Search results

The purpose of this paper is to reduce inappropriate non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescribing in primary care patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Once diagnosed, CKD management involves delaying progression to end stage renal failure and preventing complications. It is well established that non-steroidal anti-inflammatories have a negative effect on kidney function and consequently, all nephrology consensus groups suggest avoiding this drug class in CKD.

The sampling criteria included all practice patients with a known CKD risk factor. This group was refined to include those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 ml/min per 1.73m2 (stage 3 CKD or greater). Phase one analysed how many prescriptions had occurred in this group over the preceding three months. The intervention involved creating an automated alert on at risk patient records if non-steroidal anti-inflammatories were prescribed and discussing the rationale with practice staff. The re-audit phase occurred three months’ post intervention.

The study revealed 728/7,500 (9.7 per cent) patients at risk from CKD and 158 (2.1 per cent) who were subsequently found to have an eGFR<60 ml/min, indicating=stage 3 CKD. In phase one, 10.2 per cent of at risk patients had received a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescription in the preceding three months. Additionally, 6.2 per cent had received non-steroidal anti-inflammatories on repeat prescription. Phase two post intervention revealed a significant 75 per cent reduction in the total non-steroidal anti-inflammatories prescribed and a 90 per cent reduction in repeat non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescriptions in those with CKD.

The study significantly reduced non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescription in those with CKD in primary care settings. It also created a CKD register within the practice and an enduring medication alert system for individuals that risk nephrotoxic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescription. It established a safe, reliable and efficient process for reducing morbidity and mortality, improving quality of life and limiting the CKD associated health burden.

According to Thucydides, writing in 416 BC, when the Melians suggested that the Athenians accept Melian neutrality in the war against Sparta, the Athenians replied, “No, for your enmity doth not so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument of our weakness and your hatred of our power amongst those we have ruled over” (Vasquez, 1996, p. 16). Realists consider the Melian Dialogue to be an immutable lesson that morality in itself is not sufficient against power (Vasquez, 1996, p. 1). Edward H. Carr (1939) articulates the main tenets of classical realism in The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939. According to Carr, “Internationally, it is no longer possible to deduce virtue from right reasoning, because it is no longer seriously possible to believe that every state, by pursuing the greatest good of the whole world, is pursuing the greatest good of its own citizens, and vice versa” (p. 12). Thus, the eternal dispute, as Albert Sorel put it, is “between those who imagine the world to suit their policy, and those who arrange their policy to suit the realities of the world,” and the realists resolved it by making policies that suit the world (as cited by Carr, 2001, p. 12).

Building on the research program of Dillard and Brown (2015) and Dillard and Vinnari (2019), specifically related to an “ethic of accountability,” this paper recognizes accountability systems as key to how organizations conceptualize their responsibility to society. The objective is to explore how managers of hybrid organizations conceptualize responsibility and the role of accountability systems in their conceptualization.

This paper studies hybrid organizations that are for-profit entities with explicitly recognized non-economic imperatives. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with managers of organizations that pursue certification as a B-Corporation, often in conjunction with a legal designation as a benefit corporation.

Managers of the hybrid organizations evidenced a broader responsibility logic that extends beyond responsibility to shareholders. This pluralistic orientation and broader set of objectives are expressed in a set of certification standards that represent an accountability system that both enables and constrains the way responsibility is understood. The accountability system reflects a “felt” accountability to the “other” manifested, for example, as generational accountability, with the other (re)created relative to the certification standards.

Certifications and standards represent accounting-based accountability systems that produce a type of accountability in which the certification becomes the overall objective nudging out efforts to take accountability-based accounting seriously (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). At the same time, the hybrids under study, while not perfect exemplars, incline toward an ethic of accountability (Dillard and Brown, 2014) that moves them closer to accountability-based accounting.

The findings reveal perspectives of managers embedded in hybrid organizations, illustrating their experiences of responsibility and accountability systems in practice (Grossi et al., 2019). The insights can be extended to other hybrid contexts where accountability systems may be used to demonstrate multiple performance objectives. We also recognize the irony in the need for an organization to be required to attain a special license to operate in a more responsible manner.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Prior to the development of low-cost computing and the ease of completing statistical analysis, case studies played a significant role in the development of the social sciences. However, since the mid-1990s statistical modelling and empirically driven work has come to dominate academic literature; yet there remain epistemological similarities between some forms of case study work and statistical modelling. Nonetheless, issues of the qualitative versus quantitative divide and the purported role of value judgments made by the researchers have in part muddied the waters until quite recently, when the researchers using statistical methods started to adopt the use of the first person in their writing and began to recognise that the choice of a given statistical technique is just as surely a value judgment or exercise of experience and expertise as is any interpretation of text by a qualitative researcher. Similarly, qualitative researchers have become increasingly familiar with textual analysis using software programmes based on neural network theory, and a new generation of researchers have become comfortable with a mixed method mode of analysis.

Interest in developing institutional explanations of political and economic behavior has blossomed among social scientists since the early 1980s. Three intellectual perspectives are now prevalent: rational choice theory, historical institutionalism and a new school of organizational analysis. This paper summarizes, compares and contrasts these views and suggests ways in which cross‐fertilization may be achieved. Particular attention is paid to how the insights of organizational analysis and historical institutionalism can be blended to provide fruitful avenues of research and theorizing, especially with regard to the production, adoption, and mobilization of ideas by decision makers.

This paper proposes a hegemonic power hypothesis to examine the determinants of CEO compensation by drawing on insights from the field of international relations. It then reports results of an empirical test of this hypothesis. The results indicate a limited support for the hegemonic power hypothesis, indicating the importance of a cross‐disciplinary perspective in studying the determinants of CEO compensation.

Existing attempts to assess national development and processes of democratization suffer from conceptual and measurement challenges. This paper proposes a comprehensive concept of democratic development and develops a more inclusive concept of democracy to provide a common set of categories to evaluate its depth and quality.

In order to measure the depth and health of democracy, democratic development incorporates four categories of human progress, each measured by multiple variables. The four categories deemed important for human progress are general development, democratic health, democratic inclusiveness, and human capital. Components of democratic development incorporate existing measures of political and economic development to create a comprehensive and accessible measure of democratic development.

The comparative tables based on multiple goals of development clearly reveal that neither the GDP index nor the HDI are adequate measures of development. Democratic development can be more fully captured by four perspectives: development, democratic inclusiveness, democratic health, and human capital, providing a framework to measure progress in reform, democracy, and development, from public agencies up to the national level. This concept incorporates aspects and orientations of the capabilities approach to create a concept that is amenable to use as a self‐assessment tool and as a basis for comparison of development, broadly conceived.

This inclusive concept is particularly well suited for analyzing citizen satisfaction and democratic stability.

Rather than focusing on singular measures, the approach presented here offers a balanced set of measures aimed at providing a comprehensive view of the gamut of democratic and economic development processes relative to existing models that is more appropriate for self‐assessment/planning purposes than traditional measures, which may be more appropriate for statistical modeling purposes.