of taxes and subsidies to foster a proper distribution of disposable income and warrant a minimum meat consumption for each individual without encroaching market mechanisms and consumers’ freedom. We will discuss the contents of the plan and its further refinements, and the reactions it prompted from fellow economists, the public opinion, and the political world. Although the Plan was not eventually implemented, it was an important initiative for several reasons: first, it showed the increasing importance of fiscal policy among postwar government tools of intervention in the economic sphere; second, it showed a third way between direct government intervention and full-fledged laissez faire, in tune with the postwar political climate; third, it proposed a Keynesian macroeconomic approach to price and income stabilization, strongly based on econometric and microeconomic foundations. The Meat Plan was thus a fundamental step in Modigliani’s effort to build the “neoclassical synthesis” between Keynesian and Neoclassical economics, which would deeply influence his own career and the evolution of academic studies and government practices in the United States.

Born in Pittsburgh, PA, on November 1, 1910, Taylor Ostrander grew up in Westchester County, back in New York, his family's home state for many generations. He went to public schools in White Plains and Scarsdale and graduated from Hackley School in Tarrytown in 1928; that fall he entered Williams College in Williamstown, MA, where his mother's father was in the class of 1882.

The foundation collection of the printed books now forming the Library of the British Museum was that of Sir Hans Sloane. This comprised about 40,000 volumes. To it was added in 1759 the Royal collection, begun in the time of Henry VII and inherited by George II from his predecessors on the throne.

COMPETITION among national newspapers has led to some very peculiar developments in British journalism, but there has been nothing quite so startling and, indeed, so dangerous, as the new sentimental style. We are proud of our Press. Like our police force, it is the finest in the world, and nobody knows that better than the Press itself. We are frequently reminded that the Press of Italy, Germany and Russia is enslaved, and that the Press of France and the United States is free but licentious. Our Press is not enslaved, nor is it licentious, nor is it corrupt. These are weighty recommendations, but they are negative and they are not enough. We should begin to realise that our popular Press is becoming quite startlingly silly.

FEW people would deny that the most remarkable recent development in publishing is the Book Club. Not everybody would agree that the influence of such clubs on writing is potentially as great as their influence on the mechanics of selling, but that is the fact, and the clubs should be carefully watched by all who would like to see literature free. The clubs vary greatly in size and seriousness. Some are almost entirely comic. Others, like the Book Society, have an academic air and confer a quite important cachet, a kind of literary Monthly Medal. How is their standing justified ? The Left Book Club is actually a publishing concern, and the Right Book Club is run by a bookseller. Commerce and ideology are running in harness.

Patrick Pearse’s status in Ireland today oscillates between the iconic and kitsch: he was recently voted by readers of a newspaper as the person whom they would most like to see commemorated by a statue or monument in central Dublin (though this proposal has not met with universal approval even with that publication’s staff) and as one of the most important Irish heroes by readers of another paper. But it also possible to buy chess piece like statuettes or figurines of this national hero in tourist souvenir shops as one might buy model or tin soldiers. However, Pearse has consistently, and often fulsomely, been praised for his educational work and ideas, even by those who are otherwise critics, being described by one as ‘stimulating and, for Ireland at least, novel’ in this respect.

This paper is an initial attempt to discuss the American institutionalist movement as it changed and developed after 1945. Institutionalism in the inter-war period was a relatively coherent movement held together by a set of general methodological, theoretical, and ideological commitments (Rutherford, 2011). Although institutionalism always had its critics, it came under increased attack in the 1940s, and faced challenges from Keynesian economics, a revived neoclassicism, econometrics, and from new methodological approaches derived from various versions of positivism. The institutionalist response to these criticisms, and particularly the criticism that institutionalism “lacked theory,” is to be found in a variety of attempts to redefine institutionalism in new theoretical or methodological terms. Perhaps the most important of these is to be found in Clarence Ayres’ The Theory of Economic Progress (1944), although there were many others. These developments were accompanied by a significant amount of debate, disagreement, and uncertainty over future directions. Some of this is reflected in the early history of The Association for Evolutionary Economics.