Lessons learned in implementing a team review process

1994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy Peña
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Lessons Learned

scholarly journals Lessons learned and new directions regarding Discharge Direct from Adult Intensive Care Units Sent Home (DISH): A narrative review

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Basmaji ◽  
Vincent Lau ◽  
Joyce Lam ◽  
Fran Priestap ◽  
Ian M Ball
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Shared Data ◽  
New Directions

Purpose To perform a narrative review of the literature regarding the discharge of patients directly to home (DDH) from the intensive care unit, and to identify patient characteristics and clinical outcomes associated with this practice. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1946 to present. We also manually searched the references of relevant articles. A two-step review process with three independent reviewers was used to identify relevant articles based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results Four studies were included in the final review. Two studies were retrospective and two studies were prospective that shared data from the same patient cohort. All were single center studies. Two of the four studies outlined clinical outcomes associated with DDH. Conclusions This study highlights the relative dearth in the literature regarding the increasingly common practice of DDH, underscores the importance of further studies in this area, and identifies future important foci of research.

scholarly journals Declining Enrolment Sparks Certificate Review: Lessons Learned

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Hutton
Keyword(s):  
Resource Management ◽  
Human Resource Management ◽  
Continuing Education ◽  
Human Resource ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Post Secondary ◽  
University Of Calgary ◽  
The University

The design of the Human Resource Management Certificate at the University of Calgary was the culmination of a two-year review process. Although the issue of declining enrolment initiated the review, many other issues became apparent. The process of informal and formal investigations that were undertaken are outlined, as are the actions taken. The challenges of resource constraints, collaborative investigation, the climate of competition in post-secondary institutions, and issues of credit transferability are highlighted along with the lessons learned. The process and results may benefit other continuing education programmers.

scholarly journals Improving reproducibility of geospatial conference papers – lessons learned from a first implementation of reproducibility reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Nüst ◽  
Frank Ostermann ◽  
Carlos Granell ◽  
Alexander Kmoch
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
The Status ◽  
Public Repositories ◽  
First Time ◽  
Conference Papers ◽  
Future Plans

In an attempt to increase the reproducibility of contributions to a long-running and established geospatial conference series, the 23rd AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science 2020 (https://agile-online.org/conference-2020) for the first time provided guidelines on preparing reproducible papers (Nüst et al., 2020) and appointed a reproducibility committee to evaluate computational workflows of accepted papers ( https://www.agile-giscience-series.net/review_process.html). Here, the committee’s members report on the lessons learned from reviewing 23 accepted full papers and outline future plans for the conference series. In summary, six submissions were partially reproduced by reproducibility reviewers, whose reports are published openly on OSF ( https://osf.io/6k5fh/). These papers are promoted with badges on the proceedings’ website (https://agile-giss.copernicus.org/articles/1/index.html). Compared to previous years’ submissions (cf. Nüst et al. 2018), the guidelines and increased community awareness markedly improved reproducibility. However, the reproduction attempts also revealed problems, most importantly insufficient documentation. This was partly mitigated by the non-blind reproducibility review, conducted after paper acceptance, where interaction between reviewers and authors can provide the input and attention needed to increase reproducibility. However, the reviews also showed that anonymisation and public repositories, when properly documented, can enable a successful reproduction without interaction, as was the case with one manuscript. Individual and organisational challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the conference’s eventual cancellation increased the teething problems. Nevertheless, also under normal circumstances, future iterations will have to reduce the reviewer’s efforts to be sustainable, ideally by more readily executable workflows and a larger reproducibility committee. Furthermore, we discuss changes to the reproducibility review process and their challenges. Reproducibility reports could be made available to “regular” reviewers, or the reports could be considered equally for acceptance/rejection decisions. Insufficient information or invalid arguments for not disclosing material could then lead to a submission being rejected or not being sent out to peer review. Further organisational improvements are a publication of reviewers’ activities in public databases, making the guidelines mandatory, and collecting data on used tools/repositories, spent efforts, and communications. Finally, we summarise the revision of the guidelines, including their new section for reproducibility reviewers, and the status of the initiative “Reproducible Publications at AGILE Conferences” (https://reproducible-agile.github.io/initiative/), which we connect to related undertakings such as CODECHECK (Eglen et al., 2019). The AGILE Conference’s experiences may help other communities to transition towards more open and reproducible research publications.

scholarly journals Lessons Learned: One Universitys Experience In Developing And Revising An AIS Curriculum

2004 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
David R. Fordham
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Accounting Information ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Comprehensive University ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Accounting Information Systems ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Surprising Finding

The last decade has seen phenomenal growth in the use of technology and information systems in the field of accounting. In response to this change, many colleges and universities have added a concentration in Accounting Information Systems (AIS) to their accounting programs. This paper describes the processes followed by one comprehensive university to introduce and later revise an AIS concentration program. A surprising finding of the revision process was an unexpected role of the AIS courses in the alumnis career development, -- a finding which was uncovered only by an innovative investigative step of the review and revision process. In light of the results, a model is offered to assist other institutions in improving their curriculum development (and review) process.

scholarly journals Reengineering The Portal to Texas HistorySM

2013 ◽  
pp. 18-46
Author(s):  
Kathleen Murray ◽  
Mark Phillips ◽  
William Hicks ◽  
Neena Weng ◽  
Dreanna Belden
Keyword(s):  
Asset Management ◽  
Digital Libraries ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Academic Library ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Application Development ◽  
Texas History ◽  
University Of North Texas ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Growth Constraints

This case study reports the activities, findings, and lessons learned during a project that replaced the legacy Digital Asset Management (DAM) system of The Portal to Texas History? at the University of North Texas Libraries with an open source system. This unique system decouples the application development framework from the backend infrastructure, effectively relieving the development and growth constraints inherent in the legacy system. In a novel approach for an academic library, genealogists participated in the user-centered, iterative approach used to prototype, develop, and test the user interface. The resulting system promoted productivity gains by enabling programming staff to work in parallel from specialized areas of expertise. A post-project review process identified a number of lessons learned, including the importance of representing the requirements and priorities of internal and external stakeholders. The review process also informed an application development model that may be useful to other digital libraries.

scholarly journals 2286 A CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium: Description and lessons learned

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Margaret Schneider ◽  
Tanya Mathew ◽  
Madeline Gibson ◽  
Christine Zeller ◽  
Hardeep Ranu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Conference Calls ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
External Reviewer ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Status ◽  
Original Objective

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To share the experience gained and lessons learned from a cross CTSA collaborative effort to improve the review process for Pilot Studies awards by exchanging external reviewers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CEREC process is managed by a web-based tracking system that enables all participating members to view at any time the status of reviewer invitations. This online tracking system is supplemented by monthly conference calls during which new calls for proposals are announced and best practices are identified. Each CTSA hub customized the CEREC model based on their individual pilot program needs and review process. Some hubs have supplemented their internal reviews by only posting proposals on CEREC that lack reviewers with significant expertise within their institutions. Other hubs have requested 1–3 external reviewers for each of their proposals or a selection of most promising proposals. In anticipation of potential scoring discrepancies, several hubs added a self-assessment of reviewer expertise and confidence at the end of each review. If a proposal is on the cusp of fundability, then the reviewers’ self-assessment may be taken into account. In addition to the tracking data collected by the online system, a survey of CEREC reviewers was conducted using Qualtrics. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Across the 144 proposals submitted for reviews, CEREC members issued a total of 396 email invitations to potential reviewers. The number of invitations required to yield a reviewer ranged from 1 to 17. A total of 224 invitations were accepted, for a response rate of 56%. An external reviewer was unable to be located for 5 proposals (3%). Ultimately, 196 completed reviews were submitted, for a completion rate of 87%. The most common reasons for non-completion after acceptance of an invitation included reviewer illness and discovery of a conflict of interest. CEREC members found the process extremely useful for locating qualified reviewers who were not in conflict with the proposal being reviewed and for identifying reviewers for proposals related to highly specialized topics. The survey of CEREC reviewers found that they generally found the process easy to navigate and intellectually rewarding. Most would be willing to review additional CEREC proposals in the future. External reviewer comments and scores were generally in agreement with internal reviewer comments and scores. Thus, hubs could factor in external reviewer scores equally to internal reviewer scores, without feeling compelled to calibrate external reviewer scores. Overall, through CEREC external reviewers, mainly due to the stronger matching of scientific expertise and reduction of potential bias, the quality of reviews appear to be higher and more pertinent. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Some aspects of the process emerged that will be addressed in the future to make the system more efficient. One issue that arose was the burden on the system during multiple simultaneous calls for proposals. Future plans call for harmonizing review cycles to avoid these overlaps. Efficiency also will be improved by optimizing the timing of reviewer invitations to minimize the probability of obtaining more reviews than requested. In addition to the original objective of CEREC, the collaboration has led to additional exchange of information regarding methods and processes related to running the Pilot Funding programs. For example, one site developed a method using REDCap to manage their reviewer database; an innovation that is being shared with the other CEREC partners. Another site has a well-developed process for integrating community reviewers into their review process and is sharing their training materials with the remaining CEREC partners.

KNOWLEDGE-BASED PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT: A TAXONOMY FOR LESSONS LEARNED

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gorkem Eken ◽  
Gozde Bilgin ◽  
Irem Dikmen ◽  
M. Talat Birgonul
Keyword(s):  
Portfolio Management ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
Success Factor ◽  
Critical Success Factor ◽  
Construction Companies ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Critical Success

Portfolio management comprises of identifying, prioritizing, authorizing, managing, and controlling projects, programs, and other related work to achieve specific strategic business objectives. Utilizing a knowledge-based portfolio management approach can be a critical success factor for construction companies. This research aims to present a taxonomy to facilitate the learning process within a knowledge-based project portfolio management system. The taxonomy is capable of codification and classification of lessons revealed during life cycle of projects to enhance their retrieval. Within this context, following a detailed literature review process, the taxonomy is structured under four main categories as "project", "process", "actor", and "resource”. Categories provided in the taxonomy enable tagging of the lessons learned according to the intended level of detail, facilitate retrieval and reuse of the lessons learned in forthcoming projects. In this paper, we will present the structure of the proposed taxonomy and discuss how it can be used to improve portfolio management in construction.

So You Want to Start an Institutional Biosafety Committee

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-169
Author(s):  
Maren Schniederberend ◽  
Benjamin Fontes ◽  
Rachel Jeffrey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Review Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Lessons Learned

Introduction: The number of institutions engaging in research with potentially biohazardous materials has increased, indicating a need for newly formed Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) in the United States and for similar biorisk management committees located outside the United States. Our institution identified the need for an IBC due to the growth of pertinent activities on campus. Objectives: This article shares our experiences creating a new IBC at our institution from September 2017 to April 2019. Our lessons learned and approaches to the challenges faced may be helpful to others finding themselves with similar needs. Methods: In this case study, we outline IBC membership, documents, relationships with federal agencies and within the institution, creation of registration forms, and the review process. Along with our account, we have included links to helpful resources from federal agencies. Results: At the time of the submission of this article, we have established our IBC and reviewed two registrations. Conclusion: This case report demonstrates the successful creation of an IBC that works for our current institutional needs.

Independent Technical Reviews for Groundwater and Soil Remediation Projects at US Department of Energy Sites

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn S. Kaback ◽  
Grover Chamberlain ◽  
John G. Morse ◽  
Scott W. Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Remediation ◽  
Review Process ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Background Information ◽  
The Us ◽  
Sensitive Issues ◽  
Alternative Solutions ◽  
Experienced Team

The US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management has supported independent technical reviews of soil and groundwater projects at multiple DOE sites over the last 10 years. These reviews have resulted in significant design improvements to remedial plans that have accelerated cleanup and site closure. Many have also resulted in improved understanding of complex subsurface conditions, promoting better approaches to design and implementation of new technologies. Independent technical reviews add value, because they provide another perspective to problem solving and act as a check for especially challenging problems. By bringing in a team of independent experts with a broad experience base, alternative solutions are recommended for consideration and evaluation. In addition, the independence of the panel is significant, because it is able to address politically sensitive issues. The expert panel members typically bring lessons learned from other sites to help solve the DOE problems. In addition, their recommendations at a particular site can often be applied at other sites, making the review even more valuable. The review process can vary, but some common lessons ensure a successful review: • Use a multi-disciplinary broadly experienced team; • Engage the panel early and throughout the project; • Involve regulators and stakeholders in the workshop, if appropriate; • Provide sufficient background information; • Close the workshop with a debriefing followed by a written report. Many groundwater remediation challenges remain at DOE sites. Independent technical reviews have and will ensure that the best capabilities and experience are applied to reduce risks and uncertainties.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document