No abstract

The 3D image correlation technique is used for full field measurement of strain (and strain rate) in compression and tensile split Hopkinson bar experiments using commercial image correlation software and two digital high-speed cameras that provide a synchronized stereo view of the specimen. Using an array of 128×80 (compression tests) and 258×48 (tensile tests) pixels, the cameras record about 110,000 frames per second. A random dot pattern is applied to the surface of the specimens. The image correlation algorithm uses the dot pattern to define a field of overlapping virtual gage boxes, and the 3-D coordinates of the center of each gage box are determined at each frame. The coordinates are then used for calculating the strains throughout the surface of the specimen. The strains determined with the image correlation method are compared with those determined from analyzing the elastic waves in the bars, and with strains measured with strain gages placed on the specimens. The system is used to study the response of OFE C10100 copper. In compression tests, the image correlation shows a nearly uniform deformation which agrees with the average strain that is determined from the waves in the bars and the strains measured with strain gages that are placed directly on the specimen. In tensile tests, the specimen geometry and properties affect the outcome from the experiment. The full field strain measurement provides means for examining the validity and accuracy of the tests. In tests where the deforming section of the specimen is well defined and the deformation is uniform, the strains measured with the image correlation technique agree with the average strain that is determined from the split Hopkinson bar wave records. If significant deformation is taking place outside the gage section, and when necking develops, the strains determined from the waves are not valid, but the image correlation method provides the accurate full field strain history.

Waiting time was found to be highly predictive of patient satisfaction in an emergency fast-track unit with English language and NPs also associated with improved overall care rating. Future measures to improve patient satisfaction in fast-track units should focus on these factors.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo compare the timelines and recommendations of the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), in particular since the single technology assessment (STA) process was introduced in 2005.DesignComparative study of drug appraisals published by NICE and SMC.SettingNICE and SMC.ParticipantsAll drugs appraised by SMC and NICE, from establishment of each organisation until August 2010, were included. Data were gathered from published reports on the NICE website, SMC annual reports and European Medicines Agency website.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was time from marketing authorisation until publication of first guidance. The final outcome for each drug was documented. Drug appraisals by NICE (before and after the introduction of the STA process) and SMC were compared.ResultsNICE and SMC appraised 140 drugs, 415 were appraised by SMC alone and 102 by NICE alone. NICE recommended, with or without restriction, 90% of drugs and SMC 80%. SMC published guidance more quickly than NICE (median 7.4 compared with 21.4 months). Overall, the STA process reduced the average time to publication compared with multiple technology assessments (median 16.1 compared with 22.8 months). However, for cancer medications, the STA process took longer than multiple technology assessment (25.2 compared with 20.0 months).ConclusionsProportions of drugs recommended for NHS use by SMC and NICE are similar. SMC publishes guidance more quickly than NICE. The STA process has improved the time to publication but not for cancer drugs. The lengthier time for NICE guidance is partly due to measures to provide transparency and the widespread consultation during the NICE process.