zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
Consultant Approval authority) Patient Consent Obtained (date of letter – copy to be retained on patient file) Proposed Start Date for Therapy (add clinic date)*: Consultant details* (including signature or email confirmation) Name: Hospital: Address: Post Code: Telephone: Nhs.net Trust Pharmacist - details of the Trust where the patient will be treated* Name: Hospital: Address: Post Code: Telephone: Nhs.net Mandatory - NHS No*: Mandatory – Patients date of birth* Optional – Hospital No. NHS No: DOB: Hospital No: Clinical Commissioning Group* CCG Name: Patient’s GP* (name, address, telephone) Name: Address: Post Code: ICD-10 Code* C43 – Malignant melanoma of skin HRG Code Completion of items marked with * is mandatory. Failure to complete these items may mean that payment is not made.
Concerns: Test pulses date: / / Skin type area Settings used E.g.: 2 E.g.: Brazilian and legs No. Date: Area: Treatment: Settings: Comments: Operator sign: Client sign: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Pricing Approach Standard Price (£’s) Pricing model is outcome based so we only charge for responses to the FFT queries and not for messages sent out. Individual practices will be able to decide on a price cap per month upon signing up to the FFT campaign. Once this cap has been reached auto polled messages will stop going out. This can be increased or decreased at any point. Available price points (monthly caps): £50 £100 £150 £200 £250 Unit Price (£’s); Outcome: charged per submitted user survey so variable based on selected monthly cap and actual surveys collected. Available price points (monthly caps): £50 (up to 50 surveys) £100 (up to 100 surveys) £150 (up to 150 surveys) £200 (up to 200 surveys) £250 (up to 250 surveys) Where alternative prices are available for variant levels of service, these must be elaborated below. These variant services must be consistent with those identified within Annex A of Schedule 4.1 (Supplier Solution). Description of Variant Service (as elaborated in Annex A of Schedule 4.1 (Supplier Solution) of Variant Service NONE N/A Integrations with Principal Clinical System Providers Where there is a current or proposed integration with a Principal Clinical System Provider, details should be provided of any price differences that apply for: N/A Invoicing Terms Invoice frequency (e.g. monthly, quarterly, annually) Outcome: Monthly Invoice delivery period (e.g. 5 working days after end on month; 15th of month following service period etc.) Next business day Other invoicing terms: NONE Payment Terms Due date for payment (e.g. 30 days after receipt of invoice) Direct debit mandate, days after Details of any early payment discounts
Resource Based Pricing Where charges contain an element of charging for staff time (e.g. training, consultancy services or bespoke activity) then such charges should be referenced to the SFIA day rates contained within the supplier details section of the catalogue together with any non-staff components contained within the charge (e.g. training materials, room hire etc.) NONE Other pricing information Deployment arrangements: costs, duration and activities associated with the deployment of this product or service Launch project managed by iPLATO, requires input and assistance of client to configure survey. Duration of launch project typically 1 week. Exit arrangements: costs, duration and activities associated with the termination of the supply of this product or service Provided as SaaS. Service discontinued with 1 month notice from the customer. No exit charges applicable. Other Our pricing model is optimised for direct funding by individual GP surgeries. In the event that central organisations (CCG’s, CSU’s Federations etc) accept commissioning responsibility for these services in certain areas then we would certainly vary these principles to accommodate bulk billing and multiple GP users.
Integrated Lay Partners’ Group Minutes 17.30 – 20.00, 10 July 2018 MBR, Room 5.3 Attendees (lay partners) Attendees (speakers) Apologies Trish Longdon (TL), Chair Ray (RJC) Jane Wilmot Barbara Benedek (BB) Donjeta Zogi (DZ) Julian Maw Carmel Cahill (CaC) JJ (JJ) John McNeill John Norton (JN) Peter Cleary Christine Vigars (CV) Michael Morton Olivia Freeman (OF) Carmel Cahill Varsha Dodhia (VD) Gabriela Francis (GF) Ivan Moore (IM) Lynn Hill (LH) Sonia Richardson (SR) Olivia Freeman (OF) ILPG business: Feedback session RJC: explained the reasons ILPG feedback exercise will be table at the time small number of were in attendance. The discussed feedback session about their involvement. BB: discussed feedback from GP commissioning group with what appeared to be watered down proposals. Consultations and decision-making proposals are being taken out of the hands of local people. LH: provided 4 updates: Launched of the People’s Hillingdon HW programme on 10th August. Hillingdon were awarded 6K to help fund the young people’s mental health programme. The decommissioning back pain and acupuncture is generating increasing concern – It appears that CCG is not cooperating. The Prescribing Wisely EIA suggested make changes particularly for patients with vitamin D deficiencies but they are being told this is no longer being prescribed.
TL: public transport If the user comes with advocate we must cover both expenses - needs clarification CArmel: fair amount should be paid - if someone chooses something that is CV: not the mini wage London living wage TL: greater clarity on the 3 pyramids TL: headings difficult to Understand we describe in terms of principles JN: I was unclear who we referring to - very unclear on who this refers to Sonia: not unclear TL: it assumes u know what an expert advisor is JM: what are we talking about CCG may reject due to cost TL: phrased implementation GAb: I want to agree on the important of meaning of words - payment more volunteers may provide more time - add value - independent gets blurred TL: some people, wouldn't be able to attend because they couldn't afford to take part. TL: maybe called rewards JN: some people may only attend because they are paid JW: all professionals are paid it is not like attending a public meeting coproduction at the highest level means payment TL: how long do we do this for and something about accountability Update on the involvement Lay paper Description of the role when they meet and how Clarify the two headings like minded - VD to make sure Action froM RJC Action: Andrew to bring back an update Provider Board trusts in London get together GAb: 5 May digital citizen appealed to participation - it is a cutting piece of work Governance table cross cutting Action: all to send to RJC - STPS guide one pager Understand easy language detail against content 1) over view of STP the 4 projects 2) why is it better for the system 3) get the information over the next 2 4) short message - simply explain comment on its content 5) would this mean anything to people on the street 6) a number of individuals GAb, John, VD Carmel Two Task and Finsh groups 1) Diversity TL, SO 2) Feedback OF! CV! VD SO: National audit office review on STP - feedback to SO Imperial college: interested to work with the academics TL: apologies
Activity Playground, Playground Equipment, School Grounds Playground, Playground Equipment, School Grounds Ball Fields Ball Fields School Buildings Vegetation on Vegetation near School Buildings Pests inside Dumpster, Parking Lot and Side Walk Pests Addressed Stinging insects Animals and other pet issues Animals and Stinging Insects Noxious Weeds Weeds Turf Management Nuisance Plants Landscaping Plants Insects and animals (rodents, skunks, birds) Dead Animals and Rabid Animals Responsible Agency - primary Pest Sight Reporting Pest Sight Verification Pest Treatment Pest Monitoring layout or photo Posting Notification for Pesticide Application Emergency Waiver Outdoor IPM Plan- compile
Workshop Agenda 9:00: Tea and coffee (30 mins) 9.30: Workshop Overview & Icebreaker session (20mins) 9.50: SNH Update (10mins) National marine monitoring programme for Scotland, wider seas measures and indicators 10.00: Your community & IPM (1hr 15mins) Each rep has up to 3-5 minutes to present who their group is, what their role is within the group, what the groups interest is regarding IPM.
Climate change indicator species and invasive species Abundance & distribution of species Herring lobster Habitats Quality & abundance of qualifying features for the protected area (MSAC) (rocky reefs, sea caves, seals) Ecosystem interactions Priority marine features Maerl beds Seagrass Flameshell Burrowed Mud Theme: Threats Acidification – level and impacts Climate change – effects and impacts Prawn trawling impacts Dredging transects Theme: Socio-economic Ecosystem services Economic benefits Habitat and fisheries interactions Theme: Management/MPAs of fisheries in the MPA Fisheries pressure around Maerl beds Need a “baseline” to monitoring programmes Map baseline – monitor changes over time Management effectiveness (for MPAs or other regulated areas) Theme: Other Methodology to create standardised monitoring techniques for comparable data sets What the community needs to know and the extent of the interest Project design is vital in creating citizen science projects (citizen driven) Q2: Why do you want to know? Evidence
Herd No: _______________ Pesticide Application Record Year:________ Sprayer Cert Nos (for all sprayers > 5 years old used on the farm): ________________________________________ Date applied Product Name and PCS No. Crop / Situation (e.g. Spring Barley, Winter wheat, Grassland etc.) Location / LPIS No. Area / Tonnage Treated (ha / t) rate (L or kg / ha) Water Volume (L/ha) Method of (Boom sprayer, Knapsack / Wiper, etc.) Buffer Zone (metres) Nozzle type (0nly if using STRIPE) Rationale / Reason for Use Applied by / PU No. Doxstar Pro Grassland E12345678 4 ha 2.0 l/ha 350 Boom Sprayer 5m Dock control 05459
[Add your comments here] Page 30. 5.2 IPMS 2 – Industrial (Internal) [Add your comments here] Page 30. Diagram 8 - IPMS 2 – Industrial – Cross Section [Add your comments here] Page 31. Diagram 9 - IPMS 2 – Industrial – Ground Floor (Level 0) [Add your comments here] Page 32. Diagram 10 - IPMS 2 – Industrial – Upper Floor (Level 1) [Add your comments here] 5.3 IPMS 3 – Industrial (Occupier) Page 33. 5.3.1 - IPMS 3A – Industrial [Add your comments here] Page 34. Diagram 11 - IPMS 3A – Industrial – Ground Floor (Level 0) [Add your comments here] Page 35. Diagram 12 - IPMS 3A – Industrial – Upper Floor (Level 1) [Add your comments here] Page 36. 5.3.2 - IPMS 3B – Industrial [Add your comments here] Page 37. Diagram 13 - IPMS 3B – Industrial – Ground Floor (Level 0)
a packet logging technique which means that it involves storing packet digests at some crucial routers. The main issue is that the storage of saved packet data requires a lot of memory. SPIE is of high storage efficiency and thus reduces the memory requirement (0.5% of the link capacity per unit time in storage). In fact, instead of storing the packets, it uses auditing techniques. It computes and stores 32-bit packet digest. Moreover, an efficient data structure to store packet digest is mandatory. SPIE uses Bloom filter structure. Another important issue of packet logs is the risk of eavesdropping. Storing only packet digests and not the entire packet prevents SPIE from being misused by attackers. Therefore, the network is protected from eavesdropping which is one of the criteria of an effective IP traceback system. are two options to determine the route of a packet flow. The first one is to audit the flow while it passes through the network and the second is to attempt to infer the route based on its impact on the state of the network. The difficulty of using them increases as the size of the packet flow decreases. Especially, the second one becomes impossible because small flows have no detectable impacts on the network. Thus, an audit option is used in SPIE. SPIE is also called hash-based IP traceback because a hash of the invariant fields in the IP header is stored in each router as a 32-bit digest. It remains stored only for a limited duration of time because of space constraint. Packet digests are created by Data Generation Agent (DGA) at each router. Before a traceback begins, an attack packet must be detected. To determine it, an intrusion detection system (IDS) is used. IDS provides a packet, the last hop router, the time of attack, to the SPIE Traceback Manager (STM) which will verify its authenticity and integrity. Upon successful verification, STM will send the signature information to the SPIE Collection and Reducing Agent (SCAR) responsible for the victim’s network area. If any match is found, the SCAR returns a partial attack graph of the involving routers. Then STM will then send new queries to another SCAR region. This process continues until the attack path is constructed. Finally, the STM sends the result back to the IDS.
Scope, Purpose, & Application Scope xxx Purpose xxx Application xxx Normative References The following standards contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute provisions of this Standard. At the time of publication, the editions indicated were valid. All standards are subject to revision, and parties to agreements based on this Standard are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of the standards indicated below. ATIS-0x0000x, Technical Report. ATIS-0x0000x.201x, American National Standard. Definitions, Acronyms, & Abbreviations For a list of common communications terms and definitions, please visit the ATIS Telecom Glossary, which is located at < >. Definitions AAA: xxxx. Bbbb: xxxx. Acronyms & Abbreviations ATIS Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions
Exceptions RESTful WebServices exceptions RESTful services generate and send exceptions to clients in response to invocation errors. Exceptions send HTTP status codes (specified later in this document for each operation). HTTP status codes may be followed by an optional JSON exception structure ). Two types of exceptions may be defined: service exceptions and policy exceptions. Service exceptions When a service is not able to process a request, and retrying the request with the same information will also result in a failure, and the issue is not related to a service policy issue, then the service will issue a fault using the service exception fault message. Examples of service exceptions include invalid input, lack of availability of a required resource or a processing error. A service exception uses the letters 'SVC' at the beginning of the message identifier. ‘SVC’ service exceptions used by SHAKEN API are defined below: Exception ID Exception text HTTP Status Code Exception Variables Error Description SVC4000 Missing request body. 400 - MISSING_BODY The API failed due to missing body. SVC4001 Error: Missing mandatory parameter ‘%1’. 400 %1 – parameter name MISSING_INFORMATION The API failed due to missing mandatory parameter SVC4002 Error: Requested response body type ‘%1’ is not supported. 406 %1 – not supported response body type NOT_ACCEPTABLE_RESPONSE_BODY_TYPE A request was made of a resource for a message body format SVC4003 Error: Requested resource was not found. 404 - RESOURCE_NOT_FOUND The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI SVC4004 Error: Unsupported request body type, expected ‘%1’. 415 %1 – content type (’application/json’) UNSUPPORTED_REQUEST_BODY_TYPE Received unsupported message body type SVC4005 Invalid ‘%1’ parameter value: %2. 400 %1 – parameter name %2– short error description INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE Parameter’s value is invalid
E11 “typ” from PASSporT header is not “passport” 200 437 credential E12 “alg” from PASSporT header is not “ES256” 200 437 credential E13 “ppt” from PASSporT header is not “shaken” 200 438 Invalid Identity Header E14 200 438 Invalid Identity Header E15 “iat” from in PASSporT payload is not “fresh” 200 403 Stale Date E16 200 438 Invalid Identity Header E17 Failed to authenticate CA 400 437 credential E18 Signature validation failed 200 438 Invalid Identity Header E19 Missing SHAKEN extension “attest” claim in the decrypted PASSporT 200 438 Invalid Identity Header E20 Missing SHAKEN extension “origid” in the decrypted PASSporT 200 438 Invalid Identity Header E21 200 438 Invalid Identity Header E22 “iat” claim from decrypted payload doesn’t match the “iat” from PASSporT payload. 200 438 Invalid Identity Header E23 Successful verification 200 - - Response Sample (Success + Successful Validation) HTTP/1.1 200 Ok X-RequestID: AA97B177-9383-4934-8543-0F91A7A02836 Content-Type : application/json Content-Length : … { "verificationResponse": { Failed Failed
Table of Figures Table of Tables No table of figures entries found. In your document, select the words to include in the table of contents, and then on the Home tab, under Styles, click a heading style. Repeat for each heading that you want to include, and then insert the table of contents in your document. To manually create a table of contents, on the Document Elements tab, under Table of Contents,
End user Customer TN assigned to TN assigned by Identity established by Authentication type Authorization established by Attestation result Mobile subscriber Same as end user Subscriber Originating SP Customer name/address/credit checks Device Direct assignment A Enterprise PBX Same as end user Enterprise customer SP Customer name/address/credit checks Customer key, IP network ACL Letter of Authorization A Individual or enterprise VASP VASP Originating SP Customer name/address/credit checks, end-user traced through customer Customer ID/IP network ACL Direct assignment, of use (customer responsible for end use) A Non-domestic entity Gateway provider End user provider/not determined Not determined (gateway provider not the originating SP) Network interconnection Not determined C Individual or enterprise Reseller End user Other SP Customer name/address/credit checks, end-user traced through customer Network interconnection Terms of use A or B based on terms enforcement …
Overview The baseline SHAKEN framework and the core STIR protocols from which SHAKEN is based support the call authentication for the common 2-way call scenario where user-a calls user-b. For this case, the originating network generates a PASSporT containing "orig", "dest" and "iat" claims to assert that the calling telephone number (TN) is authorized to be used as the originating identity for that specific call. The terminating network can then verify that the PASSporT signature is valid, and that the "dest" claim matches the target called TN, to determine with a high degree of certainty that the calling TN identifies the calling user. However, for call scenarios where a call is retargeted, the verification process becomes less certain due to the fact that the PASSporT "dest" claim may no longer match the target called TN. Based only on the SHAKEN Identity header from the first leg of the call, the verification service is unable to validate the associated changed telephone destinations. This document presents the solution for extending the SHAKEN framework to support these call retargeting scenarios. draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert defines a PASSporT extension, "div", as a basis for accommodating the retargeting that may occur for various SIP applications. The “div” PASSporT provides an indication that the original called number in the “shaken” PASSporT no longer reflects the destination to which a call is likely to be delivered. When an INVITE is retargeted, the "div" PASSporT extension enables an STI-AS to authenticate the TN of the retargeting entity. Therefore, when a retargeted INVITE request arrives at its final destination, a verification service (STI-VS) can use the received "div" PASSporT authentication information to verify the identity of each entity that retargeted the INVITE.
Children develop awareness of needs and the ability to communicate their needs (HPD-6) What teaching standard is the teacher demonstrating? Standard III: Teachers Know the Content They Teach Practice 8: When I observe a teacher problem solving in interactions with children and model problem-solving steps... What teaching standard is the teacher demonstrating? Standard IV: Teachers Facilitate Learning for Students Practice 9: When I observe a teacher supporting resilience by reinforcing it is okay to make a mistake and providing specific feedback to children regarding willingness to persist when something is difficult? What early learning and development standards is the teacher addressing? Children are willing to try new and challenging experiences (APL-5) Children use a variety of strategies to solve problems (APL-6 ) Children demonstrate a positive of self-identity(ESD-1) What teaching standards is the teacher demonstrating? Standard II: Teachers Establish a Respectful Environment for a Diverse Population of Students Standard IV: Teachers Facilitate Learning for Students Practice 10: When I observe a teacher supporting children’s development by providing specific feedback on progress/growth that they have made? What early learning and development standard is the teacher addressing? Children express positive feelings about themselves and confidence in what they can do (ESD-2) Children demonstrate the ability to about their own thinking: reasoning, taking perspectives, and making decisions (CD-3) What teaching standards is the teacher demonstrating? Standard II: Teachers Establish a Respectful Environment for a Diverse Population of Students Standard IV: Teachers Facilitate Learning for Students Developing Friendships Practice 1: When I observe a teacher consistently comment positively and descriptively on children who are working together, helping each other or engaging in friendship behaviors… What early learning and development standards is he/she addressing? ESD-2: Children express positive feelings about themselves and confidence in what they can do. ESD-4: Children form relationships and interact positively with other children. ESD-7: Children recognize and respond to the and feelings of others. What teaching standards is he/she demonstrating? Standard I: Teachers demonstrate leadership
interact positively with others (e.g. staff, family, residents)? Q7b: Can s/he enjoy activities appropriate for his/her level of interests and abilities? 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Q8: Has his/her family had as much information as wanted? 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Over the Past Week: Problems addressed/ no problems Problems mostly addressed Problems partly addressed Problems hardly addressed Problems not addressed Cannot Assess Intervention offered or provided? Q9: Have all practical problems been addressed? (e.g. hearing aids, foot care, glasses, diet) 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Health Care Proxy Living Will Organ Donation of Oral Advance Directive None Cannot Assess Intervention offered or provided? Q10: check all advance directives known to have been completed: 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 What was the person’s last weight? weight lbs. What was the date s/he was last weighed?
normally enjoy? Over the Past Week: Always Most of the time Sometimes Not at all Cannot Assess Intervention offered or provided? Q6: Do you think s/he felt at peace? 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Q7: Has s/he been able to interact positively with others (e.g. staff, family, residents)? 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Q7b: Can s/he activities appropriate for his/her level of interests and abilities? 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Q8: Has his/her family had as much information as wanted? 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Over the Past Week: Problems addressed/ no problems Problems mostly addressed Problems partly addressed Problems hardly addressed Problems not addressed Cannot Assess Intervention offered or provided? Q9: Have all practical problems been addressed? (e.g. hearing aids, foot care, glasses, diet) 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Health Care Proxy Living Will Organ Donation of Oral None Cannot Assess Intervention offered or provided?
Gray Areas for Staff Completion Only Patient Name: Patient ID #: Palliative Care Agency Name: Palliative Care Representative Name: Assessment Date: Setting (check): Patient’s Home Office Nursing Home Telephone Assessment Type (check): Initial Status Change Routine Primary Insurance Type (check): Commercial Medicaid Medicare Uninsured Secondary Insurance Type (check): Commercial Medicaid Medicare Uninsured Q1. What have been your main problems or concerns over the past week? 1 2 3 Q2. Below is a list of symptoms, which you may or may not have experienced. For each symptom, please check one box that best describes how it has affected you over the past week. STAFF COMPLETED Symptom Not at All Slightly Moderately Severely Intervention offered or provided? Pain 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Shortness of breath 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Weakness or lack of energy 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Nausea (feeling like you are to be sick/vomiting) 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Vomiting (being sick) 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Poor appetite 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Constipation 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Sore or dry mouth 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Drowsiness (sleepiness) 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Poor Mobility (trouble walking, cannot leave bed, falling) 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1
Q7: Have you been able to share how you are feeling with your family and friends as much as you wanted? 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Q8: Have you had as much information as you wanted? 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Over the Past Week: Problems addressed/ no problems Problems mostly addressed Problems partly addressed Problems hardly addressed Problems not addressed Intervention offered or provided? Q9: Have any practical problems resulting from your illness been addressed? (such as financial or personal) 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Health Care Proxy Living Will Organ Donation of Oral Advance Directive None Intervention offered or provided? Q10: check all advance directives known to have been completed: 0 1 2 3 4 No 0 Yes 1 Q11: How did you complete this questionnaire? On My Own With Help from a friend or relative With help from a member of staff If you are worried about any of the issues raised on this questionnaire then please speak to your doctor or nurse
IPPE Rotation Dates 2019-2020 Spring Semester Classes End: 5/1/19 Reading Day – No classes or finals: 5/2/19 Spring Semester Finals: 5/3/19-5/9/19 Summer Block 1: 5/13/19 – 5/31/19 RHPP-IPPE Block 1: 5/13/19-6/7/19 Summer Block 2: 6/3/19 – 6/21/19 RHPP-IPPE Block 2: 6/10/19 – 7/5/19 Summer 3: 6/24/19 – 7/12/19 RHPP-IPPE Block 3: 7/8/19 – 8/2/19 Summer Block 4: 7/15/19 – 8/2/19 Summer Block 5: 8/5/19 – 8/23/19 Fall Semester Classes Begin: 8/26/19 Fall Block: 8/26/19 – 12/11/19 Fall Semester Classes End: 12/11/19 Reading Day – No classes or finals: 12/12/19 Fall Semester Finals: 12/13/19-12/19/19 Winter Block: 12/23/19 – 1/14/20 Spring Semester Classes Begin: 1/15/20 Spring Block: 1/15/20 – 5/6/20 Spring Break – March 9th-13th Spring Semester Classes End: 5/6/20 Reading Day – No classes or finals: 5/7/20 Spring Semester Finals: 5/8/20 - 5/14/20
Who decides whether a student is guilty of plagiarism? Who decides on the penalty applied to students for plagiarism? Who decides whether a student is guilty of inappropriate collusion? Who decides on the penalty applied to students for inappropriate collusion? W ho decides whether a student is guilty of exam cheating? Who decides on the penalty applied to students for exam cheating? 16. What do students find difficult academic writing? Finding good quality sources Referencing and citation Paraphrasing Understanding different referencing formats and styles 16.a. If you selected Other, please specify: 17. What leads students to decide to plagiarise? (Tick only the 10 most common reasons according to your opinion) They think the lecturer will not care They think they will not get caught
23. Your age group: 20 or under 21-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 over 50 24. Previous HE institutions attended: 25. Your Nationality 26. Place of Permanent Residence 27. Today's date Dates need to be in the format 'DD/MM/YYYY', for example 27/03/1980.
(please choose one of the grading letters on the right) C - GOOD – generally sound work with a number of notable errors D - SATISFACTORY – fair but with significant shortcomings E - SUFFICIENT – performance meets the minimum criteria F - FAIL – some work required before the credit can be awarded XF - FAIL – considerable further work is required Further advice or information – this information is not compulsory but it would help us improve the traineeships in the future: What led you to student training placements? This training was relevant to your organization? Yes No Would you take on this trainee, if you were in a position to recruit a new graduate? Yes No Did you find the trainee had any language problem? Yes No Are there any subject areas or skills that need improvement? Date: Signature of the coordinator at the host organization ……………………………………………… Stamp: NB: This document is not valid without the coordinator’s signature and the official stamp of the organisation.
Minimum Requirements - The IPP as a minimum must address the following topics: Project Description BNTIP Key elements of an IPP 1) Outline of the project and its estimated value The Contractor must provide a project specific outline of the project and its estimated value. BNTIP Key elements of an IPP 1) Outline of the Northern Territory Industry Component The Contractor must provide a short, project specific outline of the goods, services and labour components which of the works which will be sourced from Norther Territory suppliers, subcontractors and personnel. How Services, Suppliers and Labour Will Be Utilised BNTIP Key elements of an IPP 2) What goods or services will be required? The Contractor must provide details of all services, labour and other subcontracts that are required to deliver the works. The Contractor may also elect to provide details of the estimated value of goods and services procured by subcontractors. It is recommended the following table is included in the IPP. Where subcontractors are not yet confirmed, these should be indicated as To Be Advised (TBA) or similar. Conditions of Contract NPWC NT Edition, Clause 6(e) Suppliers and subcontractors nominated in the Response Schedule to be confirmed in the IPP It is recommended that the Contractor reflects all subcontractors and suppliers nominated in the Response Schedule in the IPP. It is recommended that any departures from or changes to tender commitments are clearly identified. It is recommended that the table above is included in the IPP. Note: the Conditions of Contract Clause 6(e) confirms that the contract is comprised of the Contractor’s tender, which includes the Response Schedule. Any departure or change from tender commitments may only be approved at the discretion of the Superintendent.
Cnt Double Declining [C – r] [(1.0 – 0.2)(t/12.0)] + r Sum of the Years’ Digits [(C – r) (1 – t) (2U – t + 1)] [(U + 1.0) (U + r)] Double-Declining (200%) Method (C – r) * [1.0 – 1.5(12.0)](t/12.0) + r U 150% Declining Method (C – r) [1.0 – 1.5(12.0)](t – 1) + r U MACRS—Combined 150% If U [1.0 – 1.5 (12.0)](t – 1) [1.5] [12.0] > 1, U U (C – r) [1.0 – 1.5 (12.0)](t/12.0) + r, C – (C – r) U Ut MACRS—Combined 200% If U[1.0 – 2.0 (12.0)](t – 1) [2.0] [12.0] > 1, U U [C – r] [1.0 – 2.0 (12.0)](t/12.0) + r, C – (C – R) U Ut
Note: Report Permissions Inventory Pro Online also allows you to control the reports that users belonging to a group will have access to. The Report Permissions page is essentially identical to the Group Permissions page. Access it through Main Menu/System/Report Permissions.
The target has been allocated across portfolios, based on past contracting share. Individual portfolio performance against the target will be published each year. How will the mandatory set-aside work? While Indigenous businesses can bid for any contracts, from 1 July 2015 there are requirements for Departments to look first to Indigenous businesses for all contracts in remote areas regardless of value; and all other domestic contracts valued between $80,000 and $200,000. For these contracts, agencies will first have to check whether an Indigenous SME can deliver the goods or services on a value for money basis before approaching the market. To satisfy the mandatory set-aside, the Commonwealth buyer will need to: Check whether there is an Indigenous business that has the necessary capability, and if so, investigate whether the Indigenous SME offers value for money. If it does, the contract must be offered to the Indigenous SME. If there is no suitable Indigenous SME, then the Commonwealth buyer can select another contractor through its normal purchasing process. What contracts do the mandatory minimum requirements apply to? Mandatory minimum requirements will apply to all contracts delivered in Australia that are valued at $7.5 million or more, where the majority of the goods or services are in one of the following specified industries: Building, construction and maintenance services Transportation, storage and mail services Education and training services Industrial cleaning services Farming and fishing and forestry and wildlife contracting services Editorial and design and graphic and fine art services Travel and food and lodging and entertainment services Politics and civic affairs services What are the mandatory minimum requirements? The minimum requirements are: Contract-based requirement: achieve at least 4 per cent Indigenous employment and/or supplier use on average over the term of the contract; OR Organisation-based requirement: achieve 3 per cent Indigenous employment and/or supplier use across the organisation on average over the term of the contract. In addition, where part of the contract is to be delivered in a remote area, the government agency and the contractor will agree to significant Indigenous employment or supplier use requirements in that area. The minimum Indigenous participation requirements must be included in approaches to market released after 1 July 2015.
Template Project Name: Project Proponent: Reporting Period: Contact person: Goods and Services Contracts Contract number or reference Contract description Contractor Anticipated contract duration Location of contractor Total contract value Committed costs for this reporting period Breakdown of source for total contract value (estimated %) Overseas content description WA Other Australia Overseas Total $0 $0 Comments: (Any considerations that should be understood when reviewing this report OR feedback on local industry capability or limitations) Local Benefits (if applicable)
Component: 1E – Designing Coherent Instruction Source(s) of Evidence: Lesson Plan Ineffective Cycle 1 I I+ Cycle 2 I I+ 3 I I+ Developing Cycle 1 D- D D+ Cycle 2 D- D D+ Cycle 3 D- D D+ Accomplished Cycle 1 A- A A+ Cycle 2 A- A A+ 3 A- A A+ Exemplary Cycle 1 E- E 2 E- E Cycle 3 E- E Cycle 1 Evidence Cycle 2 Evidence Cycle 3 Evidence Component: 1F – Designing Student Assessments Source(s) of Evidence: Lesson Plan Ineffective Cycle 1 I I+ 2 I I+ Cycle 3 I I+ Developing 1 D- D D+ Cycle 2 D- D D+ Cycle 3 D- D D+ Accomplished Cycle 1 A- A A+ Cycle 2 A- A A+ Cycle 3 A- A A+ Exemplary 1 E- E Cycle 2 E- E Cycle 3 E- E Cycle 1 Evidence Cycle 2 Evidence Cycle 3 Evidence DOMAIN 2: THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT Component: 2A – Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Source(s) of Evidence: Observations of Teaching
Cycle 3 Evidence Component: 4B – Maintaining Accurate Records Source(s) of Evidence: Records and Communication Ineffective Cycle 1 I I+ Cycle 2 I I+ Cycle 3 I I+ Developing Cycle 1 D- D D+ Cycle 2 D- D D+ Cycle 3 D- D D+ Accomplished Cycle 1 A- A A+ Cycle 2 A- A A+ Cycle 3 A- A A+ Exemplary Cycle 1 E- E Cycle 2 E- E Cycle 3 E- E Cycle 1 Evidence Cycle 2 Evidence Cycle 3 Evidence DOMAIN 4: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Component: 4C – Communicating with Families Source(s) of Evidence: Records and Communication Ineffective Cycle 1 I I+ Cycle 2 I I+ Cycle 3 I I+ Developing 1 D- D D+ Cycle 2 D- D D+ 3 D- D D+ Accomplished Cycle 1 A- A A+ 2 A- A A+ 3 A- A A+ Exemplary Cycle 1 E- E Cycle 2 E- E Cycle 3 E- E Cycle 1 Evidence 2 Evidence
Cycle 3 Evidence Component: 4D – Participating in a Professional Community Source(s) of Evidence: Professional Involvement Log Ineffective Cycle 1 I I+ 2 I I+ 3 I I+ Developing Cycle 1 D- D D+ Cycle 2 D- D D+ Cycle 3 D- D D+ Accomplished Cycle 1 A- A A+ Cycle 2 A- A A+ Cycle 3 A- A A+ Exemplary Cycle 1 E- E Cycle 2 E- E Cycle 3 E- E 1 Evidence Cycle 2 Evidence 3 Evidence DOMAIN 4: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Component: 4E – Growing and Developing Professionally Source(s) of Evidence: Professional Growth Post-Observation Reflections Ineffective Cycle 1 I I+ Cycle 2 I I+ Cycle 3 I I+ Developing Cycle 1 D- D D+ Cycle 2 D- D D+ Cycle 3 D- D D+ Accomplished Cycle 1 A- A A+ Cycle 2 A- A A+ 3 A- A A+ Exemplary Cycle 1 E- E Cycle 2 E- E Cycle 3 E- E 1 Evidence Cycle 2 Evidence
CYCLE ________ OBSERVATION EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RATINGS FOR DOMAINS 2 AND 3 RELATED COMPONENTS OBSERVER’S SIGNATURE __________________________________________________ DATE____________________ INTERN’S SIGNATURE _____________________________________________________ DATE____________________
Finance and Access Dashboard FINANCE AND ACCESS Target Responsible Director Where will performance and assurance be sought RAG status Delivery of the 1% Surplus Simon Truelove Finance committee and group performance review Underlying recurrent surplus Truelove Finance committee Running costs within allocation Simon Truelove Finance committee Operating within cash limit Simon Truelove Finance committee Better payment performance by value Simon Truelove Finance committee Better payment performance by number Simon Truelove Finance committee Non Elective Activity on Plan Jo Cullen Finance committee and group performance review Non elective QIPP plan delivery Jo Cullen Finance committee and performance review Planned Activity on Target Mark Harris Finance committee and group performance review Outpatient targets are being delivered Mark Harris Finance committee and group performance review Planned care QIPP plan delivery Mark Harris Finance committee and group performance review Other activity targets are being delivered Multiple Finance committee and group performance review A&E 4 Hour wait (SFT) Jo Cullen Finance committee, performance review and system resilience group A&E 4 Hour wait (GWH) Jo Cullen Finance committee, performance review and system resilience group A&E 4 Hour wait (RUH) Jo Cullen Finance committee, group performance review and system resilience group Cancer waiting times Mark Harris Finance committee, performance review and system resilience group Finance Summary
STATEMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR: AS ON : NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE (in full) : PRESENT PAY : GRADE PAY: EMPLOYEE CODE : PRESENT POST HELD : DEPARTMENT/CELL : Name of and Village in which property is situated Details of Buildings and Lands Present Value If not in own name state in whose name and his/her relationship to the Govt.Servant How acquired? Whether by purchase*lease ,mortgage, inheritance, gift or otherwise, with date of acquisition and name with details of persons from whom acquired Annual Income from the property Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Signature with Date…………………………………………… * Inapplicable clause be struck out. * In case where it is not possible to assess the value accurately the approximate value in relation to present condition may be indicated. * *Lease includes short-term lease also. * The wording No Change or No addition or As previous year may be avoided and all details filled up. * The declaration form is required to be filled in and submitted by every employee under Rule 15(3) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955(now Rule 18(1) of the CCS (Conduct )Rules,1964), on the first appointment to the service and thereafter at the interval of every year , , giving particulars of immovable property owned, ,acquired or inherited by him/her on lease or mortgage, either in his/her own name of any members of his her family or in the name of any other person.
Section 2: Finance and Information FINANCE AND ACCESS DASHBOARD Target Responsible Director Where will performance and assurance be sought RAG status Delivery of in-year surplus £57k Perkins Finance committee and group performance review Underlying recurrent surplus Steve Perkins Finance committee Running costs within allocation Steve Perkins Finance committee Operating within cash limit Steve Perkins Finance committee Better payment performance by value Steve Perkins Finance committee Better payment performance by number Steve Perkins Finance committee Non Elective Activity on Plan Jo Cullen Finance committee and performance review Non elective QIPP plan delivery Jo Cullen Finance committee and performance review Planned Activity on Target Lucy Baker Finance committee and group performance review Outpatient targets are being delivered Lucy Baker Finance committee and group performance review Planned care QIPP plan delivery Lucy Baker Finance committee and group performance review Other activity targets are being delivered Multiple Finance committee and group performance review A&E 4 Hour wait (SFT) Jo Cullen Finance committee, performance review and Local Delivery Board A&E 4 Hour wait (GWH) Jo Cullen Finance committee, group performance review and Local Delivery Board A&E 4 Hour wait (RUH) Jo Cullen Finance committee, group performance review and Local Delivery Board Cancer waiting times Lucy Baker Finance committee, group performance review and RTT Assurance Group
Section 2: Finance and Information FINANCE AND ACCESS DASHBOARD Target Responsible Director will performance and assurance be sought RAG status Delivery of in-year surplus £57k Steve Perkins Finance committee and group performance review Underlying recurrent surplus Steve Perkins Finance committee Running costs within allocation Steve Perkins Finance committee Operating within cash Steve Perkins Finance committee Better payment performance by value Steve Perkins Finance committee Better payment performance by number Steve Perkins Finance committee Non Elective Activity on Plan Jo Cullen Finance committee and group performance review Non elective QIPP plan delivery Jo Cullen Finance committee and group performance review Planned Activity on Target Lucy Baker Finance committee and group performance review Outpatient targets are being delivered Lucy Baker Finance committee and group performance review Planned care QIPP plan delivery Lucy Baker Finance committee and group performance review activity targets are being delivered Multiple Finance committee and group performance review A&E 4 Hour wait (SFT) Jo Cullen Finance committee, performance review and Local Delivery Board A&E 4 Hour wait (GWH) Jo Cullen Finance committee, group performance review and Local Delivery Board A&E 4 Hour wait (RUH) Jo Cullen Finance committee, group performance review and Local Delivery Board Cancer waiting Lucy Baker Finance committee, performance review and RTT Assurance Group
costings relating to properties post-transfer, which will impact the CCG, for example in relation to void costs (for which it is responsible). The financial risks at M6 are summarised in the table below: Area Potential risk / £'000s Likelihood % Residual risk / £'000s Comment Risk issues Acute SLAs 1,000 80% 800 Overperformance relating to independent sector and main NHS contracts Daisy unfunded patients 400 50% 200 New patients not already funded Property transfers 1,000 50% 500 Cost pressures arising from transfer of properties from GWH to NHSPS Prescribing pricing 1,000 50% 500 No Cheaper Obtainable (NCSO) risk QIPP 400 75% 300 CHC and Quality Premium QIPP risk CHC 700 50% 350 CHC challenge re Dorset CCG patient 4,500 2,650 Mitigations Contingency held -2,650 -2,650 Net risk position after mitigations 0 Key access issues
Report 2 on sabbatical leave: outputs and outcomes To be submitted 12 months after the end of the period of leave Section 1 – sabbatical report 1. Surname 2. First name 3. Department 4. Dates of sabbatical leave 5. Six month leave? YES / NO (delete as appropriate) 6. Twelve month leave? YES / NO (delete as appropriate) 7. Publications attributable to the sabbatical –see guidance notes on next page on what to include PLEASE NOTE: Indicate the status of each publication by noting whether it has been: Published Accepted Submitted In preparation 7.a Journal articles (please include name of article, all authors, journal, page numbers, publisher, volume, publication date and DOI) 7.b Chapters in books (name of chapter, name of book, author(s), page numbers, publisher, publication date and DOI) 7.c Monographs (author(s), publication date, publisher, DOI) 7.d Edited books / journals (please include name, editor(s), authors, journal, page numbers, publisher, volume, publication date and DOI, as appropriate) 7.e Conference papers (include name and date of conference and the organising body) 7.f Policy Briefs (if applicable)
Revisit the Technical Assistance Facility design framework and accompanying plans with the objective of strengthening the Technical Assistance Facility project management. The IPR identified a number of issues on the current TAF framework and operations arrangement which contributed to the less than satisfactory efficiency and M&E. Revisiting the design framework and accompanying M&E plan and management arrangement aims to address the issues and improve the efficiency of the TAF. The Evaluator’s engagement included the provision of assistance and inputs to TAU on improving the TAF design framework based on the findings of the IPR. DSWD Technical Assistance Unit to work with the Evaluator and DFAT Team to participate in key discussions on the design framework, M&E and program management. the possibility of extending technical assistance to determine the organizational preparedness of the DSWD Resource Generation and Mobilisation Office (RGMO) and based on the assessment results, formulate the RGMO results-based framework and operational plan. Agree that the RGMO should have a results-based framework and operational plan. However, future plans and activities for the RGMO should be initiated by DSWD since the RGMO is an organic unit of the Department. DFAT to continue to monitor updates on the progress of the RGMO. DSWD TAU to provide updates to DFAT on progress of the RGMO. Formulate a training intervention plan for OBSU staff Agree that DSWD OBSU staff should have a learning and development plan. However, this should be initiated by the respective OBSUs and DSWD, and not through the Technical Assistance Facility. DFAT to monitor progress of DSWD in this area. DSWD TAU to provide updates to DFAT. Revisit the current arrangement and determine the most practical and feasible option about governance arrangement of DFAT’s commitment funds of $5million for technical assistance on social protection. Agree. Efficiency of the TAF must be improved and revisiting fund disbursement arrangement is necessary. However, this need not be done through a separate study as the IPR recommends. To improve efficiency on budget utilisation, Manila Post will utilise a download of funds based on a jointly agreed work plan. DFAT Education Team 2
(AS - Approved As Submitted) (AA - Approved Pending Minor Revisions) (AH -Action Held, Serious Concerns) (Obtain Expert Consultant Opinion) (Not Approved) I believe this study qualifies under Expedited category number: Definitions: AS – Approved As Submitted – No changes required to protocol or informed consent documents AA – Approved Pending Revisions – Specific revisions to protocol or informed consent documents are being provided to the PI for simple concurrence AH – Action Held, Serious Concerns – Substantive revisions or clarifications are needed to the protocol or informed consent documents that are directly relevant to the IPRB’s determination that: Risks to subjects are minimized Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits Selection of subjects is equitable Informed consent is sought in accordance with, and to the extent required by law Informed consent is documented, in accordance with, and to the extent required by law When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring data When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect subject privacy Additional safeguards are in to protect vulnerable populations or those subject to coercion Obtain Expert Consultant Opinion – The protocol is referred to an expert for an additional review Not Approved – Study is not approved