Suchergebnisse

Intro; Author Profiles; Acknowledgments; Foreword to the Second Edition; List of Acronyms and Abbreviations; 1. Introduction; 2. What are Conventions?; 3. Origins of Caretaker Conventions; 4. When Do the Conventions Apply?; 5. Caretaker Conventions: An Overview of Australian Jurisdictions; 6. Caretaker Conventions: An Overview of New Zealand and Local Government Arrangements; 7. Forces Influencing the Observance of Caretaker Conventions; 8. Caretaker Conventions and the Future of Responsible Government; Glossary; References.

In this monograph, Anne Tiernan and Jennifer Menzies capably chart the often hazardous terrain of the 'caretaker period' that ensues from the time an election is called until a new government is formed. This is a landscape fraught with political and administrative dangers – particularly for public servants who are required to 'mind the shop' and keep the basic machinery of government going. The conventions represent an historical accretion of custom, practice and rules, often leavened with uncertainty. In tackling their subject, Tiernan and Menzies draw upon their shared past experiences as public servants and ministerial 'staffers' as well as the highest standards of academic scholarship – this is a 'must read' for politicians, public servants and students of government.

In this monograph, Anne Tiernan and Jennifer Menzies capably chart the often hazardous terrain of the 'caretaker period' that ensues from the time an election is called until a new government is formed. This is a landscape fraught with political and administrative dangers – particularly for public servants who are required to 'mind the shop' and keep the basic machinery of government going. The conventions represent an historical accretion of custom, practice and rules, often leavened with uncertainty. In tackling their subject, Tiernan and Menzies draw upon their shared past experiences as public servants and ministerial 'staffers' as well as the highest standards of academic scholarship – this is a 'must read' for politicians, public servants and students of government.

The CHIPS randomized controlled trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study) found no difference in the primary perinatal or secondary maternal outcomes between planned "less tight" (target diastolic 100 mm Hg) and "tight" (target diastolic 85 mm Hg) blood pressure management strategies among women with chronic or gestational hypertension. This study examined which of these management strategies is more or less costly from a third-party payer perspective. A total of 981 women with singleton pregnancies and nonsevere, nonproteinuric chronic or gestational hypertension were randomized at 14 to 33 weeks to less tight or tight control. Resources used were collected from 94 centers in 15 countries and costed as if the trial took place in each of 3 Canadian provinces as a cost-sensitivity analysis. Eleven hospital ward and 24 health service costs were obtained from a similar trial and provincial government health insurance schedules of medical benefits. The mean total cost per woman–infant dyad was higher in less tight versus tight control, but the difference in mean total cost (DM) was not statistically significant in any province: Ontario ($30191.62 versus $24469.06; DM $5723, 95% confidence interval, −$296 to $12272; P=0.0725); British Columbia ($30593.69 versus $24776.51; DM $5817; 95% confidence interval, −$385 to $12349; P=0.0725); or Alberta ($31510.72 versus $25510.49; DM $6000.23; 95% confidence interval, −$154 to $12781; P=0.0637). Tight control may benefit women without increasing risk to neonates (as shown in the main CHIPS trial), without additional (and possibly lower) cost to the healthcare system.

The CHIPS randomized controlled trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study) found no difference in the primary perinatal or secondary maternal outcomes between planned textquotedblleftless tighttextquotedblright (target diastolic 100 mm Hg) and textquotedbllefttighttextquotedblright (target diastolic 85 mm Hg) blood pressure management strategies among women with chronic or gestational hypertension. This study examined which of these management strategies is more or less costly from a third-party payer perspective. A total of 981 women with singleton pregnancies and nonsevere, nonproteinuric chronic or gestational hypertension were randomized at 14 to 33 weeks to less tight or tight control. Resources used were collected from 94 centers in 15 countries and costed as if the trial took place in each of 3 Canadian provinces as a cost-sensitivity analysis. Eleven hospital ward and 24 health service costs were obtained from a similar trial and provincial government health insurance schedules of medical benefits. The mean total cost per womantextendashinfant dyad was higher in less tight versus tight control, but the difference in mean total cost (DM) was not statistically significant in any province: Ontario ($30 191.62 versus $24 469.06; DM $5723, 95% confidence interval, -$296 to $12 272; P=0.0725); British Columbia ($30 593.69 versus $24 776.51; DM $5817; 95% confidence interval, -$385 to $12 349; P=0.0725); or Alberta ($31 510.72 versus $25 510.49; DM $6000.23; 95% confidence interval, -$154 to $12 781; P=0.0637). Tight control may benefit women without increasing risk to neonates (as shown in the main CHIPS trial), without additional (and possibly lower) cost to the healthcare system.Clinical Trial RegistrationtextemdashURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01192412.Novelty and Significance