Search

The average daylight factor is one of the most widely used methods for predicting the internal illuminance due to daylight. It is a simple tool that can be used in the early stages of design and can give information about the luminous environment inside a room. This method is supposed to be used under overcast sky conditions. Expanding the use of the average daylight factor to other sky conditions will encourage the use of daylight in buildings. Several methods have been proposed for the prediction of daylight based on the CIE Standard General Sky. However, most of these methods aimed for a detailed estimation of the internal illuminance pattern. This paper aims to investigate the potential for using the average daylight factor method under the ISO/CIE Standard General Sky. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Optimum use of natural light in buildings requires knowledge of the luminance distribution of the sky. Since the introduction of the CIE Standard General Skies, several methods have been proposed to find the frequency distribution of sky types. This paper presents a method whereby the ratio of the luminances of two sky elements and the ratio of the luminance of one sky element to the horizontal illuminance can be used in the determination of sky type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The CIE Standard General Sky divides the luminance distributions of skies into 15 types, ranging from overcast sky to clear sky. Finding the type of sky from the set of CIE Standard General Skies is a difficult task. This is due to the need for accurate luminance measurements over a long period of time because such data are not available in many regions around the world and to the difficulty in obtaining accurate readings for the zenith luminance. This study presents a method whereby the ratio of the vertical sky illuminance (or irradiance) on two surfaces or the ratio of vertical sky illuminance to the horizontal sky illuminance can be used to classify a sky into one of the CIE Standard General Skies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We sought to assess health professionals' satisfaction with the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel staging system (NPUAP)., Methods: A paper survey assessing the satisfaction with the NPUAP was distributed to participants of a national wound care meeting. A total of 88 surveys were completed. Results were tabulated using SPSS., Results: The survey response rate was 50%. Nearly all respondents (95.0%) used NPAUP for documentation. 75.3% indicated that a better staging system was needed. When participants were asked to evaluate their current staging system, 63.5% stated that the system does not adequately reflect patient's clinical condition, 61.6% felt that the current staging system was not easily reproducible, 58.0% believed that the current staging system was generally easy-to-use, and 43.9% indicated that it is unable to suggest management recommendations. When asked about an ideal classification system, the respondents proposed incorporating tissue necrosis (97.6%), depth of tissue involvement (96.3%), discharge documentation (92.5%), presence of osteomyelitis (90%), local infection (88.8%), and systemic infection (80.0%). Overall, 67.0% of the participants wanted to use a classification system that would reflect the progress of injury healing and could be used to indicate the need for intervention., Discussion: Health care workers caring for pressure injury patients indicated dissatisfaction with the NPAUP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Kidney transplantation in allosensitized recipients has recently increased. Studies performing cost analysis of desensitization protocols are scarce., Material/methods: We performed an actual cost comparison between kidney transplantation following desensitization and maintenance hemodialysis. Group A (n=35) consisted of allosensitized recipients who underwent desensitization using immunoadsorption and/or plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin and anti-CD20 antibody who were followed for ≥ 2 years. Group B (n=49) consisted of matched patients who remained on hemodialysis throughout the study period. Actual costs of donor care, surgical procedures, out-patient visits, in-hospital admissions, medications, hemodialysis, immunoadsorption, plasmapheresis, and laboratory and radiology investigations were calculated. Health care services were provided by a single institution., Results: Mortality rate was similar between both groups. The average 4-year actual total cost was $210,779 in group A and $317,186.3 in group B; respectively (p=0.017). Average total cost per patient in group A was $186,608; $14,233; $5,536; $4,402 in the first, second, third and fourth years after transplantation respectively while the average total annual cost per patient in group B was $79,296. The total cost in both groups became equal by month 31. The predicted annual cost savings in group A after 31 months was $33,943., Conclusions: Despite using costly desensitization protocols, kidney transplantation in sensitized patients provides long-term cost savings compared to maintenance hemodialysis.