Waterway Suitability Assessment: Art and Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Fediw
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Stakeholder Collaboration ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Suitability Assessment ◽  
Holistic Understanding ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Tools And Methods

The purpose of this paper is to briefly explain the Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) process required for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, highlight the quantitative risk assessment tools utilized and how they work together to adequately assess the risks, and introduce qualitative best-practices to reduce review time and improve stakeholder collaboration and receptivity. As each maritime port has a different composition of commercial vessel traffic and operating practices, these tools and methods are combined to form a Risk-Based Approach, rather than a prescriptive assessment tool, ensuring a holistic understanding and mitigation plan concerning localized LNG transportation. Paper published with permission.

Development of Risk Assessment Tools for Enterprises

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 38-47
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Trifonov ◽  
E. A. Fomina
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Risk Indicator ◽  
Additional Tool ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Complex Integral

Th e purpose of this article is to develop tools for assessing the risks of enterprises, used both to assess the current activities of enterprises and during the implementation of investment proj-ects. It is supposed to be used both as the main risk assessment tool, for example, for small and medium-sized enterprises, and as an additional tool, mainly for large enterprises, for making a preliminary decision on the feasibility of the project. Th e developed tools include a comprehen-sive risk assessment system, which provides a fundamental basis for calculations, and a soft ware product that signifi cantly optimizes the calculations of a complex integral risk indicator. Th e risk assessment system represents individual risks, grouped by 51 risk groups. Making calculations using the developed risk assessment tools involves assigning to each risk the characteristics of assessing the level of infl uence by selecting the characteristic most appropriate to the current level of risk. A standard version of indicators is proposed for each risk and characteristics cor-responding to "high", "elevated", "medium", "moderate" and "low" risk levels. Based on the results of the analysis, a complex integral risk indicator is formed, which is a quantitative risk assessment, which allows you to classify an enterprise into one of three groups: "eff ective enterprise / project", "enterprise / project requiring improvements", "ineffi cient enterprise". To optimize the calcula-tions, the authors have developed a soft ware product that allows for analysis with a signifi cant reduction in the time spent on its implementation. In general, the use of the developed risk as-sessment system and tools makes it possible to signifi cantly optimize the risk assessment process and reduce the costs of analisys.

scholarly journals Novel Approach to Inpatient Fall Risk Prediction and Its Cross-Site Validation Using Time-Variant Data (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Insook Cho ◽  
Eun-Hee Boo ◽  
Eunja Chung ◽  
David W. Bates ◽  
Patricia Dykes
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Fall Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Fall Risk Assessment ◽  
C Statistic ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Hospital Days ◽  
Cross Site

BACKGROUND Electronic medical records (EMRs) contain a considerable amount of information about patients. The rapid adoption of EMRs and the integration of nursing data into clinical repositories have made large quantities of clinical data available for both clinical practice and research. OBJECTIVE In this study, we aimed to investigate whether readily available longitudinal EMR data including nursing records could be utilized to compute the risk of inpatient falls and to assess their accuracy compared with existing fall risk assessment tools. METHODS We used 2 study cohorts from 2 tertiary hospitals, located near Seoul, South Korea, with different EMR systems. The modeling cohort included 14,307 admissions (122,179 hospital days), and the validation cohort comprised 21,172 admissions (175,592 hospital days) from each of 6 nursing units. A probabilistic Bayesian network model was used, and patient data were divided into windows with a length of 24 hours. In addition, data on existing fall risk assessment tools, nursing processes, Korean Patient Classification System groups, and medications and administration data were used as model parameters. Model evaluation metrics were averaged using 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS The initial model showed an error rate of 11.7% and a spherical payoff of 0.91 with a c-statistic of 0.96, which represent far superior performance compared with that for the existing fall risk assessment tool (c-statistic=0.69). The cross-site validation revealed an error rate of 4.87% and a spherical payoff of 0.96 with a c-statistic of 0.99 compared with a c-statistic of 0.65 for the existing fall risk assessment tool. The calibration curves for the model displayed more reliable results than those for the fall risk assessment tools alone. In addition, nursing intervention data showed potential contributions to reducing the variance in the fall rate as did the risk factors of individual patients. CONCLUSIONS A risk prediction model that considers longitudinal EMR data including nursing interventions can improve the ability to identify individual patients likely to fall.

scholarly journals Validation of HIV Risk Screening Tool to Identify Infected Adults and Adolescents >14 years at Community Level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kesetebirhan Delele Yirdaw ◽  
Justin Mandala
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Hiv Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Test ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Risk Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Conventional Risk Factors

Abstract Background There are a number of risk factors being used to identify undiagnosed HIV infected adults. As the number of undiagnosed people gets lesser and lesser, it is important to know if existing risk factors and risk assessment tools are valid for use. In this study, we validate existing HIV risk assessment tools and see if they are worth using for HIV case finding among adults who remain undiagnosed. Methods The Tanzania and Zambia Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) household surveys were conducted during 2016. We used adult interview and HIV datasets to assess validity of different HIV risk assessment tools. We first included 12 risk factors (being divorced, separated or widowed (DSW); having an HIV+ spouse; having one of the following within 12 months of the survey: paid work, slept away from home for at least a month, had multiple sexual partners, paid for sex, had sexually transmitted infection (STI), being a tuberculosis (TB) suspect, being very sick for at least 3 months; had ever sold sex; diagnosed with cervical cancer; and had TB disease into a risk assessment tool and assessed its validity by comparing it against HIV test result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the tool were assessed against the HIV test result. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score in order to have a tool with better sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. ROC comparison statistics was used to statistically test equality between AUC (area under the curve) of the different scores. ROC comparison statistics was also used to determine which risk assessment tool was better compared to the tool that contained all risk factors. Results Of 14,820 study participants, 57.8% were men, and had a median age of 30 (IQR: 21-24). HIV prevalence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.6). For the tool containing all risk factors, HIV prevalence was 1.0% when none of the risk factors were positive (Score 0) compared to 3.2% when at least one factor (Score ≥1) was present and 8.0% when ≥4 risk factors were present. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 82.3% (78.6%-85.9%), 41.9% (41.1%-42.7%), 3.2% (2.8%-3.6%), and 99.0% (98.8%-99.3%), respectively. The use of a tool containing conventional risk factors (all except those related with working and sleeping away) was found to have higher AUC compared to the use of all risk factors (p value <0.001), with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 63.5% (58.9%-68.1%), 66.2% (65.5%-67.0%), 4.2% (3.6%-4.8%), and 98.7% (98.5%-98.9%), respectively. Conclusion Use of a screening tool containing conventional risk factors improved HIV testing yield compared to doing universal testing. Prioritizing people who fulfil multiple risk factors should be explored further to improve HIV testing yield.

scholarly journals Urban Security and Counterterrorism: An Approach to Proportionality

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 70-85
Author(s):  
Tegg Westbrook ◽  
Thomas Schive
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Urban Design ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Dead Reckoning ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Design Strategies ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Urban Security ◽  
Security Returns

As cities and crowded areas increasingly become targets of terrorist plots and attacks, there is ample demand for risk assessment tools that consider proportional measures that reduce the threat, vulnerability, and possible impacts, whilst providing ‘security returns’ for those investments. There is a risk in this process of over- or under-fortifying places based on practitioners’ subjective biases, experiences, dead reckoning and conflicting agendas. Currently, risk assessments rely on qualitative tools that do not consider proportionality that removes these inherent biases. Critiquing well-known urban design strategies and national risk assessments, this article therefore seeks to develop a supplementary assessment tool – an equation for proportionality – that is more objective and is created to help practitioners make good choices, in particular on: (1) reducing the threat, (2) vulnerability, (3) impact, (4) accepting risk, and (5) measuring a security measure’s ability to deter, delay or stop an attack. It concludes that while no assessment is truly objective, the equation works to remove as much subjectivity as possible when assessing proportional urban security.

scholarly journals Fall Risk Assessment Scales: A Systematic Literature Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 430-443
Author(s):  
Veronica Strini ◽  
Roberta Schiavolin ◽  
Angela Prendin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Fall Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Major Public Health Problem ◽  
Simultaneous Application ◽  
Fall Risk Assessment ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Background: Falls are recognized globally as a major public health problem. Although the elderly are the most affected population, it should be noted that the pediatric population is also very susceptible to the risk of falling. The fall risk approach is the assessment tool. There are different types of tools used in both clinical and territorial settings. Material and methods: In the month of January 2021, a literature search was undertaken of MEDLINE, CINHAL and The Cochrane Database, adopting as limits: last 10 years, abstract available, and English and Italian language. The search terms used were “Accidental Falls” AND “Risk Assessment” and “Fall Risk Assessment Tool” or “Fall Risk Assessment Tools”. Results: From the 115 selected articles, 38 different fall risk assessment tools were identified, divided into two groups: the first with the main tools present in the literature, and the second represented by tools of some specific areas, of lesser use and with less supporting literature. Most of these articles are prospective cohort or cross-sectional studies. All articles focus on presenting, creating or validating fall risk assessment tools. Conclusion: Due to the multidimensional nature of falling risk, there is no “ideal” tool that can be used in any context or that performs a perfect risk assessment. For this reason, a simultaneous application of multiple tools is recommended, and a direct and in-depth analysis by the healthcare professional is essential.

scholarly journals The Evolution of the Sustainability Assessment ToolSBToolPT: From Buildings to the Built Environment

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme Castanheira ◽  
Luís Bragança
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Built Environment ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
European Cities ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Sustainability Assessment Tools

This paper analyses the current trends in sustainability assessment. After about 15 years from the launch of sustainability assessment tools, focused on buildings evaluation, the paradigm of sustainability assessment tools is changing from the building scale to the built environment scale. Currently European cities and cities around the world are concerned with sustainable development, as well as its evolution. Cities seek a way to adapt to contemporary changes, in order to meet the required needs and ensure population’s well-being. Considering this, the new generations of sustainability assessment tools are being developed to be used to guide and help cities and urban areas to become more sustainable. Following the trend of the most important sustainability assessment tools, the sustainability assessment toolSBToolPTis also developing its version for assessing the sustainability of the built environment, namely, the urban planning projects and the urban regeneration projects, to be developed in Portugal, theSBToolPT-UP. The application of the methodology to three case studies will demonstrate its feasibility; at the same time this will identify the best practices which will serve as reference for new projects, thereby assisting the development of the tool.

scholarly journals Validation of HIV Risk Screening Tool To Identify Infected Adults And Adolescents >14 Years At Community Level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kesetebirhan Delele Yirdaw ◽  
Justin Mandala
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Hiv Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Test ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Risk Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Conventional Risk Factors

Abstract BackgroundThere are a number of risk factors being used to identify undiagnosed HIV infected adults. As the number of undiagnosed people gets lesser and lesser, it is important to know if existing risk factors and risk assessment tools are valid for use. In this study, we validate existing HIV risk assessment tools and see if they are worth using for HIV case finding among adults who remain undiagnosed. Methods The Tanzania and Zambia Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) household surveys were conducted during 2016. We used adult interview and HIV datasets to assess validity of different HIV risk assessment tools. We first included 12 risk factors (being divorced, separated or widowed (DSW); having an HIV+ spouse; having one of the following within 12 months of the survey: paid work, slept away from home for at least a month, had multiple sexual partners, paid for sex, had sexually transmitted infection (STI), being a tuberculosis (TB) suspect, being very sick for at least 3 months; had ever sold sex; diagnosed with cervical cancer; and had TB disease into a risk assessment tool and assessed its validity by comparing it against HIV test result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the tool were assessed against the HIV test result. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score in order to have a tool with better sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. ROC comparison statistics was used to statistically test equality between AUC (area under the curve) of the different scores. ROC comparison statistics was also used to determine which risk assessment tool was better compared to the tool that contained all risk factors. Results Of 14,820 study participants, 57.8% were men, and had a median age of 30 (IQR: 21-24). HIV prevalence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.6). For the tool containing all risk factors, HIV prevalence was 1.0% when none of the risk factors were positive (Score 0) compared to 3.2% when at least one factor (Score ≥1) was present and 8.0% when ≥4 risk factors were present. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 82.3% (78.6%-85.9%), 41.9% (41.1%-42.7%), 3.2% (2.8%-3.6%), and 99.0% (98.8%-99.3%), respectively. The use of a tool containing conventional risk factors (all except those related with working and sleeping away) was found to have higher AUC compared to the use of all risk factors (p value <0.001), with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 63.5% (58.9%-68.1%), 66.2% (65.5%-67.0%), 4.2% (3.6%-4.8%), and 98.7% (98.5%-98.9%), respectively. Conclusion Use of a screening tool containing conventional risk factors improved HIV testing yield compared to doing universal testing. Prioritizing people who fulfil multiple risk factors should be explored further to improve HIV testing yield.

scholarly journals Riskbedömningens logiker i arbetet med mäns våld mot kvinnor

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikael Skillmark
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Male Partner ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
The Social ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Victims Of Violence

  Risk assessment logics when working with men’s violence against women Over the past two decades, social workers’ assessment and decision-making skills in client cases have been the subject of increased attention. The profession’s ability to conduct accurate assessments has been questioned. One way to seek to improve assessment work has been to implement various risk assessment tools. This article describes how social workers reason in risk assessment situations involving women exposed to violence by a previous male partner. The assessments studied here have been carried out with the assessment tool FREDA. The analysis reveals three logics in the social workers’ reasoning: the addiction logic, the normalization logic and the safety logic. These logics illustrate how social workers’ deliberations and assessments are not governed in a rectilinear manner by the standardized tool but that risk is negotiated also by drawing on other knowledge sources. Although standardization can be seen as a way for professionals to strive for more secure social work, the participants at the same time acknowledge the uncertainty associated with assessment work in which future violence is to be predicted. This however can have consequences for how the victims of violence are expected to live their lives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document