The current standard in accounting practice is the double-entry approach. Basis of the double-entry approach is that every financial event brings two equal and offsetting entries. Since these financial events are not automatically confirmed by both parties, the accounting quality can be improved. The blockchain mechanism possibly offers a different take on accounting. Based on an experimentation approach, data was collected to compare the double-entry method with the blockchain-based triple-entry method. The results show that the main difference concerns determining the completeness of the financial statement items. In the situation of double-entry accounting, segregation of duties is applied to do so. In the blockchain situation, the underlying mechanism of the blockchain already ensures this.
DOCUMENT
Background: Healthy urban environments require careful planning and a testing of environmental quality that goes beyond statutory requirements. Moreover, it requires the inclusion of resident views, perceptions and experiences that help deepen the understanding of local (public health) problems. To facilitate this, neighbourhoods should be mapped in a way that is relevant to them. One way to do this is participative neighbourhood auditing. This paper provides an insight into availability and characteristics of participatory neighbourhood audit instruments. Methods: A scoping review in scientific and grey literature, consisting of the following steps: literature search, identification and selection of relevant audit instruments, data extraction and data charting (including a work meeting to discuss outputs), reporting. Results: In total, 13 participatory instruments were identified. The role of residents in most instruments was as ‘data collectors’; only few instruments included residents in other audit activities like problem definition or analysis of data. The instruments identified focus mainly on physical, not social, neighbourhood characteristics. Paper forms containing closed-ended questions or scales were the most often applied registration method. Conclusions: The results show that neighbourhood auditing could be improved by including social aspects in the audit tools. They also show that the role of residents in neighbourhood auditing is limited; however, little is known about how their engagement takes place in practice. Developers of new instruments need to balance not only social and physical aspects, but also resident engagement and scientific robustness. Technologies like mobile applications pose new opportunities for participative approaches in neighbourhood auditing.
DOCUMENT
Objectives There is a broad call for change towards € new era' quality systems in healthcare, in which the focus lies on learning and improving. A promising way to establish this in general practice care is to combine audit and feedback with peer group discussion. However, it is not known what different stakeholders think of this type of quality improvement. The aim of this research was to explore the opinions of different stakeholders in general practice on peer discussion of audit and feedback and on its opportunities and risks. Second, their thoughts on transparency versus accountability, regarding this system, were studied. Design An exploratory qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm. Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions were held and coded using thematic analysis. Included stakeholders were general practitioners (GP), patients, professional organisations and insurance companies. Setting General practice in the Netherlands. Participants 22 participants were purposively sampled for eight interviews and two focus group discussions. Results Three main opportunities of peer discussion of audit and feedback were identified: deeper levels of reflection on data, adding context to numbers and more ownership; and three main risks: handling of unwilling colleagues, lacking a safe group and the necessity of patient involvement. An additional theme concerned disagreement on the amount of transparency to be offered: insurance companies and patients advocated for complete transparency on data and improvement of outcomes, while GPs and professional organisations urged to restrict transparency to giving insight into the process. Conclusions Peer discussion of audit and feedback could be part of a change movement, towards a quality system based on learning and trust, that is initiated by the profession. Creating a safe learning environment and involving patients is key herein. Caution is needed when complete transparency is asked, since it could jeopardise practitioners' reflection and learning in safety.
DOCUMENT
This project aims to develop a measurement tool to assess the inclusivity of experiences for people with varying challenges and capabilities on the auditory spectrum. In doing so, we performed an in-depth exploration of scientific literature and findings from previous projects by Joint Projects. Based on this, we developed an initial conceptual model that focuses on sensory perception, emotion, cognition, and e[ort in relation to hearing and fatigue. Within, this model a visitor attraction is seen as an “experienscape” with four key elements: content, medium, context, and individual. In co-creative interviews with experts by experience with varying challenges on the auditory spectrum, they provided valuable insights that led to a significant expansion of this initial model. This was a relevant step, as in the scientific and professional literature, little is known about the leisure experiences of people with troubled hearing. For example, personal factors such as a person’s attitude toward their own hearing loss and the social dynamics within their group turned out to greatly influence the experience. The revised model was then applied in a case study at Apenheul, focusing on studying differences in experience of their gorilla presentation amongst people with varying challenges on the auditory spectrum.Societal issueThe Netherlands is one of the countries in Europe with the highest density of visitor attractions. Despite this abundance, many visitor attractions are not fully accessible to everyone, particularly to visitors with disabilities who sometimes are not eligible to ride due to safety concerns, yet when eligible generally still encounter numerous barriers. Accessibility of visitor attractions can be approached in various ways. However, because the focus often lies on operational and technical aspects (e.g., reducing stimuli at certain times of the day by turning o[ music, o[ering alternative wheelchair entrances), strategic and community-focused approaches are often overlooked. More importantly, there is also a lack of attention to the experience of visitors with disabilities. This becomes apparent from several studies from Joint Projects, where visitor attractions are being visited together with experts by experience with various disabilities. Nevertheless, experience is often being regarded as the 'core product' of the leisure sector. The right to meet, discover, develop, relax and thus enjoy this core product is hindered for many people with disabilities due to a lack of knowledge, inaccessibility (physical, digital, social, communicative as well as financial) and discrimination in society. Additionally, recreation entrepreneurs still face a significant gap in reaching the potential market of guests with disabilities and their networks. Thus, despite the numerous initiatives in the leisure sector aimed at improving accessibility on technical and operational fronts, often people with disabilities are still not being able to experience the same kind of enjoyment as those without. These observations form the pressing impetus for initiating the current research project, tapping into the numerous opportunities for learning, development and growth on making leisure offer more inclusive.Benefit to societyIn total, the current project approach comes with a number of enrichments in terms of both knowledge and methodology: a mixed-methods approach that allows for comparing data from different sources to obtain a more complete picture of the experience; a methodological co-design process that honours the 'nothing about us without us' principle; and benchmarking for a group (i.e., people with challenges on the auditory spectrum) that despite the size of its population has thus far mostly been overlooked.
The issue addressed by the project is the necessity to implement European coordinated approaches for the management of Waste from Electrical, Electronic Equipment (WEEE).WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU established for 2016 a minimum collection rate of 45% of all WEEE placed on the market in the preceding 3 years (in 2018, the EU rate was 47%), but from 2019 the rate rose to 56% (or 85% of the WEEE generated on the country).European Court of Auditors 2021 review “EU actions and existing challenges on electronic waste” point out that the collection, recycling and reuse of 3-waste are not equally effective in all Member States.Unfortunately, each country in the EU has decided a way to implement the Directive, which means 27 different implementations. In 2019, only Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland achieved the 65% target, while other countries such as Italy, Romania or Germany were at the bottom of EU list with 40%.WEEEWaste aims to implement better national, regional and local policies for management of WEEE, covering the main recommendations of the “Circular Electronics Initiative” from the EU Circular Economy AP.The final objective of WEEEWaste is to promote reuse, collection, recycling and other forms of recovery of WEEE, supporting thus the achievement of the WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU.Partners from 9 regions (Czechia, Italy, Germany, Spain, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Netherlands) will exchange practices in a discovery journey to modify their policies, focusing on: To improve the interregional coordination of municipalities an regions in order to fight more effectively against illegal shipment between areas and WEE dumping.
