Open Questions. Our results leave open several interesting questions for followup work. Our constructions of SRDS offer a trade-off between cryptographic assumptions and setup as- sumptions (indeed, our lower bound indicates that some form of private-coin setup is needed). Is it possible to get the best of both, i.e., construct SRDS with bare PKI under standard, falsifiable as- sumptions? This in turn would imply O˜(1)-balanced BA from the corresponding computational as- sumption and setup. Alternatively, does SRDS in a weak setup model require strong computational assumptions: For example, do SRDS with bare PKI imply some kind of succinct non-interactive arguments (SNARGs)? Taking a step back: Is it possible to achieve O˜(1)-balanced BA unconditionally? While our SRDS-based approach inherently makes use of computational assumptions (and our lower bound implies this necessity for a one-shot boost from almost-everywhere to everywhere agreement in the PKI model), this leaves open the possibility of removing cryptography via an alternative approach. Can one further extend the lower bound in this work, identifying a minimal required round com- plexity for generically converting from almost-everywhere to everywhere agreement within various setup models? In the O˜(1)-amortized BA setting, known constructions consider stronger security models. Namely, the protocol in Xxxxx-Xxxxxxx et al. [21] is secure against static corruptions (similarly to our protocols); however, no trusted setup assumptions are required. The protocol of Xxxxxxx et al. [1] guarantees security against adaptive corruptions; however, it requires a trusted PKI as-
Open Questions. • It is not possible in NLM DTD to store a structured and an unstructured version of a given citation side-by-side. We could decide that a single <ref> element only contains one reference, but can contain one or both of <element-citation> and <mixed-citation>. This would have the same benefits as having <string-name> together with <name> elements. However, this “best practice” would clearly break compatibility with recommended JATS practice where each <*-citation> element in a <ref> encodes a distinct reference. That would however fit better our understanding and reserve room for expected enhancer module’s functionalities, as one could imagine that a matching module could find the DOI, or Zentralblatt ID from the string citation, thus be able to add a structured version of the same citation together with more <ext-link> elements. • It is still not obvious to what extent our item-centric model will support all EuDML metadata needs. For instance, it is obvious that some knowledge about serials, authors and institutions would help in navigating the collection and mak- ing internal relations. Alternative spellings of authors, journal nick names, etc., would enhance retrieval. For these, we could either rely on external specialised databases providing identifiers and specific supplementary metadata, or we could try to reconstruct this knowledge from the harvested metadata and store it in the EuDML schema (this can be done using the available machinery for alternative titles, person names, etc.).
Open Questions. What does the patient understand about their treatment, and which medicines do they actually take? Tests / Monitoring: Is disease control and symptom relief adequate? Are further tests needed to assess disease control? Does monitoring therapy necessitate ordering tests? Check that drugs appropriate for Shared Care are monitored according to agreed protocols. Evidence: Are up-to-date guidelines being followed? There may be patients who were given a diagnosis some time ago and who are now on sub-optimal treatment as information on therapeutics is never static and new evidence may suggest other options now. Adverse Events: Have there been any? Ask about side effects – always consider any new signs and symptoms as a possible consequence of current drug treatment. Risk: Reduce or prevent risk, opportunistic screening for alcohol use, smoking, obesity or family history Simplification / Synchronisation: Can the patient cope with all those medicines? Do they are run out at the same time? How many were no longer indicated for the patient? How many medicines were stopped in total? How many was the patient not taking? How many blood tests requested because of the review? How many referrals made because of the review? How many shared care agreements are current? How many adverse events identified? How many cost efficiency switches were performed? How much savings were produced for one month? Medicines Reconciliation Table Name of medication Strength Form Stopped/Changed Dosing Schedule Morning Lunch Tea Night Appendix 3 – Pharmaceutical Care Plan template Dear GP/community pharmacy/care agency/social services/M&MM CPG Locality Secretary NOTIFICATION OF SERVICE USER/PATIENT HAVING SUPPORT WITH MEDICINES FROM CARERS WITHIN OWN HOME Name of Service User/Patient: Date of Birth: NHS Hospital Number: Address: An agreement has been made that the above service user/patient will receive the following support with medication from domiciliary carers: Tick Level of Support Description Level 1: medication assistance by carers Patient/client takes responsibility from their medication, but carer can assist with: - ordering and collecting medication - open containers on request of client but not select the medication - prompt or remind to take medication Level 2: medication administration by carers Carer takes responsibility for the administration of medication to the client. A record must be kept of all medication administered at each care call. Level 3: medication administration vi...
Open Questions. Were synergies among policies at different scales important in your assessment? .Did you identify conflicts or inconsistencies among scales? If yes can you list them in order of priority (from more to less crucial aspects)? .How did you combine the results at different scales? .What do you see as remaining issues?
Open Questions. What have you identified as main weakness in your current approach (e.g. lack of data for validation, parametrisation of certain processes, emission factors)? . Were you able to identify cost-‐effective measures to reduce air pollutants concentrations? If not, why?
Open Questions. Are you using the state-‐of-‐art tools, methods and knowledge to assess the impact of air pollution on human health? . What do you see as future research needs? . What are the largest uncertainties in HIA?
Open Questions. Explain to what extent it was possible to achieve the objectives of your source apportionment study and what were the limitations of the used methodology? . Are the source apportionment capacities in institutions of your country/region/city enough to achieve reliable source identification and support air quality management? . Is data collection in your country/region/city appropriate for source identification?
Open Questions. There are still some large open questions that have not been addressed by the work so far. How and when to capture data Having experienced manually creating provenance data there is certainly a need for tool supported data capture, but this does not address the issue of when does the engineer invoke the tool; How should the provenance tooling behave should the tooling attempt to gather all models the engineer has been working on since it was last invoked or does it simply provide an interface to allow selection, or perhaps something in between possibly using known patterns of files to guide the engineer; How and where should the provenance be stored The PROV fragments presented here are all encoded in the PROV-N text based notation, which could be used, or perhaps utilising either a relational or graph database such as Neo4J45 would provide a better solution if we can successfully work with them in a distributed environment What views would benefit the different stakeholders Most importantly, what views of the data are of value to support.
Open Questions. Explain the difference between open and closed questions. Use examples and enable the group to understand that open questions generate more information and understanding. Exercise: In pairs, one person shares a problem or a difficult decision they need to make. The other does not attempt to offer advice. But only asks open questions. Debrief in the full group what people experienced. Affirmations: Affirmations are positive responses to what you have heard. They enable the other person to become more aware of their strengths and positive qualities. They communicate respect. Exercise: In pairs one person tells a story of something difficult that they had to do. The other offers affirmations as the story progresses. Try to affirm the effort and capabilities that the other used. Be as specific as possible. Try to express what the story tells you about the other’s character i.e. what sort of person he or she is. Debrief in the full group what people experienced. Explain that these skills are based upon respect for others. They build relationships through empathy. They enable others to take responsibility for what they want to communicate. They are practical expressions of the key restorative values. Reflective listening This skill tells the other person that you are making a real effort to understand. From time to time you say what you are hearing and understanding the other person to be saying. You may do it in a tentative way so as not to impose your view on the other. E.g. “Can I just check if I am understanding you? You seem to be saying that you feel powerless to do anything about this problem.” Exercise: In pairs one person tell the other about a problem or a conflict they may be having. Every so often the other person will reflect back their understanding of what has been said. Try to make one reflection about what the person is feeling i.e. empathy. Try to make one about how the person sees the problem or situation. Check out whether your reflection was accurate. Debrief in the full group what people experienced. Summarising This is a skill which both shows that you understand what the person is saying and which may help the person progress in solving a problem or resolving a conflict. It should be a way of coming to conclusions at the end of a phase in a conversation and a way of moving on to the next phase. E.g. “So what your saying is that the problem is x and you are finding it very stressful to deal with. Now let’s see if we can come up with some i...
Open Questions. The Ethics and Society Opinion on Protection and Privacy makes several recommendations [6, p15]. The following open questions ask how best HBP researchers can be aided in meeting the spirit of the recommendations, in the light of their specific research tasks. Following this are recommendations for follow-up that should contribute to the meeting of the challenges contained in these questions. The table indicates the SP or SPs primarily connected with the potential issues, a label for the issue, and a comment. The comment reflects something of prior discussion on the topic area that has taken place. Table 3: Specific issues, SPs concerned, Comments and Recommendations SP Topic Comment Relevant recommendation 2, 5, 11 Data transfers Explore Memoranda of understanding for transfers among projects. Issues of international transfers of data will require SP11 actions, in coordination with ethics management. 2 2, 3, 5 Incidental findings, and informed consent Contribute to standard operating procedures in these areas. 4, 5 3, 5 Data registration and audit Follow developments in DGWG. 3, 4 5 Data flow diagrams These are a useful, if not essential , part of demonstrating reflection upon, and coherent system-design for, data protection as between e.g., Data Registration -> Repository -> Active data repository -> User Retrieval. 1c 2, 4, 5 Data provenance Contribute to DGWG, and to Platform user guides. Broad consent, and de/re-identification are relevant here. The status of published data. 2, 7, 8 8 Privacy Impact Assessment This is of special importance in the light of SP12 Opinion recommendations, and for the forthcoming GDPR. 1c 11 Potential for commercial use of research data This connects with the work of the DGWG, as well as the topic of broad consent, and the field of data provenance. 3, 6, 8
