This paper presents four Destination Stewardship scenarios based on different levels of engagement from the public and private sector. The scenarios serve to support destination stakeholders in assessing their current context and the pathway towards greater stewardship. A Destination Stewardship Governance Diagnostic framework is built on the scenarios to support its stakeholders in considering how to move along that pathway, identifying the key aspects of governance that are either facilitating or frustrating a destination stewardship approach, and the required actions and resources to achieve an improved scenario. Moreover, the scenarios and diagnostic framework support stakeholders to come together to debate and scrutinise how tourism is managed in a way that meets the needs of the destination, casting new light on the barriers and opportunities for greater destination stewardship.
DOCUMENT
In this chapter, we propose an ethical framework for serious game design, which we term the Ecosystem for Designing Games Ethically (EDGE).EDGE expands on Zagal’s categorization of ethical areas in game design by incorporating the different contexts of design and their use. In addition, we leverage these contexts to suggest four guidelines that support Ethical Stewardship in serious game design. We conclude by discussing a number of specific areas inwhich ethics plays a role in serious game design. These include games in (a) amilitary context, (b) the consideration of privacy issues, and (c) the evaluation ofgame design choices.
DOCUMENT
Aims: In-hospital prescribing errors may result in patient harm, such as prolonged hospitalisation and hospital (re)admission, and may be an emotional burden for the prescribers and healthcare professionals involved. Despite efforts, in-hospital prescribing errors and related harm still occur, necessitating an innovative approach. We therefore propose a novel approach, in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship (IPS). The aim of this study was to reach consensus on a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a basis for IPS. Methods: A three-round modified Delphi procedure was performed. Potential QIs were retrieved from two systematic searches of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In two written questionnaires and a focus meeting (held between the written questionnaire rounds), potential QIs were appraised by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel composed of members of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT). Results: The expert panel rated 59 QIs and four general statements, of which 35 QIs were accepted with consensus rates ranging between 79% and 97%. These QIs describe the activities of an IPS programme, the team delivering IPS, the patients eligible for the programme and the outcome measures that should be used to evaluate the care delivered. Conclusions: A framework of 35 QIs for an IPS programme was systematically developed. These QIs can guide hospitals in setting up a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship programme to reduce in-hospital prescribing errors and improve in-hospital medication safety.
DOCUMENT
